Amnesty calls for equal treatment of asylum-seekers
24 April 2009, 09:45AM
Amnesty International has expressed concern over the Australian government’s continuation of its excision policy, under which asylum-seekers who land in any of Australia’s so-called “excised territories” have fewer rights than those who land inside an official "migration zone". They are, for example, denied the right to appeal decisions to the independent Refugee Review Tribunal, as well as being denied the right to access the Australian court system.
We express this concern following news on April 22 that a number of asylum seekers badly injured in the boat incident off the coast of Western Australia on April 16, were, for medical reasons, taken to the Front Puffin oil rig prior to being moved to the Australian mainland for medical treatment.
The Australian government has now confirmed that the men who were taken to the Front Puffin rig will be treated as offshore arrivals, meaning that if and when they recover from their injuries, they will be transported to the Christmas Island detention facility to have their claims to asylum processed. Ironically, the 13 allowed to go through the onshore processing system will also be taken to Christmas Island to have their claims processed.
Australia claims to be committed to protecting those in genuine need, however this policy raises further questions as to the rational for creating a parallel processing system on the remote Christmas Island.
It is difficult to comprehend what message is being sent by detaining the two groups together on Christmas Island but processing them under different systems. Australia claims to be committed to protecting those in genuine need, however this policy raises further questions as to the rational for creating a parallel processing system on the remote Christmas Island.
“This is another example of the absurdity of Australia’s excision policy” said Dr Graham Thom, Refugee Coordinator for Amnesty International Australia.
“People have a fundamental human right to seek asylum, and Amnesty International believes that all people seeking asylum in Australia should receive equal treatment under the eyes of the law, regardless of their method of arrival.”
Amnesty International is calling on the government to end its excision policy and to close the Christmas Island detention facility. Australia must ensure its treatment of those fleeing persecution is further brought in line with its international human rights obligations.
The tragic deaths of a number of people in the boat incident off the coast of Western Australia highlights the heavy price that asylum-seekers sometimes pay in trying to rebuild their lives in a foreign country.
Amnesty International rejects the notion that the Rudd government's attempts to make immigration policy in Australia more humane - including easing the policy of mandatory detention, ending Temporary Protection Visas and moving away from the Pacific Solution - have been responsible for any increase in asylum-seekers arriving by sea.
Features and analysis
Healthy homelands
An Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory is showing the government how to close the health gap.
Childbirth in Sierra Leone
Many women in Sierra Leone spend the final months of pregnancy and agonising hours of childbirth fearing for their lives.
Harming Children
Professor Louise Newman explains how detaining children on Christmas Island is likely to affect their mental health.
These features are taken from our Human Rights Defender magazine - subscribe free now
By Category
By month
Make an impact
You can make a difference right now. Your action will help shine the light of hope into people's lives across the world.
Check out what 110,738 people are doing right now to support human rights.
Stay Informed
Get Involved
Amnesty International relies on your support to continue our vital work protecting human rights. Please help us keep governments accountable, bring the guilty to justice, and save lives.
Sitewide information
- Copyright © Amnesty International Australia
- ABN: 640 0280 6233
- Phone: 1300 300 920
Comments
Comments are submitted by members of the public and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Amnesty International Australia. If you find a comment objectionable please contact the web editor.
Simon
7 May 2009, 10:32PM
I think the following statistics may assist with the distinction between lawful and unlawful arrivals:
According to UNHCR around 4700 people sought asylum in Australia in 2008. Since July 2008, 500 people have arrived in Australia unlawfully by boat, in the 12 months prior to this only 25 people arrived by by boat. The remaining people who sought asylum arrived in the country lawfully, through the onshore route (i.e. turned up at the immigration desk and announced that they would like to seek asylum please).
Andrew
2 May 2009, 03:46AM
James, I used the term unlawful arrivals because i believe that is the correct term until a claim for asylum is made - although i have no problem with the term Asylum seekers either. Some will most definitely become genuine refugees, some most definitely will not. One arrival has described how he came to Australia by boat because he had been refused legal entry 3 times prior - the chances of him staying i would expect to be quite slim.
I don’t think its fair or sustainable to offer unlimited broadband, training programmes and unlimited international phone calls to one group of people using taxpayers money whilst excluding other groups from the same privilege. As funds become more limited its these things i would like to see cut. The more benefits that are given to the few arrivals that make it to Australia, the less capacity there is to accept more genuine refugees. Do we shower those who arrive with benefits, or do we offer fewer benefits and accept more arrivals?
James Fehon
1 May 2009, 06:08PM
Andrew, the majority of arrivals are legal/lawful, removing this misconception is important. It wouldn’t be right, in fact would be incredibly irresponsible to offer no support to legitimate refugees. I think the support extended is really quite basic in nature & I doubt there’s much difference between these & services available in our prison system for example.
I don’t think you can really argue that asylum seekers are privileged when compared to Australian society generally or that the spending for a programme assisting refugees in our country is particularly disproportionate. As an Australian tax payer I believe it deserves adequate funding & don’t think it should be first to go should there be greater need in other areas.
I certainly don’t envy the situation of someone who has had to flee because I’m being persecuted for my race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. We’re privileged in Australia that we’re not.
Andrew
1 May 2009, 05:46PM
Thankyou Alex and James - that made sense. However Adriana - I ask you what quality of care is an Austrlain worker receiving who finds through no fault of their own that they are jobless and will soon also be homeless? One of the issues that many people have is the disproportionate assitance received by unlawful arrivals as opposed to Australian Citizen Taxpayers. Free broadband, international calls, sporting programmes and education programmes are not available to the wider community, whilst I am not downplaying that many will be genuine refugees and in genuine need, you cannot ignore that there position can also be viewed as privalaged. Ie they are better off than those in indonesia, better off than those still at home & better off than many Austrlians.
Nicholas Gysi
30 April 2009, 07:51PM
Australia must embrace international law on the matter of the treatment of refugees.
Adriana Volona
30 April 2009, 06:25PM
I wonder who is monitoring the quality of care received by those in detention centres on Christmas Island?
Whilst on the mainland, members of the public had access to visiting asylum seekers and were able to report their conditions…however off the mainland, this is somewhat difficult for many!!!!!!
Alex Pags
29 April 2009, 06:42PM
As for the Indonesia issue, James was correct in pointing out that Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention and nor does it have any legislative framework for the protection of refugees - so claiming asylum in Indonesia is not an option. With no legal status, it is impossible for refugees in Indonesia to work legally, access health services and send their children to school. And without legal status, they are always at risk of being forced to leave.
I hope that clears things up a bit
Alex Pags
29 April 2009, 06:42PM
Hey Andrew,
Obviously there are always going to be some cases where detention is justifiable and Amnesty International does not oppose all detention for people arriving in Australia without valid documentation. There are instances where initial detention may be necessary, for example to establish a person’s identity or perform health and security checks. However, international human rights law requires that governments do not detain people automatically or beyond what is a reasonable length of time - a law that Australia is currently breaking.
There are many alternatives to mandatory detention that if implemented would be far more humane and have a positive impact on Australia’s human rights record. A good example is the Swedish detention policy, a summery of which can be found at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/current/alt-swedish.html.
James Fehon
28 April 2009, 05:44PM
Hi Andrew, They’re reasonable and logical questions and often brought up.
The government does not detain asylum seekers who arrive by plane so it’s already being done, a system with reception centres replacing detention centres might be best suited to those arriving by sea.
The process of returning someone illegally in the country, should they then avoid deportation, should be the same for those overstaying visa’s.
My understanding is Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee convention, meaning it provides no real or permanent protection to those seeking asylum. We’ve seen just this Monday Indonesia returning people hoping to claim asylum in Australia to Afghanistan without considering the validity of their claim (as they’ve no legal obligation to where we do).
A very brief response but hope it addresses each point.
Andrew
27 April 2009, 11:39AM
Two sets of rules for Asylum seekers arriving on the same boat is difficult to comprehend, and a quicker method of determining who is or is not in genuine need of protection must surely be possible. I have some questions though on the other issues - How can you process Asylum claims without manadatory detention? ie what happens to those who are not determined in need of protection if they are not in detention? Why would someone who is safe from persecution in indonesia require protection in Australia? Can someone please give a reasonable/logical answer to the above without resorting to xenophobic, heartless or racist tags to anyone who dares ask a question.
Frank
25 April 2009, 02:43PM
We need to pressure the Australian Government to amend or preferably replace the Migration Act to make it consistent with the Refugee Convention. This should include repealing the amendments made in 2001-2006, and making indefinite detention illegal.
Anonymous
24 April 2009, 01:45PM
i like this
Page 1 of 1 pages