Asylum Seeker And Refugee Response

Upholding human rights is essential for ensuring a fair and equitable society. In 1966, Australia and a majority of the world’s nations signed on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). After the atrocities committed in World War II this seemed like a positive step for ensuring acknowledgement and respect for the rights and freedoms of all people. However, the means of enforcing human rights is not a straightforward process. In response to ratifying the ICCPR, Australia set up the Australian Human Rights Commission. However, after a number of failed attempts, it has not followed through with implementing a

In Australia, human rights are protected in various ways. Unlike similar democracies, for example New Zealand, Australia does not have a Bill that protects human rights in one single document. International laws also known as treaties or conventions, apply throughout the world. A treaty operates like a contract. So when a country becomes a party to a treaty, it is then legally required to act in accordance with the rules contained in that treaty.

In 2013, Australia signed a Regional Settlement Arrangement (RSA) with PNG and later a new Memorandum of Understanding with Nauru regarding refugees resettlement . Notwithstanding Australia’s attempt to evade from its international human rights obligations by sending asylum seekers and refugees outside its territory, as Australia is a party to a number of treaties, including the ICCPR, the ICESCR, the CRC, the CAT and the Refugee Convention , Australia’s international human rights obligations clearly apply when transferring asylum seekers to a third country.

In particular the potential that asylum seekers will be subjected to arbitrary detention. Also, under Australia’s international human rights obligations, anyone deprived of their liberty should be able to challenge their detention in a court. Currently, in breach of its international obligations, Australia does not provide access to such review. While people in immigration detention may be able to seek judicial review of their detention, Australian courts have no authority to order that a person be released from immigration detention on the grounds that the person’s detention is arbitrary. These two circumstances are explicit breaches of Australia’s international human rights obligations, which shows that even after the years of work to allow multi-cultural migration and acceptance of refugees, even today Australia is still unacceptably breaching the basic human rights of

Every year, thousands of people seek refuge in Australia after being forced to flee their homes. Under the UN 1951 Refugee convention, countries are obliged to protect refugees and basic human rights must be upheld. However, Australia is violating these laws. As of August 2013, a report by the Australian Human Rights

Australia has ratified some international human right treaties. These include the rights for women, children, and the disabled and other freedoms that should be granted under a democratic society . Furthermore, one of the ratified treaties contain freedom from torture as stated

Australia’s international obligations extend extra-territorially according to these agreements and Australia is legally responsible for any contravention of obligations, regardless of whether or not an Australian official was liable. However, the international obligations vary significantly between Australia, PNG and Nauru, creating much difficulty in terms of effectively implementing these obligations. For instance, Nauru is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, nor do they have the domestic legal structure to implement such obligations, due to the impoverished state of the country (Dr Hathaway, 2016). PNG faces similar challenges in regards to the socio-economic state of the country and struggles to implement such obligations, despite being a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Neither of these designated offshore processing states have the legal capacity to uphold international obligations, thus creating great potential for violations of these obligations (Archbold, 2015). This impacts the Australian government as it is difficult to regulate activity in the regional processing centres and if obligations were to be breached, the government would be responsible regardless of who contravened. The Hon Chris Bowen MP commented on this issue, claiming that

The importance of the subject lays on the fact that, today more than ever, the current humanitarian crisis caused by children and families fleeing the war zone in Syria worries the whole world. And lately, the Australia's policy towards asylum seekers arriving by boat has attracted the most attention. The former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said “Australia’s strong stance on asylum seekers, which includes a policy of turning back boats and offshore processing of refugee claimants, had stopped the people smuggling trade to Australia and opened up more places for those in genuine need” . Internationally, Australia has always been considered as a model in terms of immigration. Indeed, its broad immigration program, its discretionary offshore humanitarian resettlement program and the respect of its international legal obligations made mark in history. However, this ideology seems to belong to the past given the recent affairs. Asylum policies implemented by the Howard Government (1996-2007), and more recently the Coalition Government known as Operation Sovereign Borders, have tremendously reduced the flow of asylum seekers reaching Australia by boat. It is described as "inhumane, of dubious legality and

International law under the 1951 Refugee Convention, permits the right to seek asylum and allocates a responsibility to provide protection for those who lie under the definition of refugee. Since then policies have been modified and used to suit the interests of the government. In particular, the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Act 1999. Authorised the removal of undocumented ships in Australian territory and proclaimed that anyone aboard the ship can be forcibly returned and denied application of asylum. Other legislation, such as the Migration Legislation Amendment Act 1999 makes it illegal for a person to carry people who are not citizens without valid documentation. These policies allow the government to portray itself as strong on border protection and terrorism. This plays well to its core constituencies but is rightly lambasted by human rights organisations and civil liberty groups. Refugees are undocumented people fleeing from their country of origin, so there isn’t a variety of travel options to escape to safety. The policy disclaiming that ‘everyone who lands by boat doesn’t get to stay’ is ignorant to the concept of why people are forced to leave. It’s not a choice to be removed from your country, it's a matter of survival and safety. The core principle of the Refugee convention is that people are not forced to return to a country where they face the threat of persecution or danger.

Australia’s policies in regard to asylum seekers and refugee processing, are viewed as very controversial, and often inhumane by the international community (Lock, Quenault & Tomlinson 2002, p.37). To discuss this policy, I will apply an external analysis. In order to decide whether this policy is seen as good or bad, through a social, economic and human rights perspective.

Since 2000, both the refugee rights political movement in Australia as a whole as well as the Australian National Committee on Refugee Women (ANCORW) have primarily been focused on key issues such as the differential treatment of asylum seekers based on how they arrived in Australia or apply for protection, the Pacific and Malaysian solution, the detention of asylum seekers and combating the view that boat arrivals are not ‘genuine refugees’. Although there are many other concerns, the issues listed above are the major ones.

Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Australia must not to return people or send people to third countries where they would face a violation of their human rights; applying to both refugees and non-refugees (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014, para. 2). Again Australia has been found guilty of contradicting

“Terms and conditions apply” depicts the conditions you require to gain access to Australia as a refugee. This being an “authentic work or living visa” or the forced attending of an offshore detention centre for evaluation. This title was developed to be a shot at the government who are not upholding the lyrics to our respected anthem that many Australian’s base their life choices and values on.

One of the basic rights that is established is the right to international protection when people are fleeing from serious harm in their country. This right is provided through national asylum systems. It is made sure that no advantages are taken of these systems through common minimum standards and procedures for asylum throughout Europe. These determine the process one needs to go through in order to obtain asylum and the requirements that need to fulfilled in order to be granted asylum.

Refugees, asylum seekers and UASC are terms which are often used interchangeably but have different legal definitions (Ruxton, 1996). For the purpose of this assignment it is important to differentiate between these terms. A refugee is a person "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…" (Article 1 of the United Convention of Human Rights, 1951). An asylum seeker is “a person who has left their country of origin, has applied for recognition as a refugee in