Saturday 29 November 2014

Australian asylum seeker policy may contravene torture convention - UN

Australian asylum seeker policy may contravene torture convention - UN

Australian asylum seeker policy may contravene torture convention - UN







Human rights agency criticises proposed law that would allow removal of migrants without considering potential persecution







Nauru, where Australia sends asylum seekers to be processed

The UN agency expressed concerns about Australia's use of processing
centres for asylum seekers on Nauru (above) and Manus Island.
Photograph: Torsten Blackwood/AFP/Getty Images



The UN’s human rights agency has made sweeping criticisms of
Australia’s policies towards asylum seekers, saying a proposed law that
would allow the government to remove people without considering whether
they might face persecution elsewhere could contravene international
treaties against torture.



Considering Australia as part of its universal periodic review – a
four-yearly rolling process – the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) also expressed concerns about new counter-terrorism
legislation, saying it could define terrorism too broadly.



On migrants, the OHCHR’s committee against torture, a 10-strong panel of independent experts,
said it was concerned about the policy of intercepting and turning back
boats off the Australian coast without a view on what treatment those
on board might face, as well as policies of indefinite detention for
unauthorised arrivals, including children, and the use of overseas
processing centres on Manus Island and Nauru.



Advertisement
The OHCHR has previously voiced its concerns about the migration and maritime powers legislation amendment,
currently going through Australia’s parliament, which would greatly
strengthen the government’s ability to forcibly remove new arrivals.



In its own eight-page report, the torture committee said it was also
concerned about the bill. More widely, it criticised the policy of
turning back migrant boats without considering the consequences for
those on board, saying this could contravene article three of the UN’s convention against torture, signed by Australia in 1985.
The article says countries should not expel or return people to another
state when there are “substantial grounds for believing that he would
be in danger of being subjected to torture”.



The committee’s report said it remained concerned about the policy of
detaining unauthorised arrivals, including children, until those held
were given a visa or expelled, with no maximum time limit, “reportedly
resulting in protracted periods of deprivation of liberty”.



It expressed worry about the transfer of asylum seekers to processing centres on Manus, in Papua New Guinea, and Nauru,
“despite reports on the harsh conditions prevailing in these centres,
including mandatory detention, including for children; overcrowding,
inadequate healthcare; and even allegations of sexual abuse and
ill-treatment”.



The UN refugee agency had, the committee said, found that overseas centres did not provide humane detention conditions.


Advertisement
“The
combination of these harsh conditions, the protracted periods of closed
detention and the uncertainty about the future reportedly creates
serious physical and mental pain and suffering,” it said.



Australia, the report noted, still had responsibility to asylum
seekers under articles two, three and 16 of the torture convention.
Article two notes that signatories must prevent acts of torture under
their jurisdiction, while article 16 relates to preventing other acts of
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment not defined as
torture.



Separately in the report, the committee noted new powers just granted to Australia’s spy agencies,
what it termed the broad definition of the term “terrorist act”, and
powers allowing the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to
question people with restricted access to a lawyer of choice, while
noting assurances that this latter power had never been used.



It said some progress had been made over the treatment of Indigenous
Australians, but that they were still “disproportionately affected by
incarceration”, representing about 27% of all prisoners but only 2% to
3% of the population.



The committee expressed concerns about prison overcrowding, singling
out for criticism Roebourne regional prison in Western Australia.
Earlier this year an inspection report condemned
conditions there as “intolerable and inhumane”, with prisoners stuck in
overcrowded cells with no air conditioning despite summer temperatures
above 40C.







Thursday 27 November 2014

Scott Morrison may be forced to give 31,000 asylum seekers chance of settlement

Scott Morrison may be forced to give 31,000 asylum seekers chance of settlement


Scott Morrison may be forced to give 31,000 asylum seekers chance of settlement






Exclusive: Senate numbers firming to compel minister to honour deal he did with Clive Palmer on five-year ‘safe haven enterprise visas’









Asylum seekers at Manus Island

Asylum seekers on Manus Island. Guardian Australia understands the
Senate is likely to insist on a clear ‘pathway to permanence’.
Photograph: Eoin Blackwell/AAP



The government would be forced to provide 31,000 asylum seekers with
the possibility of a permanent visa or else abandon sweeping new asylum
laws under a plan being negotiated by Labor, the Greens, the Palmer
United party and other crossbench senators.



The asylum bill is one of a number of unresolved issues – or “barnacles” – the government wants resolved by Christmas.


But the numbers in the Senate are now firming to force Scott Morrison,
the immigration minister, to make a big concession – to honour a deal
he did with Clive Palmer in September in which the PUP believed it had
won support for a new five-year “safe haven enterprise visa” (for
refugees who agreed to work in regional areas) that would lead to a
permanent visa.



Advertisement
The
legislation implementing the deal between Morrison and Palmer, which
passed the lower house last month, went far beyond what had been agreed
with PUP and did not provide any details or any clear pathway for safe
haven visa holders to achieve permanent residency.



Guardian Australia understands the Senate is very likely to insist on a clear “pathway to permanence”.


Morrison has insisted this won’t happen – leaving the likely fate of his legislation resting on his willingness to compromise.


“There’s no way I will lift the bar to give someone a permanent visa …
We gave an absolute commitment on that and I’m not going to send a
message … that permanent visas are on offer in Australia again for
people who have arrived illegally by boat,” he said this week.



Morrison has insisted it is the fault of Labor and the Greens that
the 31,000 asylum seekers who arrived before the new “Pacific solution”
are languishing, without work rights, because of the political deadlock
in the Senate over the terms under which they might stay.



He says the “bloody-minded’’ ideological refusal of the opposition
parties to consider the Coalition’s policy to reintroduce temporary
protection visas has left asylum seekers as “collateral damage”.



The Greens accuse him of “bullying” the crossbench and using the plight of asylum seekers as a form of “blackmail”.


Advertisement
As revealed by Guardian Australia, Palmer had immediate concerns about the bill and sent a “please explain” letter to Morrison
when a parliamentary human rights committee including five members of
the Coalition found the bill was incompatible with human rights.



Furious lobbying of the crossbench continues.


The Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm
said he was considering his position. “I like the idea of the new safe
haven visas, but the government is working on the assumption that it
will be almost impossible for people on these visas to get permanent
residency,” he said. “It still seems pretty mean.”



The independent senator Nick Xenophon said there were “aspects of
this bill that cause me deep concern”. His fellow independent John
Madigan is opposed to the government’s bill.



As well as reintroducing TPVs and the new safe haven visas, the
legislation redefines who is eligible for refugee status and seeks to
prevent future high court challenges against boat turnbacks, against
claims by asylum-seeker children born in Australia or against claims of
human rights breaches under the UN refugee convention.



It also “fast-tracks” refugee processing, removes rights of appeal
and allows authorities to take detained vessels or persons anywhere in
the world regardless of international or domestic law.



It is understood that Labor, the Greens and the crossbench will seek
to remove many of these additional measures, leaving the bill focused on
the visa issue.



Morrison has said he hopes to get the bill through before parliament rises next week.




Australia Obligated To Protect Refugees In Nauru, Say Legal Groups | newmatilda.com

Australia Obligated To Protect Refugees In Nauru, Say Legal Groups | newmatilda.com

Australia Obligated To Protect Refugees In Nauru, Say Legal Groups



By Max Chalmers





As
concern about violence against refugees on Nauru grows, experts and
advocates say Australia is legally and ethically bound to help. Max
Chalmers reports.




Legal
experts and asylum seeker advocates have contradicted Immigration
Minister Scott Morrison’s claim that violence against refugees settled
on Nauru is “wholly a matter for Nauru”, after another incident left two
teens hurt and escalated fears about the safety of the island’s growing
refugee community.



Madeline Gleeson, Research Associate at the Andrew and Renata Kaldor
Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW, told New Matilda Australia
had a “clear legal obligation” to protect refugees in its care,
including those temporarily settled in the Nauruan community.



“Australia continues to have obligations to protect asylum seekers
and refugees in Nauru because no agreement has been reached concerning
their permanent settlement,” Gleeson told New Matilda.



“Some refugees have been released into the community temporarily on
the good will of the Nauruan government, but they have no legal right to
settle there long term and Nauru has never assumed responsibility for
finding a permanent solution for them.”



“This responsibility continues to rest with Australia, and therefore
it is our duty to ensure they are safe in Nauru or move them back to
Australia.”



Australia’s Memorandum of Understanding
with Nauru does not require the tiny Pacific nation to settle refugees
permanently, instead establishing that Australia will find a third
country location for their long-term relocation.



But pressure is growing on the government to clarify what is being
done to keep those on Nauru safe in the meantime, as tensions between
locals and refugees released from detention escalate.



In October a number of attacks on refugees were reported, including one which left four teens hospitalised,
apparently motivated by anger at the slowly increasing number of asylum
seekers being moved from detention into the Nauruan community.



One of the refugees attacked in October.
One of the refugees attacked in October.
On Sunday another attack took place,
following the circulation of a threatening letter to refugees. It left
one asylum seeker with a broken nose, and others extremely anxious about
the ability of Save the Children or Australian Immigration officials to
keep them safe.



Before the Sunday attack, the Nauruan government dismissed the letter as “part of a campaign of misinformation”, but that hasn’t reassured refugees on the island.


“We are really, really worried, we are anticipating we will lose some of us,” one told New Matilda.


Advocacy groups are also worried the situation could continue to degrade.


ChilOut’s Claire Hammerton said her organisation had “very grave
concerns” for the 29 unaccompanied minors now living on the island.



“These recent indents show that it is not safe for these minors to be on Nauru,” she told New Matilda.


“As well as the physical violence our concern is that these are young
people who have already suffered quite severely as a result of
persecution, and fleeing persecution. This could cause further mental
harm.”



There have also been widespread reports of self-harm inside the island’s detention centre, including a sudden increase
after plans to settle refugees in Cambodia were announced and it was
confirmed those on Nauru would miss out on Australian protection visas.



Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has remained largely silent on
the situation on Nauru. After the October incident he told media: “This
incident is wholly a matter for Nauru."



Emily Howie, Director of Advocacy and Research at the Human Rights
Law Centre, said there were strong arguments to suggest Australia’s
domestic legal obligations to refugees also apply to those transferred
to Nauru, even after their release into the community.



“Australia continues to have effective control over the transfer,
detention and assessments of asylum seekers in Nauru,” Howie said.



“Australia’s international human rights law obligations extend to all
situations in Australia’s control and jurisdiction. They don’t stop at
Australia’s borders.”



Numerous attempts were made to contact the Minister for Immigration
but questions about what steps Australia is taking to keep refugees safe
did not draw a response.



In October, Liberal Senator Scott Ryan told Fairfax
that: “internal domestic law and order are a mater for another
sovereign nation. But this government has put enormous effort into
improving the situation on Nauru and Manus”.



Since the Liberal government came to office in 2013 two men held in the Manus detention centre have died, one after an attack on the centre, the other after contracting an easily treated infection.


Doctors have warned the conditions in the Manus centre could see the toll rise further.


Madeline Gleeson said the escalating hostility on Nauru raised the
possibility refugees are now facing persecution because of their
membership to a particular social group. Under these circumstances,
Australia is bound by international law not to leave them there.



“It is important not to forget the asylum seekers still in Australia who are at risk of being removed to Nauru,” she said.


“It is beyond any doubt that Australia has legal obligations under
international law not to remove these asylum seekers to any place where
they will face a real risk of significant harm or persecution.



ChilOut agree.


“Australia needs to take responsibility for the situation it has created,” Hammerton said.




PrintPrint  
 
 
googleplus 

Wednesday 26 November 2014

We're Better Than This


Published on 24 Nov 2014
A movement uniting Australian voices to draw attention to the need to free refugee children from Australian detention camps. Please share this video and go to WBTTAUS.org to find out more. #WBTTAUS on Twitter


Saturday 15 November 2014

Labor should stop the boats... - The AIM Network

Labor should stop the boats... - The AIM Network





Labor should stop the boats…














It is to be hoped that the Shadow Minister for Immigration Richard Marles’s recent thought bubble
suggesting that an ALP government would continue to tow back the boats
has been well and truly pricked. But his foolish comment shows how much
of a policy limbo Labor is in on asylum seekers.



On one hand we have the Abbott government policy of deterring
refugees by harsh treatment of those who try to come by boat. This
includes the tow-backs, the refusal to allow any asylum seekers that
come by boat to be settled in Australia, even if they are found to be
genuine refugees, terrible conditions in off-shore processing centres,
lengthy waits for the processing of claims, little or no access to legal
advice, increasingly bizarre locations for resettlement, like Cambodia,
a reduced refugee intake and restrictive visa conditions. All this with
repeated dog whistling language – calling refugees illegals, implying
that they are likely to be terrorists, or have Ebola and generally
ramping up the existing the xenophobic tendencies in the electorate.



This approach seems to be stopping the boats, but at the expense of a
good deal of cruelty, certainly disregard for Australia’s international
obligations, probably a degree of illegality, and likely a degree of
estrangement of our largest neighbour. Indonesia under President Jokowi
may be even less accommodating to tow-backs than it has been under
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. These policies may be stopping the
flow of refugees to Australia, but won’t stop the flow to the region.
And the refugee problem there is likely to escalate; the Western
alliance’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the chaos in Iraq and Syria
will see to that.



At the other extreme there is the ‘let them all come’ attitude. It
requires that all processing is done on–shore, with only health checks,
rather than compulsory detention, before release into the community.
This sounds nice, but there are a number of problems.



Unrestricted entry does nothing to restrict boat arrivals, and
therefore by implication encourages them. The Greens and their
supporters – the main protagonists of these views – want better
international efforts in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia to
process refugees in the hope that this will stop people getting on
boats. But those who can will, particularly if they don’t yet have
refugee status, and significant numbers will die at sea. It is estimated
that around 900 refugees have died at sea on their way to Australia
since 2000.



Various suggestions have been made about improving the safety of the
boat journey, including not confiscating the boats and jailing their
crews, so that reusable boats and experienced crews can do the people
smuggling. This makes no sense if people smuggling is to remain illegal.
Allowing people smuggling advantages those able to pay – hardly a fair
selection method.



The Greens’ policy is to allow an annual intake of 30,000. That
number could easily be taken up overwhelmingly with boat arrivals. Tough
luck all the other refugees around the world who aren’t in a position –
geographical or financial – to get on a boat. And what happens if there
are more than 30,000 boat arrivals?



But the main thing wrong with this policy is that no party espousing
it is likely to form government in the foreseeable future. Not much
point having a policy no one can implement. It is likely that by the
2016 election, the boats will have been stopped, the off-shore detention
centres will be empty and that the LNP will campaign hard on their
‘success’. Any other proposals will be labelled as letting the boats
back.



So what should Labor do?


Labor policy on asylum seekers needs to meet the following criteria: it must


  • Embody Labor’s value of fairness
  • Meet Australia’s international obligations
  • Be practicable
  • Be electorally viable

There is a temptation to run a small-target me-too campaign on this
policy – as Marles has already hinted. Asylum seeker policy is probably
not going to be the main thing on voters’ minds in 2016 – it’s the
economy, stupid – but the LNP will certainly try and wedge Labor on it.
People whose vote is determined by hatred and fear of asylum seekers,
rather than by the punitive economic policies of the LNP, will probably
not vote Labor anyway, whatever Labor does. On the left, rusted-on
Greens voters won’t be satisfied by anything other than an open door
policy to refugees, so Labor is unlikely to please them either. There
are probably a number of voters who are concerned about refugees who
come by boat, but are more concerned about economic policies. Labor’s
asylum seeker policy is unlikely to be a game-changer for them –
whatever that policy.



I think small target temptation must be resisted, not only because
the current policy is inhumane and probably illegal, but also because if
Labor is to make a case for a supporting a fairer and more equal
society, this has to include a policy on asylum seekers that accepts
Australia’s international responsibilities, and treats asylum seekers as
people in dire need of our help, rather than trying to deter them from
coming here.



This is not, however, a reason for committing electoral suicide.
There are other things at stake in the next election besides asylum
seekers.



For me, the non-negotiable is speedy processing in humane processing
centres. I don’t think Labor has to commit itself to on-shore processing
of asylum seeker claims.



I have come to this view after listening to Brad Chilcott, of Welcome
to Australia. His work with refugees has convinced him that it is not
the location of the processing centre, but lack of information about
their future and their refugee status application that causes the anger,
the despair, the self-harm that characterise the refugee experience
under the LNP. He believes that refugee centres must have independent
oversight, and be accountable and transparent. It’s not the hardship of
Naru, he says. It’s the fear they could be there for ever.



Mandatory detention is acceptable if it is brief. Labor would need to
commit to much quicker processing of claims, where ever refugees were
sent. What about children? Again, it is the length of time in detention
that is crucial.



I’m not sure that the centres on Naru and Manus Island can ever be
suitable refugee locations – conditions there are described as ‘cruel,
inhuman, and unlawful’ – amounting to torture. But if faster processing
means refugees need only stay for a short time, then maybe, with the
proper oversight which is clearly lacking, these facilities could
continue to house refugees. And the asylum seekers would know that
settlement in Australia – rather than New Guinea – was a likely outcome
for them.



So what about people smuggling? Because of both the risk of death at
sea, and the privileging of refugees who can afford to pay people
smugglers, Labor policy must aim to deter people from getting on boats.
They are much less likely to do this if, like the Greens, Labor commits
to a larger intake of asylum seekers who are found to be genuine
refugees into Australia, and if there are much better regional
arrangements for processing in host countries like Indonesia and
Malaysia. Much greater funding for the UNHCR is essential.



Labor should treat all asylum seekers the same in terms of
eligibility for resettlement in Australia, whether they come by boat or
by plane.



Should Labor ever ‘stop the boats’? Yes, but not by force. This
policy should aim to stop people undertaking the dangerous journey
because there are better ways of finding safety, ways that respect the
right of people to seek asylum, respect Australia’s international
obligations and reflect Labor’s aspiration for a just and equal society.



Like this:

Friday 14 November 2014

Labor's Richard Marles is just a watered down version of Scott Morrison

Labor's Richard Marles is just a watered down version of Scott Morrison

Labor’s Richard Marles is just a watered down version of Scott Morrison

Asylum-seeker-forum-with-Ri


I went along to an asylum seeker forum at Gosford Anglican Parish,
last night. Hosted by the awesome Father Rod Bower, MCd by Labor’s
Senator Deborah O’Neill, with special guest speaker, Labor’s Shadow
Immigration Minister, Richard Marles.



I was nervous when I arrived. When I left, I was furious! Here’s why…


Marles made just 7 points


Despite talking a lot, and very well, Marles made just 7 points:


  1. Liberal is worse than Labor
  2. Labor believes in compassion, fairness, generosity and no harm
  3. Any genuine refugees currently in offshore detention should be resettled in Australia
  4. Australia is faced with a “cohort” of 7 million refugees who want asylum here
  5. Our detention centres need to be run better
  6. Detention centres ARE a deterrent, but they’re not based on deprivation
  7. Mandatory detention is the only way to save lives at sea

Let’s take a look at each of these points individually…


Liberal is worse than Labor


No arguments here. They’re definitely worse. They reduced our total
refugee intake quota from 20,000 under Labor to 13,750. They’re turning
boats back (in breach of international law and Indonesia’s sovereignty).
They haven’t processed a single claim for an asylum seeker in offshore
detention since taking office (more than a year ago). They’re trying to change Australia’s law so it’s less bound by international law. And they’re trying to introduce temporary visas.



But let’s be clear. Labor are no angels. They introduced offshore detention, under Gillard. And they want it retained.


Labor believes in compassion, fairness, generosity and no harm


What’s compassionate about locking up people who are fleeing murder,
torture, wrongful imprisonment and other forms of persecution? What’s
fair about that (remember, it breaches international law)? Or generous?



And no harm? Seriously?! According to The Age,
the organisation contracted to provide medical services in detention
centres (International Health and Medical Services) reported that:



About half the asylum seekers in detention on Manus
Island and Nauru are suffering from significant depression, stress or
anxiety, according to clinical assessments… specialists blame the
“detention environment” rather than the adequacy of services for the
worsening mental health of detainees.”

Then of course there’s their physical health to consider. Detainees
are imprisoned in squalid conditions, without adequate access to
appropriate healthcare. And people are dying, for God’s sake!



Sure, Marles says he thinks the centres should be run better, but
almost in the same breath he said we can’t guarantee the safety of
asylum seekers kept in detention.



It’s clear that Labor doesn’t believe in compassion, fairness, generosity and no harm. It’s just more hypocrisy.


Any genuine refugees currently in offshore detention should be resettled in Australia


Marles clearly said this last night. And I completely agree. But I don’t believe him at all. In fact, he said exactly the opposite back in April, when discussing the possibility that some refugees from Manus Island might have to be resettled in Australia:


Nothing would be more detrimental to Australia’s strategy to reducing the flow of boats from Indonesia than that.”

Not very convincing, Richard.


Australia is faced with a “cohort” of 7 million refugees who want asylum here


First things first. 7 million refugees are NOT trying to seek asylum
in Australia. Yes, there are approximately 7 millions refugees seeking
permanent asylum in another country, and yes, I’m sure many/most/all
would love that country to be Australia. But only a very small handful
of them have the means to get here or are trying to.



So to suggest that our asylum seeker responsibilities must be
considered in the context of 7 million people who need our help is
disingenuous. There are other countries who also resettle refugees. It’s
a shared international load.



Now… “Cohort”… WTF?! According to Merriam-Webster, here’s the definition of ‘cohort’:


a:  one of 10 divisions of an ancient Roman legion

b:  a group of warriors or soldiers

c:  band, group

d:  a group of individuals having a statistical factor (as age or class
membership) in common in a demographic study <a cohort of premedical
students>”

Notice that the first 2 definitions are military, implying
aggression, military might, strategy and conquering tendencies? Even the
third implies at least some of internal coordination and planning. Only
the very last definition is that of a group of individuals sharing some
arbitrary quality (and thus only the last is appropriate).



This use of language is disingenuous and deliberately inflammatory.
Asylum seekers are not a military division attempting to conquer
Australia. They’re scared, desperate people, fleeing persecution in
their home countries.



EDIT: A few people on Google+ have questioned my
criticism of the word ‘cohort’. They say it’s quite commonly used to
describe groups of people (e.g. students by year or subject, or in
science to mean a common group with similar characteristics). So my
criticism may be more a reflection of me than of his meaning and agenda.
Maybe. To me, it stood out like a sore thumb, so I’m not convinced
enough to remove the discussion about it.



Our detention centres need to be run better


Yes! Yes they do. On this, Marles and I agree. But were they run
better under Labor? (Remember it was Gillard who re-introduced offshore
processing on Nauru and Manus.) Well, according to this Parliamentary paper from September 2012 (while Labor was in office), things were pretty grim back then too:



The main issues of concern expressed by many stakeholders
regarding the ‘Pacific Solution’ revolved around the conditions of the
offshore processing centres; the lack of independent scrutiny; the
mental health impacts on those held in the centres; and the lengthy
periods of time that many asylum seekers spent on Nauru and Manus Island
while their claims were being processed.



The conditions on Nauru and Manus Island attracted a great deal of
criticism at the time from refugee advocates and other stakeholders,
including many parliamentarians.[19] The report of the inquiry into A
Certain Maritime Incident outlined many of these concerns and noted that
the Nauru site initially lacked water, sanitation and electricity with
asylum seekers housed under harsh conditions. Evidence to the Select
Committee suggested that the facilities on Manus were a slight
improvement on those in Nauru; however, several asylum seekers
contracted malaria.[20]



Several witnesses to the Committee also expressed concern about the
lack of independent scrutiny, difficulty in obtaining access to the
facilities and an apparent lack of access to legal advice for detainees.
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights told the Committee that when they
sought to send a team of lawyers to Nauru to provide legal advice to
asylum seekers the Nauruan Government refused them visas.[21] In 2002,
the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC—formerly HREOC) also
requested permission to inspect the facilities on Nauru and Manus Island
in Papua New Guinea as part of its National Inquiry into Children in
Immigration Detention, but the Department of Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) ‘reiterated its position
that the HREOC Act did not have extra-territorial effect and declined to
assist the Inquiry with these visits’.”

Maybe Marles means ‘better than both Liberal and Labor have done it’.
But he certainly didn’t say that (indeed, in the context of his
Liberal-slamming, it was clear that’s not what he meant).



Detention centres ARE a deterrent, but they’re not based on deprivation


Marles agreed with Father Rod Bower that mandatory detention is used
as a deterrent. But he denied it was based on deprivation. So let’s look
at the definition of deprivation:



1:  the state of being deprived : privation; especially : removal from an office, dignity, or benefice

2:  an act or instance of depriving : loss

Imprisoning asylum seekers for doing no more than exercising their
fundamental human rights is depriving them of freedom and dignity. It’s
laughable (although not funny) to argue detention centres are not about
deprivation. By definition, that’s exactly what they’re about.



Mandatory detention is the only way to save lives at sea


Many times during the night, Marles positioned mandatory detention as both a solution to deaths at sea and the only solution to deaths at sea. This argument is false and disingenuous on three fronts…


Firstly, there’s no verifiable evidence to support the argument that
mandatory detention policies deter asylum seekers from trying to reach
Australia. When Howard introduced it in 2001, the numbers were already dropping.
Plus, the introduction of the Pacific Solution (Sept 2001) coincided
with the removal of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan (Oct 2001).
Leading up to this point, Afghanistan had been one of our major sources
of asylum seekers (17% in 2001-01).
Also, from 2001 to 2002 there was a 45% drop in refugee numbers
worldwide. And when Gillard re-introduced it in 2012, it didn’t
immediately slow the boats as Marles claimed last night. In fact, the number of boat more than doubled.



Impact of harsh policies


Secondly, even if (and it’s a big ‘if’) mandatory detention does
deter would-be asylum seekers, is that something to be proud of? Sure,
that might reduce the deaths at our doorstep, but do they just
go somewhere else to die? Do they just attempt some other dangerous
journey? Or a journey to some other dangerous country? Or do they just
stay home and get murdered by their persecutors? Marles dismissed these
claims last night as absolutely untrue, but he didn’t supply any
verifiable evidence, nor has anyone else supplied any that I’m aware of.



Note that Marles also misleadingly positioned people who suggest our
mandatory detention policy might simply cause asylum seekers to die
elsewhere. He said people who argue this don’t believe deaths at sea are
Australia’s responsibility. Again, disingenuous. Deaths at sea are our
responsibility. But so too are deaths caused elsewhere by our policies.



And finally, to suggest that mandatory detention is the only solution
to deaths at sea is patently absurd. The government spends billions on
mandatory detention, with Labor’s blessing ($10b since 2007). If
putting innocent people in jail is the only solution they could buy
with $10b, they’re definitely the wrong people for the job.
What about rescuing people at sea? What about processing people in
Indonesia? And in the long term, what about diplomatic solutions to
reduce the actual number of refugees (rather than military operations to
increase them)?



On refugees, as on most things, Labor is just a watered-down version of Liberal


On my way home from the forum, I called my wife, and told her I
shouldn’t have gone. But this morning, I’m glad I did. It reinforced for
me how Labor is now just a watered-down version of Liberal. How their
politicians are hypocritical, manipulative, disingenuous, evasive and
dangerous. More importantly, it strengthened my resolve to campaign for
better alternatives.



Liberal and Labor have passed their use-by date. Australia deserves better.

Wednesday 12 November 2014

Asylum-seeker conditions inhuman and unlawful, UN committee tells Australia

Asylum-seeker conditions inhuman and unlawful, UN committee tells Australia



Asylum-seeker conditions inhuman and unlawful, UN committee tells Australia




Detention
centres set up on Manus Island and Nauru criticised by Committee
Against Torture, which lays blame at Australia’s doorstep










Supplied image of an asylum seeker arriving on Manus Island. Photograph: Department of Immigration

Supplied image of an asylum seeker arriving on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea



Conditions on Manus Island and Nauru – the island states to which
Australia sends asylum seekers – amount to “cruel, inhuman, and
unlawful” punishment, the UN Committee Against Torture has told the
Australian government, while new laws to make it easier to forcibly
return asylum seekers to their homeland could breach the Convention
Against Torture.



Australia appeared before the UN committee in Geneva on Monday, where the committee heard that a migration amendment bill that is before the Senate would make it easier for Australia to send people back to torture, in breach of international law.


Australia ratified the torture convention in 1989, and is legally
bound by it. The convention not only outlaws torture, but prohibits
forcibly sending someone to a place where they could be tortured.



Australia has a statutory “complementary protection” obligation for
asylum seekers who fall outside the refugees convention but who are
still fleeing persecution in their home country.



The migration amendment (protection and other measures) bill before
the Senate would raise the threshold for complementary protection from a
“real chance” of persecution to “more likely than not”.



Essentially, if someone faced a 50% chance of being tortured in their home country, Australia could forcibly return them there.


Sophie Nicolle, the government relations adviser for Amnesty
International Australia who appeared before the committee, told Guardian
Australia the UN was highlighting what had been known domestically for
some time.



“And what we’d hope is that this kind of international scrutiny will
make Australia stop and think about the example we’re setting. It’s
really concerning for Australia, which is such a world leader in some
areas, to have so many black marks when it comes to our obligations
under this convention.”



Nicolle said under the proposed law changes “it would be impossible to safeguard against people being returned to torture”.


The Association for the Prevention of Torture told the UN in
submissions: “This higher threshold would amount to a violation of
Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention Against
Torture.”



In putting the bill before parliament, the immigration minister,
Scott Morrison, said the government would use a 50% chance of
“significant harm” for determining whether someone could be sent home,
which “reflects the government’s interpretation of Australia’s
obligations”.



However, the Australian parliament’s human rights committee –
dominated and chaired by Coalition members – said the legislation “was
incompatible with Australia’s human rights obligations”.



“As a principle of international law, it is not open for a state party to unilaterally reinterpret its obligations.”


Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers and refugees was the focus of
the first day of Australia’s hearings before the UN’s Committee Against
Torture in Geneva.



The committee told Australia conditions on the island detention
centres of Manus Island and Nauru were “cruel, inhuman, and unlawful”,
and particularly condemned the mandatory detention of children.



The island detention centres have been the focus of consistent media attention since the deaths on Manus Island of Reza Berati and Hamid Kehazaei, and reports of violent attacks on child refugees on Nauru.


The committee’s chair, Claudio Grossman, said Australia could not
blame Nauru and Papua New Guinea for the conditions on the islands. He
said Australia had “effective control” of detention conditions.



“It is not convincing to claim Australia is not responsible for these people … Australia pays the bills,” he said.


Grossman said Australia should not punish asylum seekers because they
had arrived in the country by boat, or had paid people smugglers for
the journey.



“People smugglers could be smuggling people with valid refugee claims
… desperate people running from desperate situations sometimes resort
to smugglers,” he said.



And the committee questioned whether asylum seekers intercepted at
sea and questioned on board ships were being properly assessed for their
asylum claims.



The committee queried whether the 41 asylum seekers returned to Sri
Lanka and the 157 people taken to Nauru after being held for a month at
sea had access to legal advice and were asked questions in a language
they understood.



“How can you be sure you don’t return people to torture if you just
ask them a few questions on a boat?” one committee member, Jens Modvig,
asked.



Australia’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, John Quinn, said
Australia was working co-operatively with its regional neighbours to
combat people-smuggling operations.



“The Australian government has strengthened its policies to ensure
the protection of migrants, including asylum seekers, to prevent their
exploitation at the hands of people smugglers,” he said.



The ambassador said proposed legislative changes would “enhance the
fairness, accountability, and integrity” of Australia’s asylum-seeker
regime.



The Australian delegation, headed by Quinn, will reply to the
committee’s concerns on Tuesday afternoon, Geneva time. “You’ve given us
a lot of homework to do,” Quinn said.



Morrison announced on Tuesday that a dedicated team within his
department would oversee the management of immigration detention
centres.



“The detention assurance team will monitor the effectiveness of the
high standards in place for detention service providers including, where
necessary and appropriate, recommending action to deal with credible
allegations of misconduct should they arise,” he said.



The UN committee is to hand down its report on Australia on 28 November.