Government must abolish discriminatory practices following landmark court ruling
Amnesty International has called on the Australian Government to do away with “non-statutory” decision making processes which discriminate against asylum seekers who arrive by boat, following a landmark High Court judgment delivered today.
The decision relates to test cases, brought by two asylum seekers, which sought to challenge the validity of processing asylum seekers outside of Australian law and denying them access to the Australian court system. The decision upholds all asylum seekers’ rights to procedural fairness, judicial review and equal treatment before the law.
“The highest court in Australia has today confirmed that all asylum seekers are entitled to the same legal treatment, and that life-and-death decisions about their fate cannot be made without proper legal scrutiny. This is a fact that refugee advocates and human rights groups have always maintained, but that many politicians have sought to ignore,” said Dr Graham Thom, Refugee Coordinator for Amnesty International.
The international human rights organisation welcomed the court’s finding that procedural fairness must be upheld in all cases, but acknowledged that many questions remain as to what the impact of the decision will be on the current systems of excision and offshore processing.
In 2001 the Australian Government legislated to excise a number of territories from Australia’s migration zone. The effect of this move was to afford boat arrivals fewer rights, including subjecting them to a process that has no legal basis under Australian law and whereby their ongoing detention is not subject to judicial scrutiny.
“Amnesty International calls on the government to seize the opportunity provided by today’s ruling and rid Australia, once and for all, of the non-statutory processing system in place for boat arrivals. Instead, the government should move to treat all asylum seekers equally,” said Graham Thom.
“Amnesty International has consistently condemned the Australian Government’s decision to set up two separate processing systems, one of which blatantly discriminates against boat arrivals. Today’s ruling provides the government with an opportunity to rectify that grave and long-standing error of judgment.”
Amnesty International has campaigned vigorously against the policies of excision and offshore processing since their introduction, arguing for a uniform system of assessment of claims from all asylum seekers, regardless of country of origin or mode of arrival. The organisation maintains that excision, offshore processing, and mandatory and remote detention are inconsistent with Australia’s international human rights obligations and should be abolished.
“The excision policy has done major damage to Australia’s reputation internationally, and has undermined respect in this country for the principles of refugee protection. This ruling provides an opportunity for the government to start the process of rectifying that damage and according all asylum seekers equal access to the legal protection to which they are entitled,” said Graham Thom.
“In light of this finding the Gillard Government cannot continue to discriminate against desperate people who come to Australia by boat seeking our protection. The government must apply this ruling in good faith, and must not seek to absolve itself of responsibility by enacting new legislation that undermines fundamental human rights.”
“Amnesty International offers its congratulations to the individuals who brought this landmark case, and to their legal team. Test cases such as these serve to hold governments to account for their actions.”


Comments
flaub | Posted on 25 November 2010, 07:30AM | Report comment
@thevoicereason it is generally reckoned that about 15% of all Muslims will embrace violent jihad under the right circumstances. Even a figure of 5% of all Muslims prepared to jihad is a scary thought. 15% is a big number. The destruction of the World Trade Centre brought tens of thousands of celebrating Muslims into the street throughout the lslamic world. Surveys have revealed around 60% of all Muslims approved of the slaughter that was visited upon New York. lt has been mentioned in some reports around 80% of refugees to Australia are Muslim.
Andrew J S | Posted on 17 November 2010, 08:36AM | Report comment
Whilst i agree with the high court decision, I really think it will make the return of TPV’s inevitable. The current situation is chaos, there simply is not enough court time to process all the current claims let alone those that are still arriving. If mandatory detention is to end also, which it inevitably will as it is already struggling to cope, what controls are left on immigration? Do we really want a open border policy? or do we set asylum seekers free in the comminity but retrict them via the visa process? I think the latter is the more likely. Will this mean a 2 class Australia where foreigners are exploited due to the visa they hold?
Joe Selvaretnam | Posted on 17 November 2010, 07:42AM | Report comment
Its refreshing to witness the rule of law making an important decision over a politicised issue by both Labour & Liberal. Well done to the Judiciary.
thevoiceofreason | Posted on 16 November 2010, 11:59AM | Report comment
flaub, would you happen to actually have a referrence or a source for that? Or is it some form of magic number?
The groups currently accounting for the majority of asylum seekers are;
- Tamils from Sri Lanka, who are predominately Catholic or Hindu.
- Hazara from Afghanistan, and while they are Shi’a Muslim, they are fleeing persecution and ethnic cleansing from the (extremist Sunni Muslim Pashtun) Taliban, who openly state Hazara’s are to be targetted.
To equate all followers of the Muslim faith with extremism would be a falsity.
Andrew J S | Posted on 16 November 2010, 11:45AM | Report comment
How is the religion of the refugee claimant relevant? My guess is that Muslim dominated countries tend to cause the most refugees, especially for the non muslim residents, so I am not entirely suprised by the statistic. The law has to treat everyone the same otherwise we lose all sense of fairness and become an oppressive regime in our own right. That being said - it is not fair that those found to not be genuine refugees are able to exhaust so many of our taxpayer resources in endless pointless appeals with no consequence to themselves financially - It is this lengthy part of the process that is causing the most harm.
flaub | Posted on 16 November 2010, 09:54AM | Report comment
l read 80% of those arriving by boat are Muslim.
l wonder what percentage of those arriving by other means are Muslim? Apparently most refugee claimants arrive by plane?
Sumit Desai | Posted on 12 November 2010, 02:22PM | Report comment
This decision could be enough to stop the ridiculous discrimination of people arriving by boat. There has been entirley too much hype about boat arrivals, spurred on by the media, that has led to this sort of discrimination. The truth is that the vast majority of people arrive by plane and boat arrivals have just been used as a political tool.
Andrew J S | Posted on 11 November 2010, 04:22PM | Report comment
The High court decision will probably mean that all asylum seekers will be treated equally - which is a good thing. It will almost certainly however mean that further legislation will be enacted that will ultimately be to the detriment of all Asylum seekers. There is absolutely no way this could speed up processing of claims and the resulting backlog will mean the return of TPV’s and other policies will become necessary to create at least the impression of doing something to deter future arrivals. If this is not done, essentially an explosion in the illegal people smuggling operations will be the result and with it many more lost at sea. The high court decision may ultimately prove not to a good thing for the asylum seekers