Australias Mandatory Detention Policy - Essay Example

Australia's policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers who arrive by boat breaches international human rights conventions and should be stopped because there are alternatives Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Introduction Ladies and gentlemen, I am here to debate on something very important that affects the stability and ethical position of Australia, and that is its policy on asylum seekers arriving by boat. A number of researchers and international observers have argued that the Australian policy of mandatory detaining asylum seekers arriving by boat violates international conventions in protection of refugees. I strongly oppose this affirmation and assert that the government of Australia should continue its mandatory detention of persons who arrive in or are in Australia without a valid visa. I will be talking about why the mandatory detention is necessary and the reason Australia cannot take the alternative route. It is true that people seeking asylum or arriving in Australia without a visa will be required to stay in detention for a while as the authorities gather basic information about their identity, asylum claim, and security and health issues. While mandatory detention continues to stir debate among detractors and supporters, the bottom line is to protect the Australian border and maintain the integrity of its immigration system. Australia’s policy on mandatory detention Ladies and gentlemen, my opponents may be correct in arguing that mandatory detention lead to human rights breaches. I agree that Australia has ratified a number of international conventions including International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of Children (CRC). These treaties and conventions confer freedoms and rights to individuals in detention, and that no one should be subjected to arbitrary detention. Moreover, all persons deserve to be treated with respect and humanity without being subjected to degrading treatment, inhuman or cruel violations or punishment (AHRC 2014). Indeed, children are protected under the law where they should be detained a measure of last resort (McKenzie & Hasmath, 2013: 421). I also agree that refuges under CRC or ICCPR should not be discriminated or returned to their countries if their freedom or life is under threat. However, concur with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in their 1998 published report which stated that management of boat arrivals was inefficient and costly with risks to the efficiency of operations and economy (Phillips & Spinks, 2013). I believe that mandatory detention should continue with slight changes on issues regarding physical and verbal abuse of children, self harm and sexual violations and handling of psychiatric problems. Allow me to discredit the statement that people arriving by plane to Australia are treated fairly at the Australian border control point as opposed to those arriving by boat. DIBP (2012) argues that people with valid documents have fewer security risks compared with undocumented refugees entering Australia illegally. While some have argued that the mandatory detention policy is unsustainable, strenuous and costly (Green & Eagar, 2010; Jureidini & Burnside, 2011), refugees coming in uncontrolled numbers will eventually threaten the identity and security of Australia. More resources will be required to support their health, education and well-being at the behest of the taxpayers. Again, I know that long-term detention of refugees is counter-productive because the Commonwealth has paid out over $12 million between the year 2000 and 2010 to compensate individuals for wrongful detention (DIBP 2015). Indeed, there is no repatriation or detention without socio-economic and environmental costs. Just like many European countries grappling with the refugee crisis, Australia is not an exception. Being a developed country, many people including political and economic asylum seekers will take every opportunity to arrive in Australia. Many are aware of the grueling journey but choose to go through it anyway under the operations of bogus cartels and individuals facilitating transportation of such persons at a fee (AHRC 2014). If not checked, Australia may be losing its borders to illegal refugees arriving by boats. There are less punitive options or viable alternatives to detention as argued by my opponents. They maintain that it fulfills the international obligations of Australia and benefits all the stakeholders. Remember that the Centre for Policy Development proposed a risk-based approach where all the arriving persons, legal or illegal, are to be screened within a short timeframe and their fate known in due time (Schloenhardt 2000: 38). I disagree with this proposal as an alternative option because people entering Australia ought to express the desire to enter the country for a number of reasons that is known by the authorities. First, the immigration department needs to document their level of skills and competencies, health status, security threat amid growing global terrorism and their ability to acclimatize with the Australian employment and social environment. Second, United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) maintains that mandatory detention should be replaced by community detention or no detention at all (UNHCR 2013). Implementing such as policy will open the floodgate of illegal refugees from many countries who have the thought that the conditions are now ‘better’ in Australia than that of their home countries. Who will meet the cost of buying the basic needs of these persons in community detention? Definitely it will be the Australian government. Note that the government will receive little or no help at all from international bodies agitating for political and fundamental human rights of refugees. Throughout this debate, I have argued that mandatory detention is necessary for Australia to bring order and maintain the integrity of its immigration program. The High Court of Australia confirmed the constitutionality of indefinite detention, and that it is mandatory to aliens (Phillips, et al. 2011). The Migration Reform Act of 1992 was established by the Keating government to check on unlawful arrivals which had witnessed a sharp increase in boat arrivals. When the Solution Policy was implemented, it led to a sharp decline in boat arrivals which indicated that the move was effective (McMaster & Metcalfe, 2010). After it was dismantled by the Rudd government, boat arrivals soared leading the Gillard government to restore this mandatory detention. While there are reported cases of wrongful immigration detention, suicides and deaths in custody, it does not imply that all these cases are related to boat arrivals (Fraser 2013). It is the international organizations that need to cooperate with Australia in stopping the boat arrivals and not getting involved in internal affairs of Australia. Once somebody enters Australia or its territorial waters, it is the mandate of the Australian government to act within its means to detain them as they take time to document and provide further action. Therefore, stopping mandatory detention is a ‘cheap’ option to the refugee crisis. Conclusion I would like to thank the audience, my opponents and the judges for coming to this debate. I am stating one final time that Australia’s mandatory detention policy should continue and that not alternatives should be taken. My opponents claim that the policy contravenes international conventions and fundamental human rights refugees is a forlorn ideal that serves to blanket the problem without addressing the effects of boat arrivals on Australian internal support systems. I am glad that my opponents brought up this idea because they now know that it is necessary to deter illegal entry and that each person arriving to Australia must be screened and documented. While my opponents claim a moral duty of Australia to put on a human face in handling the refugee crisis, I strongly believe that the refugee situation should be a common agenda between the host nation, source country and international human rights groups. I maintain that stopping mandatory detention or seeking alternatives will witness a sharp increase in boat arrivals. Thank you. References Australian Human Rights Commission 2014, Immigration detention and human rights, https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/projects/immigration-detention-and-human-rights. Department of Immigration and Border Protection 2012, Fact Sheet 82 – Immigration Detention, Australia. Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 2015, Immigration Detention and Community Statistics Summary, May 2015. Available: http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/immigration-detention-may2015.pdf. Green, J & Eagar, K 2010, The health of people in immigration detention centres, Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 192, no. 2, pp. 45-56. Fraser, M 2013, How Australia can solve its asylum seeker problem, The Age, 25 June 2011, viewed 5 March 2013,http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/how-australia-can-solve-its-asylum-seeker-problem-20110624-1gjlt.html.   Jureidini, J & Burnside, J 2011, Children in immigration detention: a case of reckless mistreatment, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 101-112. McKenzie, J & Hasmath, R 2013, Deterring the ‘Boat People’: Explaining the Australian Government's People Swap Response to Asylum Seekers", Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 417-430. McMaster, D & Metcalfe, S 2010, The Pacific Solution, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne. Phillips, J Spinks, H & Karlsen, E 2011, Responding to boat arrivals, Flagpost, Parliamentary Library, Canberra.   Phillips, J & Spinks, H 2013, Immigration detention in Australia. Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Commonwealth of Australia.  Schloenhardt, A 2000, Australia and the Boat-People: 25 Years of Unauthorized Arrivals, University of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 23, no.3, pp. 34-39. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Global Trends 2013, 20 June 2014. Read More