Government misleading UN over critical report card
Amnesty International says that the Government’s response to its human rights scorecard from the United Nations is disappointing and deliberately misleading.
An Australian Government delegation will appear at the UN Human Rights Council this evening (Geneva, 8 June approx 6pm EST) to present its response to the international review of the country's human rights record.
"The UN Periodic Review is a comprehensive scorecard on a country's performance, and Australia failed in a number of key areas, such as its treatment of asylum seekers and Indigenous Peoples," says Claire Mallinson, National Director of Amnesty International Australia.
The Government has just responded to all 145 Review recommendations and Amnesty International says the Government's responses don’t match the reality experienced by many vulnerable people.
“For example, the Government says that it accepts that asylum seekers should only be detained when strictly necessary and that detention be limited to the shortest time reasonably necessary. The reality, however, is that under Australia’s mandatory detention policy all asylum seekers who arrive by boat are detained and are held until their status is finalised, leading to some detainees being held for years.
“Despite a shift in government policy to release a number of families into community detention, the government only partially accepted the recommendation that child asylum seekers not be held in detention facilities. According to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 804 children were still detained in immigration facilities as of May 13,” says Mallinson.
Amnesty International condemns the Australian Government’s refusal to end its policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers.
“Another Government claim that the Racial Discrimination Act has been reinstated is clearly playing around the issue. The Act was suspended to allow for the Northern Territory Intervention and has only partially been reinstated. Elements of the discrimination inherent in the Intervention continue to exist, such as compulsory lease acquisition, and there has been no remedy available for those whose rights have been violated,” says Mallinson.
There are other disappointments in the Government’s response to the Review, including the refusal to introduce a Human Rights Act. Australia remains the only liberal democracy without comprehensive national legal protection of human rights.
"The Government was handed a human rights scorecard and asked by the International community to lift its game. There is a gap between the Government’s claim to be ‘doing the right’ thing and its actions," says Mallinson.
Comments
Andrew J S | Posted on 10 June 2011, 10:53PM | Report comment
Hi Michael
The security checks shouldn’t ever take years, a few months maybe, 6 to 8 weeks average would be acceptable. so like most people i think the current time frame is a cruel farce.
It is probably unlikely that terrorists would be refugees, but security checks find those who have committed other crimes, including murder, child abduction, both outstanding civil and criminal offences.
I would hate to think that we create a system where people can evade justice by waiving security checks, but equally a security check should not be used as an excuse for indefinite detention as currently seems to be the case.
If we had human rights laws the effects of indefinite detention could legally be challenged and balanced with the need for security checks, with no such balance in our laws and no focus on human rights - only security concerns are viewed as important which is why the government can get away with it.
Michael Wild | Posted on 10 June 2011, 08:00PM | Report comment
Hi Andrew
I didn’t have room to fit it in my earlier post but I my understanding is your “some form of detention will always be required for those who have no identity” (your earlier post) is done long, long before these people are accepted as refugees and released. As for the security risk I would suggest that they couldn’t possibly represent the really dangerous risks of being terrorists, guerilla fighters or spies. Such people are way too valuable to those who send them to put on dangerous boats and then turn up and reveal themselves to authorities. The serious terrorists are either locals or fly in comfort and safety on normal regular flights.
Andrew J S | Posted on 10 June 2011, 07:35PM | Report comment
Marilyn, if people arrive without identification they need to be detained until cleared for security purposes - to assume they are innocent without checking is dangerous. That being said detaining refugees for extended periods of time in detention is absolutely , immoral and expensive and disgusting. As bad as the detention is, it is NOT illegal. Perhaps if Australia gave legal protection to human rights with a human rights act, it would be illegal - until this is acheived the legality of detention is legally unchallenged.
Marilyn Shepherd | Posted on 10 June 2011, 03:58AM | Report comment
Premising prison for innocent people as a deterrent to others is illegal and disgusting.
The number of asylum seekers who arrive is like a piece of string because anyone can apply for asylum.
The rest of the world manages with large numbers of refugees without prisons, I feel sure we could manage our massive 18 people per day without them.
Michael Wild | Posted on 8 June 2011, 09:05PM | Report comment
I agree with Andrew that however much activists (including me) may want it, the Human Rights Act is a non starter. Events of 2010 proved this and if our leadership had shown any political nous they’d have seen this in 2008. After its comprehensive rejection by the only side of politics who would consider it I think even AIA’s leaders must realize it’s off the agenda for many years. With regards to the NT intervention (NTI) I agree with Andrew that killing of this program would not be much of an achievement. Wholesale child mistreatment can’t go unchallenged be they black, white or brindle. In my 25 years as a school psych I have NEVER seen action taken to protect children being popular; be it deserved or not. Destroying the NTI will also do nothing about what put these kids in such peril in the first case. I have seen nothing to make me believe that AIA has any answers to the complex and deep social problems many skilled and dedicated people have failed to solve. Frequent chants of “genuine consultation” sound good but that’s a slogan not a strategy and is it really helpful to “consult” child abusers and criminals who cause such harm to the long suffering majority of Indigenous Australians? Such people never think it’s their fault (including white Australians)..
Andrew J S | Posted on 8 June 2011, 12:45PM | Report comment
A Human Rights Act would be a step forward for Australia, however I imagine it will be an almost impossible task for a minority goverment to implement. Such an Act would most likely require an expensive referendum which would need bi-partisan support and promotion for it to have any chance to succeed.
I would like to think it would be possible, however just getting to an agreement of what should be covered within a Human Rights act would be a challenge as special interest groups would argue over the content of key points. Without clear agreement from all sides the proposal is almost certain to be doomed to fail.
I would like to see what AI’s action plan for the NT is, The discrimination act was suspended due to dire circumstances and is far from perfect, however doing nothing would have been even worse.
An end to mandatory detention? I would like to see how that could be implemented without causing an usustainable surge in arrivals. Some form of detention for security purposes will always be required for those who have no identity.