Australia leads the world in outsourcing and offshoring its human rights obligations. It is the only nation to subcontract the management of its entire detention centre network to private for-profit corporations. It is also the only nation that mandatorily detains those who arrive without a visa, and sends those who come by boat to third countries for processing. Between 2001 and 2007, and again from 2012, the Australian government has attempted to avoid both moral and legal responsibility for asylum seekers by sending them to offshore detention centres in the Pacific.
Australia maintains that responsibility for the management of these centres, and for the numerous abuses that have taken place there, rests solely with the host countries of Papua New Guinea and Nauru. The secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Michael Pezzullo, asserted during the 2015 Senate inquiry into conditions at the detention centre on Nauru that:
‘The Australian government does not run the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, or RPC. It is managed by the government of Nauru, under Nauruan law, with support from the Australian government. The government of Nauru operates the RPC, assesses asylum claims and, where persons are found to be in need of protection, arranges settlement. The government of Nauru is specifically responsible for security and good order and the care and welfare of persons residing in the centre.’ (emphasis added)
This article was originally published on Right Now.
Wednesday’s High Court decision upholding the legality of detention in Nauru is tragic in its result. But the decision was far from a vindication for the Government. In important ways the judgment signals an increasing willingness by at least some members of the High Court to rein in the excesses of Australia’s detention policies.
The case was litigated by the Human Rights Law Centre on behalf of a Bangladeshi woman brought to Australia while she was pregnant, and centred on two main claims: that no Australian law authorised the government to fund offshore detention arrangements, and that the detention by the Commonwealth Government on Nauru was unconstitutional.
The Nauruan government announced earlier this week that it will remove the remaining restrictions on the liberty of the asylum seekers detained there, and process all pending claims for asylum. It initially said it would process the claims in a week, but has since backtracked from that commitment.
Many have claimed that the announcement is a strategic move to undermine a constitutional challenge to Australia’s offshore detention regime, heard by the High Court this week – although the Australian government has denied this. So does the policy change spell the end of the challenge?
This article was originally published on Right Now.
Australia’s asylum policies are not just inhumane, cruel and a violation of international law, they are also ridiculously expensive.
An analysis of last year’s budget found that in the 2014-15 financial year, the Australian Government spent $2.91 billion on detention and compliance-related programs for asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by boat. This includes $912 million spent on detaining people in unsanitary, cramped and deadly offshore detention centres.
The High Court of Australia is poised to hear arguments about whether it is legal for the Australian government to intercept, detain and remove asylum seekers on boats outside Australia’s territorial waters.
What are the legal questions before the High Court? What are the government’s international law obligations? What avenues are open to the High Court? What might this mean for the future of Australian asylum policy?
In this Q&A panel, four legal experts will consider these and other issues: Professor Jane McAdam (UNSW), expert on international refugee law Professor George Williams (UNSW), expert on constitutional law Associate Professor Tim Stephens (Sydney University), expert on the law of the sea Edward Santow (Public Interest Advocacy Centre), expert on administrative law and co-author of Island of Impunity? Investigation into international crimes in the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War
The panel will be chaired by Steven Glass, partner at Gilbert + Tobin. The Kaldor Centre is grateful to Gilbert + Tobin for kindly hosting the event.
A refugee journey is often filled with violence. By definition, someone found to be a refugee has had to flee persecution – often some of the most horrid forms of torture, war, rape and death threats. However, the experiences of violence don’t end once a person reaches our supposedly safe shores. In fact, violence in the immigration process can sometimes be worse than the situations they are fleeing.
In the paragraphs below are some real examples of the horrific violence that occurs in Australian-run detention centres. I do not detail these incidences for the sake of being provocative, but rather in an attempt to educate the broader community of the horrors we, the Australian people, are complicit in. Billions of our taxes have gone directly towards creating these centres that systematically create an atmosphere of violence.