The Australian Government 's Action Under The Asiatic Act

Australia’s response to the threat of communism after WW2 was extraordinary. Australia and its politicians immediately recognised what could happen of a result of the domino theory. With the Soviet Union influencing so many countries and causing China, Vietnam, and North Korea to turn Communist it was only matter of time until it reached Australia, and all in all this was when Australia took action.

In 1945, after World War II had finished, Australia finally felt at peace – that was until Communism began to have an effect on the entire world. Australia had a lot to fear, with the threat likely to infiltrate the country both domestically (an established Communist Party) and internationally (a geographical location close to countries that had already fallen victim to communism, such as China and Korea). Australia responded to both of these threats in a way that caused a lot of political controversy and has created bonds with other parts of the world that are still activated today.

The act was then nullified by the High Court in  the Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (the Communist Party Case)[14]. The Defence Power (section 51(vi)  of  the  Constitution) was the chief  foundation  of power in support of both the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) and section

In conclusion, policies were put into place both nationally and internationally in order to fight communism within Australia and without. Internationally, Australia sought to form closer ties with her strong allies and so formed treaties to bring them together. Doing this helped the Menzies government in their bid to contain communism and stop the Domino Theory. To contain communism the Menzies government needed to introduce Forward Defence and “defend” Australia from the potential threat of communism. Australia entered the Korean War, Vietnam War and Malayan Emergency to do this. Within Australia, the use of propaganda also helped fight the threat. By attempting to ban the Communist Party of Australia and claiming that a Soviet spy ring worked in Australia, the government spread the fear of communism; people thought that communism had to be dangerous if the government got involved with it. With the use of those policies and

Although detention was still discretionary and not mandatory, an enactment of the Migration Legalisation Amendment (1989) introduced changes to the system of processing boat arrivals. In his speech, Gerry Hand (1992), the then Minister of Immigration stated that the new policy change is only intended to be an “interim measure…for a specific class of persons”. However, it was subsequently extended to all ‘unlawful’ non-citizens with the enactment of the Migration Reform Act (1992). The Act established a new system of distinguishing a ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’ citizen. The changes effectively introduced a policy of ‘administrative detention’ for all people entering Australia without a valid visa, or any others present in the country unlawfully (i.e. without a valid visa), while their

I am writing on behalf of Rights International to provide country related information to support Miss Gula’s asylum application. The information presented here may be useful in making a decision on Miss Gula’s case as she is an Afghan woman who is fleeing the Taliban after giving birth to a child out of wedlock.

Taking into account that discriminating and prohibiting people from lodging an asylum claims based on nationality is a violation of international law as well as human

It has been proposed that Australians are responsible in making Australia an ‘Asia literate society’ by developing ‘understanding of Asian history, cultures, geography and economics’ (March, 1995). ACARA (n.d.) states that the objective of Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia is to develop students understanding on Asian society and culture by integrating Asian aspects with Australian curriculum.

Asylum on Humanitarian grounds: Asylum in a foreign embassy or legation is a subject which affords a good illustration of the change and development of the rules of international law. In modern times, it is asserted, the right to asylum, if it were generally recognized, would tend to constitute an abuse. It would interfere with good government. The practice of asylum is ‘even looked on with a tolerant eye’ and the personnel of a foreign legation are not very glad to use this right. To the diplomatic agent concerned the practice is nothing but a burden. But the practice is defended on humanitarian grounds. Motives of humanity exclude a rigid refusal to receive a man who may be in peril of his life, but the general rule now is to limit the reception of such political refugees to cases where the person received is in instant or imminent personal

A third concern entails the imposition of a time limit requiring “asylum seekers to file their claims within one year” of their arrival; notably, if it is not demonstrated “by clear and convincing evidence that” the claim was filed within the one-year deadline, the “claim for asylum will be rejected” (Asthana, 2011, p.37). Asthana (2011) refutes this practice, as “Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention prohibits the return of a refugee to a country where […] life would be threatened on account of […] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” (p.38). Consequently, concerns are raised, as a strict “enforcement of the one-year time limit implies that an asylum claimant who would be capable of establishing all the requisite elements necessary to achieve asylum may nevertheless be denied protection” if they fail to meet the deadline (Asthana, 2011, p.38). Thus, the “result is contrary to article 33(1) as it threatens the refoulement of a genuine refugee” (Asthana, 2011, p.39). Consequently, the UNHCR has argued that an asylum request should not be “excluded from consideration” simply due to the “failure to meet a filing deadline” (Settlage, 2012, p.159). Due to the “exceedingly complex” process, this practice is concerning as “[t]here are no exceptions for missing this deadline”; in fact, even “the failure to include information required on the application, or any errors or inconsistencies in the application, […] can be fatal to

Every year, Australia receives approximately 70 000 applications for humanitarian visas (1). Those who apply have often experienced persecution and discrimination in their home countries. The government’s policies to address these applications have remained controversial for decades due to claims that they violate Australia’s human rights’ obligations. These policies have undergone frequent revisions from year to year, each sparking fierce public debate.

Respondent, Zhuangming Shao (hereinafter Mr. Shao) respectfully requests that his application for Asylum pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 208 be granted as he meets all the requirements as stated in the statute and case law.

My name is Najeeba Wazefadost, and 12 years ago I risked my life on a dangerous journey. I escaped my country Afghanistan and came to Australia by boat. I know that there are no words to comfort those who have lost their loved ones in the recent boat tragedies. But also devastating is the fact that over the past decade, we have only heard politicians endlessly scare-mongering about the number of boat arrivals and how we can decrease these numbers, or deter asylum seekers altogether. Over time, the real human faces of the vulnerable have been turned into statistics about the number of boat arrivals. We have forgotten the devastating circumstances from which asylum seekers come. Afghanistan has been in a state of war for many decades, a war

Edward Said states, “No one today is purely one thing. Labels like Indian, or woman, or Muslim, or American are no more than starting points.” Said’s idea illustrates the evolution of relations between communities as a result of globalization, and the understanding and recognition of other cultures through the interpretation of cultural borders.

A third concern entails the establishment of a time limit, requiring “asylum seekers to file their claims within one year” of their arrival; notably, if it is not demonstrated “by clear and convincing evidence that” the claim was filed within the one-year deadline, the “claim for asylum will be rejected” (Asthana, 2011, p.37). Asthana (2011) refutes this practice, as “Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention prohibits the return of a refugee to a country where […] life would be threatened on account of […] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” (p.38). Consequently, concerns are raised, as a strict “enforcement of the one-year time limit implies that an asylum claimant who would be capable of establishing all the requisite elements necessary to achieve asylum may nevertheless be denied protection” if they fail to meet the deadline (Asthana, 2011, p.38). Thus, the “result is contrary to article 33(1) as it threatens the refoulement of a genuine refugee” (Asthana, 2011, p.39). Consequently, the UNHCR has argued that an asylum request should not be “excluded from consideration” simply due to the “failure to meet a filing deadline” (Settlage, 2012, p.159). Due to the “exceedingly complex” process, this practice raises concern as “[t]here are no exceptions for missing this deadline”; in fact, even “the failure to include information required on the application, or any errors or inconsistencies in the application, […] can be fatal