START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Sep 7, 2011

Following is an extract from the UNHCR paper on asylum seekers in relation to Australia. Asylum seekers were processed on shore until Paul Keating introduced mandatory detention during his time as Prime Minister of Australia. The Howard government took this policy one step further with the 'Pacific Solution'. It would appear that in doing so, Australia is failing to fully comply with its legal obligations under the treaty. 

What happened to turn a nation with a compassionate, generous attitude towards the plight of refugees, to an attitude that borders on xenophobia? Was Paul Keating reacting to the wishes of the nation, or did the nation merely accept his views on how this situation should be handled, exacerbated by the Howard government's Pacific Solution and media hype that the country was about to be overrun by its Asian neighbours? 

There is much talk about 'legal' and 'illegal' immigrants in the asylum seeker debate which totally disregards the fact that asylum seekers/refugees are not included in immigration numbers, i.e. people who apply to migrate to Australia for any number of reasons other than loss of life, liberty or torture; that is a totally separate issue. Not all asylum seekers have access to 'legal' means of applying for entry to our country. What are they supposed to do when life and limb is at stake? 

Why is it not possible for asylum seekers to apply for temporary visas at our embassies (we have one in Indonesia - the main jumping off point for boat people), enter the country by legal means, and be processed on shore while living and working in the community? Would this not be a more humane, practical solution that would also save this country millions of dollars every year, not to mention stopping the people smuggling trade dead in its tracks, something both sides of the political spectrum insist is their main reason for mandatory off shore detention? 

This is a complex issue that is creating concern world wide, but surely at the core of the debate should be the protection and humane treatment of people who have already experienced the worst we humans have to offer? Are 'concentration camps' really the answer? Is there really 'no room at the Inn?'

What are the Commission's views about the refugee assessment process?
Asylum seekers who arrive on the mainland

Asylum seekers who arrive on the Australian mainland (or in any non-excised part of Australia) and apply for protection are assessed through the refugee status determination system that applies under the Migration Act.

Under this system, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) makes a primary assessment as to whether an applicant meets the criteria for refugee status and whether they should be granted a protection visa. If an asylum seeker is refused a protection visa by DIAC, they have access to independent merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT), or in some circumstances the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). In limited circumstances, they can seek judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Court of decisions made by the RRT or the AAT.

The Commission raised concerns about Australia’s refugee status determination system, as it applies to child asylum seekers, in the report of its national inquiry into children in immigration detention, A last resort? 

The Commission has also made a number of submissions about Bills relating to various stages of the refugee status determination process, arguing that the human rights of asylum seekers and refugees should be protected throughout the process:

Asylum seekers who arrive in excised offshore places

Asylum seekers who arrive in excised offshore places such as Christmas Island are barred from the refugee status determination system that applies under the Migration Act.

These asylum seekers are not able to submit a valid visa application unless the Minister for Immigration exercises his or her personal discretion to allow them to submit an application. They have no access to the Refugee Review Tribunal. Instead, their refugee claims are assessed through a ‘non-statutory’ process.

In the Commission’s view, this two-tiered system for determining whether an asylum seeker is a refugee undermines Australia’s international human rights obligations and obligations under the Refugee Convention.

The Commission has recommended that the Australian Government should repeal the provisions of the Migration Act relating to excised offshore places and abandon the policy of processing some asylum claims through a separate ‘non-statutory’ process. All unauthorised arrivals who make claims for asylum in Australia should have those claims assessed through the refugee status determination system that applies under the Migration Act.

For further information see:


What happens to people who are not determined to be refugees but still need protection?

In some cases, a person may not meet the Refugee Convention definition of a refugee, but may nevertheless face significant human rights abuses such as torture if returned to their country of origin.

Currently, the only avenue of protection for such people is to apply to the Minister for Immigration to request that the Minister exercise his or her personal discretion to issue a visa under section 417 of the Migration Act.

The Commission has raised concerns that the section 417 Ministerial discretion is not an adequate mechanism to protect people from refoulement. In particular, the Minister’s discretionary power is non-compellable and the Minister’s decisions are not reviewable. The Minister is also not obliged to give reasons for his or her decisions.

The Commission has recommended that the Australian Government adopt a legislated system of complementary protection to implement Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In September 2009 the Australian Government introduced the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Bill 2009 (Cth) into Parliament. While the Commission welcomed the Bill, it expressed some concerns about the scope of protection proposed by the Bill and recommended a number of amendments.

The Commission welcomed the introduction into Parliament of an amended version of the Bill, the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Bill 2011 (Cth), in February 2011. While the Commission still has some concerns about the scope of protection proposed, the adoption of the Bill would be a positive first step in establishing a legislated complementary protection regime. The Commission hopes to see the Bill passed.

For further information see:

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Wednesday September 7, 2011, 9:04 am
Tags: politics asylum seekers [add/edit tags]

Group Discussions
Comments
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:

Past Member (0)
Tuesday September 27, 2011, 4:19 pm
Why do we insist on treating asylum seekers like criminals and keep them in Detention Cenre Jails? These people are looking for a new life, away from the persecution of their so called "Home" countries. Naru is not the answer and Malaysia is not the answer.but processing them in Australia in a quick and orderly fashion IS THE ANSWER. There has not been one single "Terrorist" been found in any of the boats that have come to our shore, Why don't the federal and state governments just PROCESS THEM QUICKER - it doesn't take a world class genus to work that one out!

Author

Shirley Marsh
female , divorced, 3 children
Fremantle, WA, Australia
SHIRLEY'S SHARES
Aug
15
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\nASLYUM SEEKERS: Has anybody read the Greens’ proposal and the recommendations of the UNHCR? They are almost identical.  \r\n\r\nPROBLEM: Why do people board boats? In desperation because of the lengthy waiting periods (sometimes years) for ass...
Sep
12
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\nWhat\'s it all about, Alfie?\r\nGood question, and one that is pondered over by just about everyone on the planet at one time or another!\r\nThe most frequently asked question within this context, especially when disaster strikes, seems to be ‘Why&r...
Sep
1
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\nI recommend the following article to everyone interested in the future of renewable energy technology and how it is being utilised around the world. It exposes completely the myths being perpetuated by the Opposition and the 19th century fossil fuel ...


SHARES FROM SHIRLEY'S NETWORK
Apr
3
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\r\\nI don\\\'t think any of you live in Rochester, NY, but the funny thing is that everyone seems to know someone in Rochester NY. So any and all efforts to publicize this event through facebook, twitter, etc., will be greatly appreciated and may bear f...
Mar
14
(1 comments  |  discussions )
\\nThank you all, my friends and family, for the enthuiasiam you have shown in the last 14 hours with the three news stories I posted recently. If any of you are curious, here\\\'s a blog the organization I volunteer for wrote about my recent testimony b...
Aug
15
by JC S.
(1 comments  |  discussions )
What are they trying to hide??????http://www.nati onofchange.org/chemical-i ndustry-spent-almost-10-m illion-against-gmo-labeli ng-1345037019 
Feb
9
by Jane B.
(8 comments  |  discussions )
My petition is on a News Story.  Please read, sign and comment. 
Jan
7
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\r\\nGreetings, friends. \\r\\n \\r\\nFirst, let me take a minute to thank you all for all the cards and kind notes I’ve received around the holidays.  I deeply appreciate it. \\r\\nSecond, I want to share what’s going on with me, and s...


MORE MEMBER BLOGS
Mar 31
Blog: How to Extend the Life of your TRIAD Boilers by Kayleigh L.
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — \\nHow to Extend the Life of your TRIAD Boilers \\r\\n \\r\\nCorlis Engine Review\\r\\nEvery user desires to prolong the life of a unit. TRIAD assists their clients in achieving this important objective by informing them of ways they can avoid problems... more
Feb 27
Blog: Dr Oz Weight Loss - The 100% Natural And Very Efficient Diet Pill by Debra S.
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — \\nYes, Dr. Oz called Garcinia Cambogia Extract (HCA) the Holy Grail of Weight Loss. He went on to say, “Anytime I see a scientist get this excited about something like Garcinia Cambogia Extract and when I looked through some of this research and... more
Blog: My Favorite Websites by krysta I.
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — \\nIFAW: www.ifaw.org\\r\\nOCEANA www.oceana.org\\r\\nPETA: www.peta.org\\r\\nEARTH 911: www.earth911.org\\r\\nANI MALs ASIA: www.animalsasia.org\\r\\n \\r\\n\\r\\n\\n more
Feb 21
Blog: testing one two three by Geoff M.
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — hello world more
Blog: Garcinia Cambogia Reviews From Actual People Garcinia Pure Extract Is A Huge Success February 20 by Dany M.
(0 comments  |  0 discussions ) — \\nGarcinia Cambogia Reviews From Actual People Garcinia Pure Extract Is A Huge Success February 20\\r\\nGarcinia Cambogia System The Dr. Oz Lose Weight Quick Process Without Having Side Effects\\r\\nHe went on to say, “At any time I see a researcher... more
 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.