DOCSLIB.ORG

Asrc Submission to the National Human Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Asrc Submission to the National Human Rights 12 Batman Street West Melbourne VIC 3003 T: 03 9326 6066 F: 03 9326 5199 ABN: 64 118 965 815 Incorporation #: A0042918H www.asrc.org.au ASYLUM SEEKER RESOURCE CENTRE SUBMISSION TO THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CONSULTATION MANDATORY DETENTION • Which human rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted? Human rights are universal. Regardless of a person’s country of origin and means of arrival to Australia, it is Australia’s responsibility, as a developed Western country, to protect their human rights while they are lawfully on Australian soil or in Australian waters. Australian immigration law requires the mandatory and non-reviewable detention of all persons (including asylum seekers) who arrive in Australia without a visa. Section 189 of the Migration Act states that persons may only be released from immigration detention if they are either granted a visa or removed from Australia. Australia’s policy of mandatory detention is in breach of section 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UNHCR Guidelines on the Detention of Asylum Seekers. In the 1997 case of Applicant A v Australia, the UN Human Rights Committee held that the mandatory and non-reviewable detention of the complainant was arbitrary as the Australian government had not advanced any grounds particular to the complainant’s case which would justify his continued detention. Eight years after the decision in Applicant A, Australia’s detention policies continue to breach international standards. While the Rudd Government has recently softened the policy of mandatory detention, partly as a result of the Palmer Report, these changes are not enshrined in law and are subject to the whim of those in power. An example of this is the Howard government’s commitment to not detain children and minors made while the constructionof the Christmas Island Detention Centre continued, with a ‘children wing’ comprising nursery, creche, playground and classrooms. While the Labor government has committed to not using these facilities for children and families, they are detained in the construction camp on Christmas Island. Are human rights sufficiently protected and promoted? 12 Batman Street West Melbourne VIC 3003 T: 03 9326 6066 F: 03 9326 5199 ABN: 64 118 965 815 Incorporation #: A0042918H www.asrc.org.au Under the current policy of mandatory and indefinite immigration detention, those who come to Australia to seek asylum from persecution see their right to freedom of movement violated. While the Department for Immigration and Citizenship has pledged to make the time spent in detention as short as possible, this is not enshrined in law and is subject to individual decisions made by DIAC officers and to the political inclination of the day. Under the Migration Act, a person can still be held in immigration detention indefinitely (as shown by the High Court decision in the case of stateless man Ahmed al-Kateb). The improvements to the system of mandatory detention made since the Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon affairs, the subsequent release of the Palmer report, and the Federal Government’s policy that detention should only be used as a last resort, could be reversed any day should the Federal Government wish to use asylum seekers as a scapegoat for electoral purposes. There is still no time limit on the period of detention. The recent changes put no time limit on how long a person can be detained. Potentially a person could be detained for months or longer, for example if there are difficulties in ascertaining identity. We need an end to mandatory detention. We see no justification for detaining people while health checks are done, we don't detain anyone else in our community on this basis. We believe we could accommodate asylum seekers in a community based reception centre model until health, character and security checks are done. They could then either be accommodated in the community or the hostel while their cases are being processed. • How could Australia better protect and promote human rights? Australia has human rights obligations under international human rights law and conventions to which it is signatory. Based on the Australian fundamental right to freedom of movement, Australian law should enshrine in the Migration Act that detention is only to be used in specific circumstances and must be reviewable by law. 12 Batman Street West Melbourne VIC 3003 T: 03 9326 6066 F: 03 9326 5199 ABN: 64 118 965 815 Incorporation #: A0042918H www.asrc.org.au ASYLUM SEEKER RESOURCE CENTRE SUBMISSION TO THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CONSULTATION HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS OF ASYLUM SEEKERS • Which human rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted? The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25 (1) states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” Australia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which clearly states that everyone has the right to adequate housing. Asylum seekers who have applied for protection can live for years in the community without stable accommodation and without access to any mainstream Housing Services. In 2007/08, 97.3% of the 4750 asylum seeker applications submitted in Australia came from people who arrived by plane and now live in the Australian community (UNHCR, 2009). For these people, housing is one of the greatest challenges. Upon arrival, an individual or family seeking asylum will move an average of eight times (ASRC Casework data) in an attempt to source appropriate, sustainable accommodation. Gaining access to Housing Services is a continuing struggle throughout the refugee determination process. • Are human rights sufficiently protected and promoted? The right to housing needs to be reaffirmed. Asylum seekers are allowed to access Emergency and Transitional Housing Services but are regularly denied services when in a housing crisis. While these services invoke lack of resources as a reason for this, they often wrongly believe that asylum seekers are not entitled to their assistance. Education and training needs to be provided to Housing Services around the issue of asylum seekers’ right to housing. This denial of assistance occurs when asylum seekers are virtually excluded from the private rental market and do not have access to Public Housing. 12 Batman Street West Melbourne VIC 3003 T: 03 9326 6066 F: 03 9326 5199 ABN: 64 118 965 815 Incorporation #: A0042918H www.asrc.org.au Emergency and Transitional Housing Services are therefore their only recourse when in a housing crisis. The Federal Government has shown its willingness to tackle the housing crisis in Australia with the launch of the White Paper ‘The Road Home’ (2008) promising to halve homelessness and to provide supported accommodation for all in need by 2020. Sadly, in its current form, this appears to be a truly ‘white’ paper. There is no mention of asylum seekers, despite their well- documented housing challenges and regular presentation at Housing Services. • How could Australia better protect and promote human rights? Patricia Faulkner AO, chairperson of the Social Inclusion Board, states that a strong legislative framework is vital for the implementation of the White Paper’s goal of halving homelessness by 2020. In addition to directives at the State and Territory level, Federal legislation ensuring that asylum seekers receive a service when they approach an Emergency or Transitional Housing Service would be a positive step towards recognising asylum seekers as ‘real people’ with legitimate housing and homelessness needs. Another possible way to encourage services to provide emergency accommodation assistance to asylum seekers is for each State Government Housing Minister to mandate services to do so. The right to housing is a right for all in a country as wealthy as Australia, and people who come to our shores to seek protection should not be penalized for it by enduring months of homelessness. Asylum seeker children’s testimony in visual form to the Human Rights Commission in answer to the following questions • Which human rights (including corresponding responsibilities) should be protected and promoted? • Are these human rights currently sufficiently protected and promoted? • How could Australia better protect and promote human rights? This drawing by a child in Woomera depicts crying children (in foreground), spiders and insects on the ground, water cannon, fire, a man falling into the razor wire and guard armed with a baton This drawing by a child in Woomera is of a protest where detainees are calling for freedom and visas with ACM guards in riot gear, in the foreground, striking a man with a baton This drawing by a young child in Woomera shows asylum seeker children in the detention centre with children standing on the other side of the razor wire, carrying a welcome sign This scene depicts children crying in Woomera with a water cannon and fire in the background. The guards are carrying batons and shields. The picture is signed with a number. All children in Woomera were numbered instead of named This drawing shows children and their mothers crying, surrounded by guards and water cannon. A frequent complaint from detainees was that when they sought medical attention, they were told to drink water and take Panadol. A very young child’s view of life in Woomera. Sad people, water cannon, razor wire and bars. A mother crying, an injured asylum seeker bleeding, spiders on the ground, guards and batons, water cannon and fire: Life in Woomera through the eyes of a child. Some families were separated because they arrived at different times.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sharon Pickering (2005) Refugees and State Crime, the Federation Press, Sydney, ISBN: 1 86287 541 3
    Sharon Pickering (2005) Refugees and State Crime, The Federation Press, Sydney, ISBN: 1 86287 541 3 Unlike 2001, the 2004 federal election was not primarily fought around racist images of boatloads of refugees 'invading' Australia's shores. However, the detention and mistreatment of mentally ill Australian resident Cornelia Rau, the Federal Government's intensifying and largely unreported program of forced deportations, 1 the unlawful deportation of Australian citizen Vivian Solon and the deaths in custody of 13 immigration detainees since December 2000 reflect the ongoing human rights violations committed b~ the Australian state against 'unlawful' migrants. With the findings of the Palmer Inquiry likely to generate further much-needed critical debate, Sharon Pickering's book is a timely reminder of the dismal reality of Australia's border protection policies and one of the few serious attempts by criminologists to analyse the Australian state's responses to forced migration.3 Pickering describes her task as 'mapping the construction of refugee deviancy and how the ensuing state response can be considered illegitimate and potentially criminal' (p l ). She starts by locating Australia's refugee policy within the wider law and order discourse entrenched by neo-liberalism throughout the Global North. ln this context, refugees seeking asylum outside of the Australian Government's tightly prescribed legal framework arc acting simply out of choice and must suffer the consequences if their gamble fails. Moreover, the very fact of them attempting to exercise their rights under international Jaw qualifies them as dangerous and triggers state-driven processes of exclusion and criminalisation, which help construct and rely upon rationales for ignoring human rights obligations.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Royal Commission Into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability
    Submission to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability Submission on laws, policies and practice affecting migrants, refugees and citizens from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds January 2021 Sydney Centre for International Law The University of Sydney Law School Building (F10) Camperdown Campus, The University of Sydney NSW 2006 [email protected] With Macquarie Law School Social Justice Clinic About the Sydney Centre for International Law The Sydney Centre for International Law (SCIL) was established in 2003 as a centre of excellence in research and teaching in international law. The centre fosters innovative, interdisciplinary scholarship across the international legal field, and also provides an avenue for the public to access international legal expertise. It operates within the University of Sydney Law School, building upon its well-recognised history of strength in this area. This submission was prepared by the following SCIL interns under the supervision and with the assistance of SCIL Director Professor Mary Crock. Parts 1 – 3; Part 10 Sarah Charak*; Wendy Chen*; Angus Chen*; Sherry Xueyi Jin; John McCrorie*; Leah Park; Rachel Sun*; Emma Louise Tirabosco;* Siobhan Walsh; Frank Gang Yang. Parts 4 - 6 Freya Appleford*; Sarah Charak; Angus Chen; Jake Jerogin*; Emma Kench*; Maxine McHugh; Miranda Hutchenson; Anton Nguyen*; Alexandra Touw; Jiann Yap; Alan Zheng*; Kevin Zou*; Part 7 Jess Mitchell*; Anisha Gunawardhana*; Part 8 Mary Crock; Olivia Morris; Part 9 Mary Crock with Macquarie University Law School Social Justice Clinic and the National Justice Project– Associate Professor Daniel Ghezelbash; Thomas Boyes, Sarah Croake, Jemy Ma; and Sara Hakim* (as a volunteer at the National Justice Project).
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry Into The
    Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry into the administration and operation of the Migration Act By Angus Francisi Introduction This submission focuses on the first term of reference of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry into the administration and operation of the Migration Act. In particular, this submission focuses on the administration and operation of the detention and removal powers of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘MA’). The Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon cases highlight the failure of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘DIMIA’) to properly administer the detention and removal powers found in the MA. According to Mick Palmer, the head of the government initiated inquiry into the detention of Cornelia Rau, this is a result of inadequate training, insufficient internal controls, lack of management oversight and review, a failure of co-ordination between Federal, State and non-government agencies, as well as a culture within the compliance and detention sections of DIMIA that is ‘overly self-protective and defensive’.ii The Palmer Report unearthed what has laid stagnant on the surface of earlier public inquiries into the operation of the MA: an attitude within government that the powers to detain and remove unlawful non-citizens are wide and unfettered. This attitude is evident in the way in which the detention and removal powers in the MA are often exercised without due regard or concern for the individual subject to those powers. This position is unlikely to change, even if, as inquiry head Mick Palmer recommended, effective personnel and cultural change takes place within DIMIA.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen Action in Support of Asylum Seekers in Australia 2001-2006
    ‘I had to do something. I couldn’t do nothing!’: Citizen Action in Support of Asylum Seekers in Australia 2001-2006. Diane Gosden Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Social Sciences Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of New South Wales 2012 PLEASE TYPE THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname or Family name: GOSDEN First name: DIANE Other name/s: MARGARET Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD School: School of Social Sciences Faculty: Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Title: 'I had to do something. I couldn't do nothing!': Citizen Action in Support of Asylum Seekers in Australia 2001-2006 Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE) This thesis is an examination of social action opposed to particular Australian government policies. The policies concerned are those affecting people seeking asylum without authorised entry documents. The period examined is from 2001 to 2006. It is argued that the social action contributed to the achievement of shifts in public opinion and policy during this period. The context in which this local action is examined is the international system of asylum, and the responses of developed countries to flows of incoming asylum seekers. Political rhetoric has often demonised those seeking asylum, and the term 'asylum seeker' increasingly has negative connotations for many people in developed countries. At the same time, groups of people in asylum destination countries such as Australia, have also responded with support and assistance for asylum seekers. Using ethnographic methodology and drawing on theories from refugee studies, and collective action and social movement theory, this thesis explores the nature of this particular response.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia Has an Appalling History of Mismanagement of Welfare Issues Relating to People Detained in Its Immigration Centres
    Macquarie Law Journal (2005) Vol 5 81 CONTRACTUALISM, EXCLUSION AND ‘MADNESS’ IN AUSTRALIA’S ‘OUTSOURCED WASTELANDS’ ∗ LYNDA CROWLEY-CYR I INTRODUCTION Australia has an appalling history of mismanagement of welfare issues relating to people detained in its immigration centres. How is this possible in the ‘lucky country’ where Australians pride themselves on mateship and giving everyone ‘a fair go’? Theories of contemporary contractualism1 offer one possible explanation. Most concepts of the state2 assume statehood involves certain functions. This article deals with the way that different facets of the state - especially its market, fortress and security facets - have fused together to manage ‘wasted lives’3 in detention centres in Australia. This fusion of the state has converted ‘illegal outsiders’ (asylum seekers and refugees) into ‘rightless’ homines sacri.4 My intention is to use contemporary contractualism as the lens through which we can consider how the state has failed to discharge its obligations to detainees under its care. Contemporary contractualism is an ideology that legitimates exclusion by limiting its process to the purchase of outputs rather than the delivery of outcomes.5 This is a ∗ LLB (QUT), LLM (JCU), James Cook University. This article is based on a paper presented at the British Criminology Conference, Leeds, 12-14 July 2005. My special thanks to Professor Paul Havemann and Carole Caple for their invaluable assistance in the development of the ideas in this article. 1 I use the term ‘contemporary contractualism’ here to refer to transactions that can appear contractual in nature but that do not necessarily draw on the principles of contract law as traditionally understood.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Activism: Creating Legal and Social Change for Children in Immigration Detention
    THE POWER OF ACTIVISM: CREATING LEGAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE FOR CHILDREN IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION SANDY SANDHYA JACKSON A THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY SYDNEY LAW SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY 2020 ABSTRACT In February 2019, the Australian government announced that there were no longer any children in offshore immigration detention. The influence of the Australian refugee advocacy movement on this outcome is important to understand because of its relevance to the global refugee crisis in which children continue to be detained across the world. My thesis examines how the Australian refugee advocacy movement has tried to create legal and social change for children in immigration detention using strategic litigation and grassroots advocacy. Cases are analysed to critically evaluate the success of lawyers in the courtroom to challenge an intransigent government determined to pursue its harsh policies. The mass mobilisation of activists and their efforts to shift public and political opinion are also examined. Drawing on the wider socio‐legal literature and notably the work of McCann, the integrated legal mobilisation framework is proposed. It consists of capabilities and practical grassroots strategies, and provides an in‐depth and evidenced way of understanding the influence of the Australian refugee advocacy movement in helping to achieve the release of children from immigration detention. Data from 41 interviews from refugee advocacy groups, activists, lawyers, doctors, journalists, bureaucrats, policy advisors, and politicians are used to evaluate how the capabilities and strategies have been used by the refugee advocacy movement to help create legal and social change for children in immigration detention.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiry Into the Circumstances of the Immigration Detention of Cornelia Rau
    Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Immigration Detention of Cornelia Rau REPORT July 2005 © Commonwealth of Australia 2005 ISBN 0-646-44945-1 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at http://www.ag.gov.au/cca. Inquiry into the Cornelia Rau Matter Mick Palmer AO APM GPO Box 3007 Ph: (02) 6274 7395 Canberra City ACT 2601 Fax: (02) 6274 7377 www.inquiry.com.au Email: [email protected] 6 July 2005 Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister I am pleased to present to you my report on the Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Immigration Detention of Cornelia Rau. The Inquiry was conducted in accordance with the terms of reference issued on 9 February 2005 and 2 May 2005. As required by the additional terms of reference of 2 May 2005, my report includes commentary and preliminary findings arising from the Examination of the Vivian Alvarez Matter. Yours sincerely MJ Palmer Principles Protection of individual liberty is at the heart of Australian democracy. When there exist powers that have the capacity to interfere with individual liberty, they should be accompanied by checks and balances sufficient to engender public confidence that those powers are being exercised with integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1. a Failure of Public Administration?
    Chapter 1. A failure of public administration? Introduction Debate in the press about the politicisation of the APS has intensified in recent years. Undoubtedly these debates are not new. As will be seen, debate about the `proper' role of the public service has continued virtually unabated since the Whitlam Government introduced ministerial advisers following its election in 1972. Nevertheless, commentators on both sides of politics have reflected on both the number and profile of recent controversies involving perceptions of public service politicisation.1 These include the `Children Overboard' affair (known to the Senate as `A Certain Maritime Incident') involving the Departments of Defence, Immigration and the Prime Minister and Cabinet; the cases of the detention of Cornelia Rau and the deportation of Vivian Solon, involving the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA);2 the payments made by the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) to the regime of Saddam Hussein in order to obtain contracts for the sale of Australian wheat to Iraq, involving the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT); the detention of Dr Mohamed Haneef, involving the Australian Federal Police; and the role of a senior public servant in the Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio as the face of the Howard Government's WorkChoices media campaign. Debate around most of these cases has tended, particularly in media analysis, to focus on issues of `who knew what and when'. All except the last have resulted in some form of formal inquiry.3 Each involves allegations or suppositions about the degree of direct or indirect complicity between public servants and politicians concerning the communication or management of politically sensitive information.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Titled the Removal, Search for and Discovery of Ms Vivian Solon
    Appendix 3 Additional information, tabled documents, and answers to questions on notice Tabled Documents Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs: • correspondence dated 14 September 2005 – answers to questions on notice from hearing on 6 September 2005 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: • correspondence dated 16 September 2005 – answers to questions on notice from hearing on 7 September 2005 The following were tabled (15 September 2005) with the interim report titled The removal, search for and discovery of Ms Vivian Solon: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (documents made public) • email dated 9 September 2003 from DFAT re call from QLD police missing persons unit • background briefing "consular in confidence" undated (2005) by Assistant Secretary, Consular Branch, DFAT • letter dated 5 May 2005 from Consul, Australian Embassy Manila to Chief Record Division, National Center for Mental Health, Mandaluyong City • letter dated 11 May 2005 from Principal Migration Officer, Australian Embassy Manila to Director, Passports Division, DFAT • letter dated 16 May 2005 from Director, Consular Operations, DFAT to First Secretary, Embassy of the Philippines, Canberra • note no. 143/05 dated 17 May 2005 from Australian Embassy Manila to the Philippines Bureau of Immigration • email dated 17 May 2005 from First Assistant Secretary, Public Diplomacy, Consular and Passports Division, DFAT re Philippines media release • case notes on Vivian Alvarez dated 18 May 2005 from Overseas Workers Welfare Administration,
    [Show full text]
  • The Rudd/Gillard Government, Asylum Seekers, and the Politics of Norm
    The Rudd/Gillard Government, Asylum Seekers, and the Politics of Norm Contestation Katja Cooper B Arts (International Relations)/B Laws (Hons) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2019 School of Political Science and International Relations (POLSIS) i Abstract This thesis examines the important role that humanitarian arguments played in influencing the trajectory of Australia’s asylum seeker policy during the Prime Ministerships of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard (2007 – 2013). In the leadup to the 2007 Federal Election, Rudd declared that Australia had a moral obligation to treat asylum seekers with compassion because the ‘biblical injunction to care for the stranger in our midst is clear.’ During his first year in office, Rudd largely fulfilled his promise to comply with the ‘letter and the spirit’ of the Refugee Convention by ending offshore detention on Nauru and Manus Island, abolishing Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs), and declaring that mandatory detention would only be used as a ‘last resort.’ However, by 2013, Labor’s humanitarian platform on Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) had been largely abandoned. Faced with a significant increase in boat arrivals, an overburdened immigration detention system and an increasingly hostile public, both Rudd and his successor Gillard responded by gradually reintroducing the punitive measures that had comprised the Howard Government’s Pacific Solution. In order to ascertain why Rudd’s attempt to take Australia’s asylum seeker policy in a more humanitarian direction was unable to be sustained, I will undertake a normative analysis of the language that both Labor and the Coalition used in order to legitimate their respective asylum seeker policies during the Rudd/Gillard era.
    [Show full text]
  • Detention Reform and Alternatives in Australia Case Management in the Community As an Alternative to Detention
    Detention reform and alternatives in Australia Case management in the community as an alternative to detention Executive Summary This paper outlines the significant changes in Australia’s immigration detention and enforcement policy and practice since 2005 and the emergence of case management in the community as an innovative and effective alternative to the detention of asylum seekers and migrants. Background to Australian detention policy In 1992 Australia introduced a policy of mandatory, non-reviewable and indefinite immigration detention until removal or approval, irrespective of individual circumstance, age or need. This legislation led to long-term detention, including cases of individuals being detained for more than seven years,1 as well as the detention of more than 4,000 children between 2000 and 2005.2 Australia’s immigration detention practice was criticized by non-government organizations and the Australian Human Rights Commission,3 including the lack of transparency in the immigration detention system; a failure of monitoring; a lack of administrative and judicial review mechanisms; the denial of a range of rights to detainees in offshore facilities; and the negative impact of detention on mental health, particularly on children and long-term detainees.4 A government commissioned report in 2005 found that the assumption-based culture within the Department of Immigration in raid and enforcement actions had led to the separation of children from families and the wrongful detention of 249 Australian residents.5 Since that time there has been litigation and growing concern in the broader community on Australia’s detention policy. Changes in Australia’s detention and enforcement policy and practice While Australia still has further to go to fully reform its immigration detention policy, there has been significant change over the past three years.
    [Show full text]
  • Refugees in Australia
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Flinders Academic Commons FJHP Volume 23 (2006) Official Channels or Public Action: Refugees in Australia Andrew Herd University of Wollongong The release of the so-called Palmer Report, Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Immigration Detention of Cornelia Rau,1 again placed the Australian Government’s policies on immigration in the media. As with previous controversies over these policies, such as the ‘children-overboard’ incident, an inquiry was launched. This was seen by many refugee and mental illness advocates as an opportunity to obtain a measure of truth and justice. Were their hopes realized, or has the government managed to reduce the outrage felt in the community over this incident? The backfire model provides a theoretical tool for analysing how groups with power and authority, such as governments and corporations, inhibit the formation of outrage within the community after an unjustified use of power. The backfire model can also be used by activists to develop methods to counter groups with power and authority. This model can be used to analyse the treatment of refugees and immigration detainees in Australia. One of the methods examine in the backfire model is official channels, which contrary to popular opinion can be used by the government to suppress outrage. The Senate Select Committee into a Certain Maritime Incident2 and the Palmer Inquiry3 are shown below as examples of official channels used by the government in this manner. Also analysed in this paper is the change to the composition of the Australian Senate, which has led to a situation where inquiries are now less likely to be a useful tool for activists in their campaign for just treatment of refugees.
    [Show full text]