An introduction to the treatment of refugees in Australia
by Jessica Perini
In a just world we would have no need of refugee advocates.
Asylum seekers would be informed of their legal rights when they reached our sandy beaches or touched down on our tarmacs. Once informed they would be given legal assistance and be able to present their case to a court of law. They could prove their refugee status, be granted protection or be placed on a plane and sent back to their country of origin.
In a just world Australia would honour its international obligations. It would steadfastly follow the definition of ‘refugee’ in the Refugee Convention of 1951. Its politicians would not make laws to try to circumvent this and other treaties. Its leaders would respect the opinion of the United Nations and would accept its responsibility to those who are fleeing from persecution and bloodshed.
This utopian vision is sadly unrealistic in this day and place: Australia.
Australian refugee laws during the late 20th and early 21st century are driven by policies of a conservative government, and allowed to pass with little comment or struggle by a weak-willed Opposition. New legislation has changed the very nature of refugee claims. While the Refugee Convention definition is still integral to the proof of refugee status, the government has created laws to restrict that definition, so that it has become very difficult for refugees to prove their refugee status. Politicians have curbed the powers of the courts and rights to appeal. The Howard government has gone so far as to change the very definition of our ‘migration zone’, as they call it, so that asylum seekers can be deemed under law to have not reached Australia.
The government claims that it is merely punishing asylum seekers for not having gone through the ‘correct channels’. This is despite the fact that the United Nations acknowledges that fleeing one’s country and applying for refugee status is accepted as a correct channel.
Australia’s Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) system entrenches inequalities among asylum seekers once they have been accepted as refugees. TPVs must be renewed every three years. This means that every three years refugees have to prove their cases again. Australia is the only country in the world that makes refugees prove their cases over and over again. This would be similar to someone being proved innocent of murder, then having to do so again in three years time, with new evidence being admitted into the court. The law against this is called double jeopardy, it does not apply to refugees on TPVs.
Some people who are let out of detention are given a BVE (Bridging Visa E). This visa affords a person no right to work, or do volunteer work, study or claim Medicare. Basically they are let out of detention with the right to be destitute, and utterly reliant on charity, sometimes for years.
In the last week or so the Liberal government has proposed changes to the system of mandatory detention. Certain children are to be freed along with their families, TPV holders' claims for permanent protection are to be fast-tracked. Those detained after a two year period can have their cases reviewed by an ombudsman, who submits a report to the Minister for Immigration. Once he submits a report, he has no power to do anything else. She can look at it, share it with the parliament, then happily file it away.
Essentially, very little has changed. While children are to be held for 'the shortest possible period of time', they are still held at the Minister's mercy. The very same minister who has allowed children as young as six years old to be followed to and from school by an armed guard. A minister whose department has allowed and pursued decisions by the High Court to confirm the government's power to keep children in detention forever and without charge.
Yes, children are being freed. Yes, people's cases are being fast-tracked. Yes, cases are to be reviewed by an ombudsman. But TPVs still exist, people still languish on BVEs, islands are still excised from Australia's migration zone, mandatory detention means that people are still being held without charge, children of visa overstayers still peek out from behind the razor wire. And, if, God forbid, more boats set down on our excised regions and more children arrive with their families, they too may be kept on those islands indefinitely.
The Migration Act is rotten to the core. It needs to be repealed and Australian lawyers need to go back to the chalk board.
They can start by stating that the Refugee Convention, Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to start with) contain the core values on which our Migration Act will be based. If we use these as a launching point we'll soon find that few of our current provisions limiting the rights of asylum seekers will stand up in a court of law.
Next we should abolish all provisions that limit the rights of the courts to hear an appeal of an asylum seeker. This will fast-track cases because true justice can then be sought. People can have a real day in court, rather than a fake one, currently based on legalities only government lawyers could dream up to stymie legitimate claims by legitimate asylum seekers. Once basic human rights are asserted TPVs and BVEs must become a thing of bad memory. Mandatory detention will be abolished. Children will come to Australia and live with their families in the community without guards, while their parents apply for refugee status.
In this new world refugee advocates will become as rare as the dodo. A guide will usher children towards us in the museum. “This, children, is what we used to call the refugee advocate.” They stare up at us, their eyes wide with amazement. “Wow, they look just like normal people.”
In a just world we would have no need of refugee advocates.
Asylum seekers would be informed of their legal rights when they reached our sandy beaches or touched down on our tarmacs. Once informed they would be given legal assistance and be able to present their case to a court of law. They could prove their refugee status, be granted protection or be placed on a plane and sent back to their country of origin.
In a just world Australia would honour its international obligations. It would steadfastly follow the definition of ‘refugee’ in the Refugee Convention of 1951. Its politicians would not make laws to try to circumvent this and other treaties. Its leaders would respect the opinion of the United Nations and would accept its responsibility to those who are fleeing from persecution and bloodshed.
This utopian vision is sadly unrealistic in this day and place: Australia.
Australian refugee laws during the late 20th and early 21st century are driven by policies of a conservative government, and allowed to pass with little comment or struggle by a weak-willed Opposition. New legislation has changed the very nature of refugee claims. While the Refugee Convention definition is still integral to the proof of refugee status, the government has created laws to restrict that definition, so that it has become very difficult for refugees to prove their refugee status. Politicians have curbed the powers of the courts and rights to appeal. The Howard government has gone so far as to change the very definition of our ‘migration zone’, as they call it, so that asylum seekers can be deemed under law to have not reached Australia.
The government claims that it is merely punishing asylum seekers for not having gone through the ‘correct channels’. This is despite the fact that the United Nations acknowledges that fleeing one’s country and applying for refugee status is accepted as a correct channel.
Australia’s Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) system entrenches inequalities among asylum seekers once they have been accepted as refugees. TPVs must be renewed every three years. This means that every three years refugees have to prove their cases again. Australia is the only country in the world that makes refugees prove their cases over and over again. This would be similar to someone being proved innocent of murder, then having to do so again in three years time, with new evidence being admitted into the court. The law against this is called double jeopardy, it does not apply to refugees on TPVs.
Some people who are let out of detention are given a BVE (Bridging Visa E). This visa affords a person no right to work, or do volunteer work, study or claim Medicare. Basically they are let out of detention with the right to be destitute, and utterly reliant on charity, sometimes for years.
In the last week or so the Liberal government has proposed changes to the system of mandatory detention. Certain children are to be freed along with their families, TPV holders' claims for permanent protection are to be fast-tracked. Those detained after a two year period can have their cases reviewed by an ombudsman, who submits a report to the Minister for Immigration. Once he submits a report, he has no power to do anything else. She can look at it, share it with the parliament, then happily file it away.
Essentially, very little has changed. While children are to be held for 'the shortest possible period of time', they are still held at the Minister's mercy. The very same minister who has allowed children as young as six years old to be followed to and from school by an armed guard. A minister whose department has allowed and pursued decisions by the High Court to confirm the government's power to keep children in detention forever and without charge.
Yes, children are being freed. Yes, people's cases are being fast-tracked. Yes, cases are to be reviewed by an ombudsman. But TPVs still exist, people still languish on BVEs, islands are still excised from Australia's migration zone, mandatory detention means that people are still being held without charge, children of visa overstayers still peek out from behind the razor wire. And, if, God forbid, more boats set down on our excised regions and more children arrive with their families, they too may be kept on those islands indefinitely.
The Migration Act is rotten to the core. It needs to be repealed and Australian lawyers need to go back to the chalk board.
They can start by stating that the Refugee Convention, Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to start with) contain the core values on which our Migration Act will be based. If we use these as a launching point we'll soon find that few of our current provisions limiting the rights of asylum seekers will stand up in a court of law.
Next we should abolish all provisions that limit the rights of the courts to hear an appeal of an asylum seeker. This will fast-track cases because true justice can then be sought. People can have a real day in court, rather than a fake one, currently based on legalities only government lawyers could dream up to stymie legitimate claims by legitimate asylum seekers. Once basic human rights are asserted TPVs and BVEs must become a thing of bad memory. Mandatory detention will be abolished. Children will come to Australia and live with their families in the community without guards, while their parents apply for refugee status.
In this new world refugee advocates will become as rare as the dodo. A guide will usher children towards us in the museum. “This, children, is what we used to call the refugee advocate.” They stare up at us, their eyes wide with amazement. “Wow, they look just like normal people.”
posted by Jessica at 7:01 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home