The Policy of Mandatory - Essay Example

Introduction There is a long history of migration into Australia commencing with the Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginals migration into the country. The influx of societies from various religious and socio-cultural background since colonization has led to the country’s diverse and multicultural make-up. Australia’s policy of mandatory detention introduced in 1992 by the Keating government is considered a legal requirement to detain the non-citizens lacking valid visas. The requirement under this policy is that the nationals from other countries without visas within Australia are detained until they obtain an alternative visa or until through the grant of a bridging visa while making plans to depart they are offered lawful status. The government of Australia has made minimal changes to their fundamental responsibility in responding humanely to the problems of the dispossessed. The aim of this paper is to support the debate on stopping the county’s policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers arriving in boats because there are alternatives. Individuals arriving in Australia by air with valid visas including student or tourist visa are granted bridging visa after applying for asylum and are they are permitted to live within the country while the assessment of their claims is being undertaken. Conversely, the asylum seekers getting into the country by sea are either turned back or taken into Australian financed detention centres in certain countries including Manus Province in Papua New Guinea or Nauru. These offshore detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru have been reported to lack humane and safe conditions of treatment and they fail to offer timely and adequate solutions to the asylum seekers. The Australian government was active in bringing ships of displaced individuals from Europe during the post-war period. The number of refugees settled between 1947 and 1954 in Australia was approximately 171,000. Despite the motivation of the policy which was based on concerns regarding the country’s decreasing population and the workforce rather than based on grounds of humanity. After the unfortunate occurrence of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. in 2001, the Coalition government exploited public anxieties and developed rhetoric. This led to the legislative divide between the rights of the perceived ‘genuine’ refugees resettled in the country from settlements and camps abroad by means of offshore humanitarian program and the individuals arriving into the country spontaneously, particularly by boat and described as unauthorized arrivals or illegals. The policy of mandatory detention first constituted in 1992 by the labour government with the intention as a temporary and extraordinary measure for a second influx of boat people majorly from Cambodia but later reconstituted to encompass all ‘unlawful non-citizens. The politicians developed a distinction between ‘good refugees’ and ‘bad refugees’ which is not identified by the international law. The resettlement of refugees does not depend on the period of waiting but rather it depends on factors including; suitability for resettlement, vulnerability, nations deemed to be primacies of resettlement, and the perceptions of organizations and individuals within the country. At times, the resettlement of refugees is in a different country other than the one they fled and they are referred to as offshore applicants. Resettling refugees from cams is voluntary and it is a legal obligation for Australia to resettle the refugees who arrive directly into the country. Unfortunately, according to the Australian policy of mandatory detention, a place is deducted from the offshore program when the country accepts an asylum seeker arriving to the country by boat or plane. The 1951 Refugee Convention stated that individuals do not need to be punished for their manner of arrival while in search of asylum. Also, the nation is bound on the 1967 Protocol regarding the Status of Refugees to safeguard the rights if refugees and asylum within its territory (Koser 2015). Also, through the Migration Regulations 1994 and the Migration Act 1958, the 1951 Refugee Convention and its Protocol have been incorporated in the country’s national legislation. Therefore, the violation of the Refugee Convention by the country illustrates its failure to abide by the standards stipulated within its constitution and to the international law (Koser 2015). The Convention considers an individual who fears persecution for motives of religion, race, membership of a particular political or social group, or nationality and seeks characteristic residence outside the persecuting nation to be a refugee. Refugees are entitled access to social security, health care, housing services, English class, free primary and secondary schooling, and subsidized accommodations. Nonetheless, the dual treatment of asylum seekers by the government based primarily on their method of arrival is a violation of the Refugee Convention. Therefore, by penalizing the asylum seekers considered to have entered ‘illegally’ infringes the Article 31 of the convention (Koser 2015). Since the Refugee Convention requires states not to return refugees into countries they are likely to face persecution, the policy proposed by Abbot’s to ‘turn boats around’ violates the principle of ‘non-refoulement’. The forced resettlement of refugees in Manus, Papua New Guinea and Nauru is a violation of the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ because the resettlement countries lack sufficient capacity to offer adequate resources to the individuals in detention. In addition, the status of Nauru being a non-member to the 1951 Convention poses controversy on the forced detention of asylums even with Australia’s initiative of funding them (Koser 2015). The offshore centres have been marred by controversies and tragedies including the apparent murder of an Iranian asylum seeker Reza Barati by the security officers (Gerard and Kerr 2016). Also, during the same unrest on Manus Island, several individuals were injured. Another case reported was the death of Hamid Kehazaei an asylum seeker on Manus after delays in receiving treatment on a blister that turned septic. Also, the Forgotten Children report published in 2014 found that children on Nauru faced serious levels of emotional, physical, developmental, and psychological distress (Gerard and Kerr 2016). The report notes that the policies in Australia breach the principles of the Convention on the rights of the child and highlights the issue of mandatory detention with no specific time limit. The mandatory detention of asylum seekers should be stopped so as to avoid the violation of the international law and the constitution and to minimize the extents of human rights violation (Sampson 2015). The policy for forced resettlement of asylum seekers entering by boat can be reformed to suit certain alternatives. The aims of the alternative policy include; Responding to asylum seekers and refugees in a non-punitive and humanitarian manner To accomplish the country’s obligations in dealing with asylum seekers and refugees To consent to a realistic proportion of refugee commensurate with the country’s wealth and population To offer, where possible, safe transport of refugees to the countries of resettlement from their country of transit. To embolden acceptance of asylum seekers and refugees with the Australian public To terminate the ongoing inhuman treatment of refugees and asylum seekers by detaining them overseas while they await the processing of their visas (Sampson 2015). Therefore, the policy alternatives recommended are inclusive of; A substantial increase in the number of refugees accepted by Australia Swift and fair processing of visa application for asylum seekers in transit countries such as Indonesia (Sampson 2015). Regional dialogue with neighbouring states to allow for cooperation and facilities in aiding the processing of applications of individuals coming to Australia and to allow the safe resettlement and transportation Discussions with the international community concerning their increase in number of refugees Non-discrimination in application processing for asylum based on the method of arrival of the individuals Termination of detention centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea and the asylum seekers intercepted should be brought to the mainland for checks and application processing. The processing of applications should be undertaken while the asylum seekers and refugees work and live within the community There is the need for an independent external review of the ASIO assessment There should be no deportation of asylum seekers to countries they are likely to face persecution and no support should be offered to regimes attempting to prevent the journey of asylum seekers Asylum seekers need to be accorded equal rights in addition to social, economic, human, and cultural rights set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its Protocol (Sampson 2015). Conclusion Overall, the discussions on mandatory detention should be focussed on ending forced resettlement of the asylum seekers based on their method of arrival. Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its Protocol and therefore the forced detentions are a violation of the international law and the human rights enshrined in its constitution. Several cases of human rights violation have been reported in the detention centres in the Pacific Island countries including deaths, child molestation, and poor heath services. The policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers entering by boat should be changed to alternatives of better treatment of asylum seekers. References Gerard, A.F. and Kerr, T.A., 2016. Emerging Zones of Legal Ambiguity and Lethal Violence: Deaths in Australia's Offshore Detention Centres. Murder, Gender and Responsibility, Routledge: London. Koser, K., 2015. Australia and the 1951 Refugee Convention. Sampson, R., 2015. With hope and solidarity: Pursuing alternatives to immigration detention. Read More