Body of Issue
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Immigration Detention in Australia: a New Beginning Is the First of Three Reports by This Committee on Immigration Detention Policy in Australia
The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Immigration detention in Australia: A new beginning Criteria for release from immigration detention First report of the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia Joint Standing Committee on Migration December 2008 Canberra © Commonwealth of Australia 2008 ISBN 978-0-642-79127-6 (Printed version) ISBN 978-0-642-79128-3 (HTML version) Cover design by Lisa McDonald, House of Representatives Printing and Publishing Office Contents Foreword............................................................................................................................................vii Membership of the Committee ..........................................................................................................xiii Terms of reference.............................................................................................................................xv List of abbreviations .........................................................................................................................xvii List of recommendations ...................................................................................................................xix THE REPORT 1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 Referral of the inquiry............................................................................................................... 1 The immigration detention context ........................................................................................ -
To What Extent Does the Securitisation of Asylum Seekers Contribute to Australia’S Failure to Meet Its Relevant International Human Rights Obligations?
To what extent does the securitisation of asylum seekers contribute to Australia’s failure to meet its relevant international human rights obligations? Introduction Throughout the twentieth century, Australia had a proud tradition of welcoming persons seeking asylum, and afforded protection to many people fleeing persecution in their home countries. Large waves of refugees were humanely settled following major conflicts such as World War II, the Vietnam War and in the former Yugoslavia. Over the last two decades, however, there has been a clear shift by successive governments in the approach taken to persons seeking asylum in Australia, most notably, toward those arriving to Australian shores by boat. This shift has been orchestrated through policy and political rhetoric designed to gain popular support by creating fear and insecurity, based on a manufactured existential threat. This process is known as securitisation - a relatively new security discourse – that is, the process of constructing a threat in order to justify extraordinary measures. This new discourse explains the shift in approach to asylum seeker issues and has ultimately resulted in Australia failing to meet its international human rights obligations. In this paper, an understanding of securitisation theory will first be established as well as the contesting security discourse of human security, which provides an alternative view to the prevailing approach. An analysis of the securitisation process in the Australian context will follow, specifically focussing on the period leading up to the 2001 federal election, as this snapshot provides a clear example of the securitisation process in practice. A particular focus on 1 policy and the use of language to legitimise the hardline approach is relevant here, as the securitisation process is largely based around the use of speech to construct norms, convince the audience (electorate), and justify certain actions. -
Australia's Maltreatment of Asylum Seekers
Australia’s Maltreatment Of Asylum Seekers And Refugees – Part I By George Venturini 10 October, 2012 Countercurrents.org “When [Prime Minister] Howard was leading our country, staffers in one minister’s office called themselves the KKK. Used in relation to asylum seekers, it meant ‘Keep them out, Kick them out, or Keep them in detention’. I have heard this more than once from reliable sources and I have no doubt that it is true.” Susan Metcalfe, author of The Pacific Solution (Melbourne 2010), an activist who has worked for many years as an asylum seeker and refugee advocate. Australia has ratified every possible, imaginable treaty and/or convention that any civilised country would want to be known to honour - and respected none of them in its maltreatment of asylum seekers and refugees. It is correct that Australia does not generally agree to be bound by a treaty unless it is satisfied that its domestic laws comply with the terms of the treaty. Nevertheless, Australia considered itself bound by some basic instruments such as Art. 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the second world war and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions 2 and laws. Art. 14 proclaims: “(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. -
A Price Too High: the Cost of Australia's Approach to Asylum Seekers
a price too high: the cost of Australia’s approach to asylum seekers Authors: Kazimierz Bem, Nina Field, Nic Maclellan, Sarah Meyer, Tony Morris The Australian Government’s policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru, Manus Island and Christmas Island - a research project funded by A Just Australia, Oxfam Australia and Oxfam Novib August 2007 37-47 St Johns Road 132 Leicester Street Glebe NSW 2037 Carlton VIC 3053 Telephone:+ 61 2 9571 7230 Telephone: + 61 3 9289 9444 [email protected] [email protected] a price too high: 2 Australia’s approach to asylum seekers Contents Page 3 Executive Summary Page 6 Recommendations Page 7 Acronyms Page 8 1. Introduction Page 10 2. Legal and political background Page 16 3. Human costs of the Pacific Solution Page 29 4. Financial costs of offshore processing Page 36 5. The cost to Australia’s legal and democratic system Page 41 6. Regional cost - the cost to Australia’s aid program Page 45 7. Breakdown of the international system of protection Page 50 8. Conclusion Page 51 APPENDIX 1: The “Tampa” Legislation and Beyond Page 55 APPENDIX 2: Detainees on Nauru and Manus Island 2001-2007 Page 56 APPENDIX 3: Resettlement outcomes of Pacific Solution Page 57 APPENDIX 4: Agreements with Nauru and Papua New Guinea Page 58 APPENDIX 5: Burmese Rohingya and Sri Lankans Page 61 APPENDIX 6: Other Transparency and Accountability Issues Page 64 APPENDIX 7: Other issues relating to Australia’s aid program to Nauru Page 67 APPENDIX 8: Research structure Page 68 APPENDIX 9: About the authors List -
Unaustralia Strangeness and Value1
unaustralia strangeness and value1 JOHN FROW I begin with a story. This one happened to a friend of friends. Similar things are happening to friends of your friends, right across Australia. A Sydney businessman—I’ll call him K., but don’t confuse him with the hero of a novel by Kafka or Coetzee, he’s a real person—is defrauded by his accountant. The Federal Police are called in, and they in turn—presumably because the possibility of money-laundering is involved—call in ASIO. K. is told that if he is to recover his money he will have to sign a confidentiality agreement—something like the British Official Secrets Act—which he does. At around this time he is approached by a man who says he too has been defrauded by the accountant. They talk about it, and K. arranges to meet him a second time. When he arrives the man is in police uniform and arrests him for having breached the confidential- ity agreement by speaking to him. K. is taken to court; after three days of hearings the charge against him is dismissed on the grounds that he was not informed of his rights at the time he signed the agreement. ASIO then applies for a control order against him—the same order that was served on Jack Thomas after his acquittal on terrorism charges, and which confines him to his home between midnight and 5 am, requires him to seek written approval to make phone calls, and confiscates his passport. The evidence in the ASIO dossier all goes to the point of K.’s being politically ‘connected’—that is, having made acquaintance in the course of his business with members of Amnesty, the ACTU, and the Labor Party. -
Narratives from Australia's Immigration Detention Centres, 1999
States of Exclusion: Narratives from Australia’s Immigration Detention Centres, 1999 - 2003 Julie Browning PhD 2006 Certificate of Authorship/Originality I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree nor has it been submitted as part of requirements for a degree except as fully acknowledged within the text. I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my research and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis. Signature Julie Browning. Acknowledgment There are many people I need to thank and acknowledge. The thesis would never have been written without the help of the following. First and foremost the asylum seekers and refugees who spoke with me and allowed me to include their letters. Although names cannot be used I thank you for your time and trust. I also wish you well for the future. Vicki McDuie, Duncan McDuie, Kate Durham, Elaine Smith and Geoff Smith were all extremely generous with their time, assistance and advice. Their contributions were invaluable in collecting the research material. I am indebted to Doreen Wainer and Celeste Pena for their friendship, critical comments and editing abilities. I thank my co-supervisors Christina Ho and Heather Goodall who offered precise and clear feedback. My supervisor Andrew Jakubowicz guided me though the whole process and enabled me to produce the best work possible. I thank you. Love and thanks to Stafford Sanders for tirelessly proofreading the thesis from its first incarnation to the final document and for giving unfailing support and encouragement. -
Refugee Limbo Ben Hightower University of Wollongong
University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2013 Refugee limbo Ben Hightower University of Wollongong Recommended Citation Hightower, Ben, Refugee limbo, thesis, School of Law, University of Wollongong, 2013. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3876 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Refugee Limbo A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Law Faculty/Legal Intersections University of Wollongong, Australia Candidate’s name: Ben Hightower Supervisor: Cassandra Sharp Submitted: 8th April 2013 I, Ben Hightower, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Department of Law, University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless referenced or acknowledged. The document has not been submitted for qualifications at any other academic institution. Ben Hightower 08 April 2013 Page | ii Table of Contents Title page ............................................................................................................. i Declaration........................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents………………………………………………………………. iii Acknowledgements.............................................................................................. iv Abstract...............................................................................................................