Introduction
To a sovereign nation, the current treatment of asylum seekers may seem lawful as they are exercising their rights. Internationally, however, the procedures and execution of how Australia handle their asylum seeker ‘problem’ conflicts greatly with International law and treaties, to which they were ratified. As a result, Australia is left in a political and lawful bind between the complexities and intricate nature of the United Nations and Australian Government laws and legislation. Whilst the United Nations claim Australia is violating a multitude of their International Conventions, such as the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention.
…show more content…
This is known as the principle of non-refoulement. Tony Abbott has however life to Operation Sovereign Borders which acts as a border protection service whilst at the same time the United Nations are investigating into claims that this Operation has infact turned boats back which would infact violate an array of International Law and breach agreed upon treaties. Australia has obligations to assist those in distress at sea, in accordance with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue. Australia would also be at risk of breaching International Refugee Law and Human Rights law if it turned back boats without assessing refugee claims made by the people on board. Specifically, it would be at risk of breaching its International obligation of non-refoulement, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Refugee Convention, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or …show more content…
Possible reforms and alternatives to how this current asylum seeker crisis is being handled, could be through Governmental avenues such as Pre-entry (Agreement with the Governing countries ), having departments in countries involved with people seeking asylum, having the processing happen in the asylum seeker's home country and have them assessed before then being transferred to Australia via a safe maritime or air path of passage.
As the conventions were written for the circumstances of WW2, The UN and the Australian Government could agree upon a regional solution much like the one made during the time of WW2 and the Vietnam War. This would result in settling people at a faster pace, helping the refugees by coordinating with them and other countries leaders and Governments to all join together to minimise the suffering and to ultimately speed up the process. Having this regulated, head on approach, could significantly increase the efficiency and processing that is currently taking place in Australia.
In regards to an alternative to offshore detention centres, there is simply no immediate alternative as all refugees must be health checked, security checked and to verify if they are a legitimate refugee- to assess their reasonings for travel and whether they fit within the confines of the 1951 UN refugee
Australian people should be opening arms to the Face of Mercy and to the Refugees that are
In doing so, we are also blocking out people who have the potential to bring even more cultural diversity into the community. If we honestly believe that we are a generous and multicultural nation, it’s time we show it by empathising with our fellow human beings. In order to improve the conditions in detention centres there must be a change to our unnecessarily harsh system. We need rules to be enforced, such as; a maximum 30 day time limit, and the people that are detained must be let out within this time frame. Within this time, health, character and identity checks must be completed. Shutting down isolating and remote detention centres. Speeding up the processing system. Asylum seekers must be given the opportunity to communicate with the outside world and have full access to legal advice and counselling. This means that telephones, internet and external activities need to be an option. Unaccompanied minors also need to be a priority. It is time that Australia treats our neighbours with all the dignity and respect that they finally
The United States fails to protect its borders, while Australia sacrifices human rights in order to do so. Traditionally, first-world countries and their citizens assist those in less developed countries. Many of the island nations in the south pacific suffer from poverty and frequent natural disasters. Most would agree that, as the most developed country in the region, it is Australia’s responsibility to advocate for human rights and contribute to humanitarian efforts for the island nations. To its credit, Australia normally satisfies this role. However, when asylum-seekers come by boat, Australia draws a forceful line. The United States is also tasked with protecting its borders, but takes a more appropriate approach. In 2012, the PEW research
The 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act abandoned the dispersal policy and voucher scheme and introduced warehousing accommodation in the form of a camp that’s like a prison to house asylum seekers with a separate education and healthcare provision, these finally excludes them from normal community life (Bochel et al, 2009:388). This was highly criticized by NGOs, refugee council, refugee organization and several charitable organizations for refugee and this sometimes led to riots in the detention centre. The 2004-2006 Act further tightens the asylum system and speeded detention and removal by the withdrawal of legal rights (Bochel et al, 2009:388). The home office insist the dispersal policy is going on well whereas on the ground opinion is mixed (Guardian, 27 June 2001) this came up due to the case of some 14 asylum seekers on hunger strike in protest against the poor living condition in the privately run Liverpool tower block. The refugee council has serious concern over the dispersal policy especially as unaccompanied minors are being dispersed alongside adults with no proper resources and support service put in place. Chief executive Nick Hardwick mentioned that for dispersal policy to work government department need to develop proper support services for asylum seekers in dispersing areas and that dumping asylum seekers on poor estate blocks where they cannot access basic services like healthcare and education is leaving them abandoned and vulnerable (Guardian, 27 June 2001). In some situation asylum seekers refused to be dispersed and decide to
The conditions of Australia’s immigration detention policies have also been cause for concern for probable contraventions of Articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR. Whilst in Sweden, asylum seekers are afforded free housing whilst their applications are being processed, Australia’s methods are much more callous. Under the Pacific Solution, maritime asylum seekers are sent to impoverished tropical islands with no monitoring by human rights organisations allowed (Hyndman and Mountz, 2008). The UNHCR criticised Australia’s offshore processing centres stating that “significant overcrowding, cramped living quarters, unhygienic conditions, little privacy and harsh tropical climate contribute to the poor conditions of… Nauru and Papua New Guinea” (Morales
Australia has constantly subsisted to be supposed by others as possessing a welcoming outlook to asylum seekers; despite this, the with the arrival of the first wave of boats carrying people seeking asylum in the 1990’s enforced the government to create essential alterations to its policies. The Labour Party has generally been perceived as liberal within its methodology to asylum seekers, contradicting this, with the cultivating distressing challenges being positioned on asylum seekers, their policies instigated to redirect the positions of the greater public and they developed far less accepting. The initial effect towards this issue was the modification in the current law to place asylum seekers in mandatory detentions. Subsequently after
So what does this mean about our Government? Are they scared of the intake of Refugees? If so, what are they scared of? This contradicts the whole purpose of the Government, aren’t Australians meant to put our trust in leaders to make great decisions, hence we have a Government in the first place? Doctrines such as the Just War Doctrine a Catholic based Law, states that the Government should hold the responsibility for the common good. Yet not every country experiences this, and many Refugees have to flee in order for their freedom and to escape from persecution of their own beliefs, religions and human
Asylum seekers, in particular “boat people” have proven to be a significant social issue, one that has prompted many intense debates in Australia over last twelve months. Australia has a long history of providing refuges a safe haven. However, in recent times, attitudes towards asylum seekers have become increasingly negative and at times hostile as asylum seekers are constantly portrayed as a threat to culture and society (Lynn & Lea 2003). This essay will provide a brief history of asylum seekers in Australia and examine the social structures that have contributed to the attitudes and treatment of asylum seekers in Australia today. The structures that will be explored are groups and the social institutions of mass media, government and law. A comparison of media reports, government rhetoric and facts around asylum seekers will be discussed and this paper will argue that the government, through media and policy (law) have heightened the threat of asylum seekers in Australia leading to negative attitudes and prejudice by the Australia public toward “boat people”. In addition, a range of sociological concepts and theories will be presented throughout the paper to support the argument.
This report focuses on Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, and whether mandatory detention leads to international law breaches. The AHRC argues that, although detention may be appropriate in some instances, the length of time and living conditions endured by asylum seekers currently in detention is cruel, inhuman and degrading. AHRC support this argument explaining offshore detentions are mandatory, provide no time limit for detainment and are refused the access to the legal system. This article is important to my role as a United Nations representative in my scenario (ten) as it illustrates the treatment endured by asylum seekers in detention centres and links this to international human rights violations. Additionally, this report provides recommendations on how to help manage this situation, which would be useful for my role to consider when investigating what previous changes have done to improve the
The current and previous Australian Governments have risked being responsible for crucial human rights violations when it comes to the ‘screening out’ process which can reject asylum seekers before their cases have even been correctly assessed. This process has returned asylum seekers back to Sri Lanka where they will face an uncertain fate due to violence and discrimination which also questions the legality of the whole process. Many asylum seekers who were ‘screened out’ had lost contact with their loved ones who had eventually relocated by the time they were able to communicate with them via telephone. One asylum seeker had told an inquiry that he had lost contact with his wife and children whilst in the Woomera detention centre as they did not allow the asylum seekers to contact their families. In 2005, during the Howard government, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) found that separately detaining asylum seekers violated international human rights
We will also study certain guidelines which will rationale the steps to assist given by us. We will also discuss how the multidisciplinary team can assist them and educate them about their needs. At the end, we will try to bring above ways by which important information is conveyed to the refugee family for their wellbeing and healthy stay in Australia.
The Australian government later on became in breach of international law as we were going against the UNDHR (that we are a signatory to) pertaining to the illegal detention of refugees. According to the UN high commissioner “The 1951 Convention specifically bars countries from punishing people who have arrived directly from a country of persecution (or from another country where protection could not be assured), provided that they present themselves speedily to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry. Monitoring (through reporting obligations or guarantor requirements) is often a perfectly viable alternative to imprisoning asylum-seekers”. Detention is only acceptable if it is brief, absolutely necessary, and instituted after other options have been implemented. With what the Australian government is currently doing with keeping refugees in detention we are as a result in breach of this. Last year (2016) between the months of July and November the average asylum seeker had been in detention for 500 days. Due to this we are in breech of the convention. Being in breach of this presents an enormous problem that faces Australian politics and may lead top prosecution at an international level. It was clear to see that both parties advocated for an offshore processing facility this is evident with the September 2001 introduction of the
Also it is crucial that the host country offer useful programs to help immigrants in Australia.
Australia's current refugee policy dictates that australia has accepted more than 700,000 refugees and people that are in need of a new beginning in a new country. The largest group that came to australia was in 1947 and 1954 when 170,000 refugees came from camps in Europe and majority from poland to the big smoke of Australia. Australia established its first Department of immigration in 1945 when arthur caldwell was minister.It was not until 1977 that a comprohensive policy on refugees was adopted by setting out the objectivies and mechanisms for a long program,The program was developed by Coalition government led by Malcolm Fraser and Michael Mackellar as Minister for Immigration.
In the lead up to a 2001 federal election, the Howard government released allegations that asylum seekers were ‘throwing’ children overboard as a stunt to be rescued and granted access to Australia. (Rawat, 2013)