Rights and wrongs of Australian government asylum seeker policy

Worldwide, no fewer than 50 million people a year are now fleeing dangerous and often life threatening situations in their countries of origin (UNHCR, 2014c). As one part of this movement, thousands risk journeys through dangerous waters hoping to obtain asylum in Australia. However, Australian Government policies adopted since 2013 aim to ensure that no asylum seeker nor any of the 3,500 detainees held in offshore detention centres will ever be settled on the mainland. To this has now been added a declaration that none of the recent refugees or 6200 asylum seekers waiting in Indonesia in centres run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will gain entry (Whyte, 2014a). These immigration policies differ dramatically from those adopted in earlier decades that produced the country’s decidedly multicultural identity. This article reviews these changing perspectives of Australian governments and communities within the context of international obligations and expectations; the experiences of those directly involved in border policing practices and in detention centres; and the attitudes of national media. Relations and conflicts among the interests of the different parties are discussed and the scope for less punitive responses to the plight of asylum seekers is examined. The authors then focus on alternative processes to better address the interests and objectives of legitimately interested parties by processes which successively examine, optimise and reconcile the concerns of each. In so doing, they aim to demonstrate that such methods of sequential problem solving can respond effectively to the multiple concerns of the many significant stakeholders involved in increasingly significant global issues, whereas recourse to such single-goal, top-down programs as are expressed in the government’s current determination to “Stop the boats” at all costs are unlikely to prove sustainable.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights has begun to refer to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in order to support its reasoning for interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights in a particular way. But the EU Charter does not yet have any special status in that regard, being treated by the Court as on a par with numerous other documents of international law. The Court’s use of the Charter began in connection with arts 8 and 12 of the Convention (the right to a family life and the right to marry) but in subsequent years it has been extended to many other Articles of the Convention. It is in relation to art.6 (the right to a fair trial) that the Charter’s influence has been most noticeable so far, the Court having changed its position on two important aspects of Article 6 partly because of the wording of the EU Charter. But the influence on art.3 (in relation to the rights of asylum seekers), art.7 (in relation to retroactive penal laws), art.9 (in relation to the right to conscientious objection) and art.11 (in relation to rights of trades unions) has also been significant. The potential for the Charter to have greater influence on the Court’s jurisprudence in years to come remains considerable.

Right to asylum and border control : implications of european union policies on access to EU territory of people in need of international protection

Depuis plusieurs années, les États membres de l’Union européenne (UE) se soumettent à des politiques restrictives, en matière d’asile, qui les contraignent à respecter leur engagement de protéger les personnes qui fuient la persécution. Plusieurs politiques de dissuasion de l’UE sont controversées. Certaines ont d’abord été élaborées dans différents États, avant que l’UE ne mette en place une politique commune en matière d’asile. Certaines des ces politiques migratoires ont été copiées, et ont un effet négatif sur la transformation des procédures d’asile et du droit des réfugiés dans d’autres pays, tel le Canada. En raison des normes minimales imposées par la législation de l’UE, les États membres adoptent des politiques et instaurent des pratiques, qui sont mises en doute et sont critiquées par l’UNHCR et les ONG, quant au respect des obligations internationales à l'égard des droits de la personne. Parmi les politiques et les pratiques les plus critiquées certaines touchent le secteur du contrôle frontalier. En tentant de remédier à l’abolition des frontières internes, les États membres imposent aux demandeurs d’asile des barrières migratoires quasi impossibles à surmonter. Les forçant ainsi à s’entasser dans des centres de migration, au nord de l’Afrique, à rebrousser chemin ou encore à mourir en haute mer.

The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on mental health care

Some may argue that the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) has benefited only celebrities and asylum-seekers. Others contend that the HRA is a significant piece of legislation that has the potential to promote and protect the rights of the most vulnerable in our society. A few years after the Act's introduction this contribution considers the impact it has had on mental health practice in the UK.

Unaccompanied Refugee Youth in Switzerland and the 'Refugee Crisis': The Emergence of the Child Asylum Seeker

In this paper I will reflect on the emergence of the distinct figure of the child asylum seeker which has entered public and political debates in Switzerland within the last 2 years. It is a figure that is identified through certain attributes such as youth, trauma, lostness or need for protection, and it is a figure that is imbued with certain rights (namely children’s rights). While this has helped young people to receive special treatment, the question arises what the repercussions are for those who do not fit within these categories. What, for example, happens, when different notions of youth, childhood and adolescence clash and disrupt ideals of innocence and childhood? And given that negative public discourses are largely focussed on the apparent danger and uncontrollability of male, single asylum seekers, what happens when categories mix and mingle? In this paper I will shed light on the interplay of institutional expectations of what constitutes a 'proper' child refugee and the ways young people themselves play with, test and contest these norms.

Rights at Risk: Refugees in the New South Africa

This thesis seeks to analyze the relationship between public attitudes toward refugees in a refugee receiving state and the realization of the legal rights afforded refugees (de facto rights). I hypothesize that the more negative a host culture is toward refugees, the less refugees are able to realize their rights. Conversely, the more positive a host culture is toward refugees, the more refugees are able to realize their rights. I test the hypothesis through a case study of refugee populations in Cape Town, South Africa, based on research conducted from May to June 2007. The orientation (positive or negative) of the host culture's perceptions toward a refugee group (Independent Variable) is measured through: (1) a coded content analysis of the South African media, (2) a coded content analysis of semi-structured interviews, and (3) an assessment of secondary source public opinion surveys and reports. The realization of refugee rights (Dependent Variable) is operationalized as a function of two rights: (1) the right to personal physical integrity and (2) the right to protection from unlawful detention. These rights are measured by coding (1) media reports and (2) interviews, and by (3) assessing NGO reports and secondary source public opinion surveys. My empirical data shows that the cultural orientation toward refugees is not overwhelmingly negative, and the realization of rights is not conclusively "low." However, the frequency of data coded "negative" and "low" versus "positive" or "high" suggest that South Africans regard refugees somewhat negatively and that rights are not fully realized. This finding is strengthened by the analysis of secondary sources and field notes.

New Approaches, Alternative Avenues and Means of Access to Asylum Procedures for Persons Seeking International Protection. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 77/ January 2015

This study examines the workings of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in order to assess the need and potential for new approaches to ensure access to protection for people seeking it in the EU, including joint processing and distribution of asylum seekers. Rather than advocating the addition of further complexity and coercion to the CEAS, the study proposes a focus on front-line reception and streamlined refugee status determination, in order to mitigate the asylum challenges facing Member States, and vindicate the rights of asylum seekers and refugees according to the EU acquis and international legal standards. Joint processing could contribute to front-line reception and processing capacity, but is no substitute for proper investment in national systems. The Dublin system as currently configured leads inexorably to increasing coercion and detention, and must thus be reconfigured to remove coercion as a principle and ensure consistency with human rights and other fundamental values of the EU.

Governmentality and 'fearless speech': framing the education of asylum seeker and refugee children in Australia

This paper considers the educational provision for, and general treatment of, refugee and asylum seeker children in Australia, using a framework of governmentality. The paper describes the regimes of practices which govern refugees and asylum seekers in Australia, including mandatory detention and a complex set of visa categorisations, and considers their consequences for the educational provision for children. It addresses three questions: How is it possible that the rights of children have been rendered invisible in and by a democratic state? How are repressive and even violent practices normalised in a liberal state, so that ordinary citizens show so little concern about them? And what should our response be as educators and intellectuals? In conclusion, it explores Foucault's notions of ethics and fearless speech (parrhesia) as a basis for an ethics of engagement in education.

Human rights in Papua New Guinea: is this where we should be settling refugees?

Australia has had a long, and at times tumultuous, relationship with our nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea. This relationship took a twist in late 2012, with the re-opening of the off-shore processing centre on Manus Island, and again in February 2014, when Iranian asylum seeker Reza Berati was murdered by locals during a violent disturbance at the centre. The latest test of the strength and endurance of the relationship between PNG and Australia came in April 2016, when the PNG Supreme Court ruled that the detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island breached the right to personal liberty in the PNG constitution. This article provides much-needed insight into the human rights situation in PNG, and makes recommendations regarding the prospect of resettling refugees in that country.

Secrecy and human rights abuse in Australia’s offshore immigration detention centres

All asylum seekers who arrive in Australia’s territorial waters by boat are subject to mandatory, indefinite and unreviewable detention on Nauru and Papua New Guinea. This offshore detention regime is characterised by a high degree of secrecy, low levels of transparency and accountability, and few opportunities for external oversight. This has created a closed, controlled environment, in which people are routinely neglected and harmed. To better understand the human impact of Australia’s offshore detention regime, this article draws on research from social psychology regarding human behaviour in closed institutions. This research – which has substantially informed prison policies throughout the Western world – demonstrates the critical importance of external oversight, openness and transparency for the protection of human rights of people in closed institutions. This knowledge has not been applied to Australia’s offshore immigration detention regime. To the contrary: creating a closed, opaque system of detention has been an explicit policy goal of the Australian government. By actively restricting transparency, this research demonstrates that not only are the abuses of detainees’ human rights hidden from the public eye, they are inevitable.

The experience of xenophobia in South Africa

In May 2008, xenophobic violence erupted in South Africa. The targets were individuals who had migrated from the north in search of asylum. Emerging first in township communities around Johannesburg, the aggression spread to other provinces. Sixty-two people died, and 100,000 (20,000 in the Western Cape alone) were displaced. As the attacks escalated across the country, thousands of migrants searched for refuge in police stations and churches. Chilling stories spread about mobs armed with axes, metal bars, and clubs. The mobs stormed from shack to shack, assaulted migrants, locked them in their homes, and set the homes on fire. The public reaction was one of shock and horror. The Los Angeles Times declared, “Migrants Burned Alive in S. Africa.” The South African president at the time, Thabo Mbeki, called for an end to “shameful and criminal attacks.” Commentators were stunned by the signs of hatred of foreigners (xenophobia) that emerged in the young South African democracy. The tragedy of the violence in South Africa was magnified by the fact that many of the victims had fled from violence and persecution in their countries of origin. Amid genocidal violations of human rights that had recently occurred in some countries in sub- Saharan Africa, the new South Africa stood as a beacon of democracy and respect for human dignity. With this openness in mind, many immigrants to South Africa sought safety and refuge from the conflicts in their homelands. More than 43,500 refugees and 227,000 asylum seekers now live in South Africa. The majority of people accorded refugee status came from Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Somalia. South Africa also hosts thousands of other migrants who remain undocumented.

Submission to National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from The Australian Psychological Society

Executive Summary The Australian Psychological Society categorically condemns the practice of detaining child asylum seekers and their families, on the grounds that it is not commensurate with psychological best practice concerning children’s development and mental health and wellbeing. Detention of children in this fashion is also arguably a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A thorough review of relevant psychological theory and available research findings from international research has led the Australian Psychological Society to conclude that: • Detention is a negative socialisation experience. • Detention is accentuates developmental risks. • Detention threatens the bonds between children and significant caregivers. • Detention limits educational opportunities. • Detention has traumatic impacts on children of asylum seekers. • Detention reduces children’s potential to recover from trauma. • Detention exacerbates the impacts of other traumas. • Detention of children from these families in many respects is worse for them than being imprisoned. In the absence of any indication from the Australian Government that it intends in the near future to alter the practice of holding children in immigration detention, the Australian Psychological Society’s intermediate position is that the facilitation of short-term and long-term psychological development and wellbeing of children is the basic tenet upon which detention centres should be audited and judged. Based on that position, the Society has identified a series of questions and concerns that arise directly from the various psychological perspectives that have been brought to bear on estimating the effects of detention on child asylum seekers. The Society argues that, because these questions and concerns relate specifically to improvement and maintenance of child detainees’ educational, social and psychological wellbeing, they are legitimate matters for the Inquiry to consider and investigate. • What steps are currently being taken to monitor the psyc hological welfare of the children in detention? In particular, what steps are being taken to monitor the psychological wellbeing of children arriving from war-torn countries? • What qualifications and training do staff who care for children and their families in detention centres have? What knowledge do they have of psychological issues faced by people who have been subjected to traumatic experiences and are suffering high degrees of anxiety, stress and uncertainty? • What provisions have been made for psycho-educational assessment of children’s specific learning needs prior to their attending formal educational programmes? • who are suffering chronic and/or vicarious trauma as a result of witnessing threatening behaviour whilst in detention? • What provisions have been made for families who have been seriously affected by displacement to participate in family therapy? • What critical incident debriefing procedures are in place for children who have witnessed their parents, other family members, or social acquaintances engaging in acts of self-harm or being harmed while in detention? What psychotherapeutic support is in place for children who themselves have been harmed or have engaged in self- harmful acts while in detention? • What provisions are in place for parenting programmes that provide support for parents of children under extremely difficult psychological and physical circumstances? • What efforts are being made to provide parents with the opportunity to model traditional family roles for children, such as working to earn an income, meal preparation, other household duties, etc.? • What opportunities are in place for the assessment of safety issues such as bullying, and sexual or physical abuse of children or their mothers in detention centres? • How are resources distributed to children and families in detention centres? • What socialization opportunities are available either within detention centres or in the wider community for children to develop skills and independence, engage in social activities, participate in cultural traditions, and communicate and interaction with same-age peers and adults from similar ethnic and religious backgrounds? • What access do children and families have to videos, music and entertainment from their cultures of origin? • What provisions are in place to ensure the maintenance of privacy in a manner commensurate with usual cultural practice? • What is the Government’s rationale for continuing to implement a policy of mandatory detention of child asylum seekers that on the face of it is likely to have a pernicious impact on these children’s mental health? • In view of the evidence on the potential long-term impact of mandatory detention on children, what processes may be followed by Government to avoid such a practice and, more importantly, to develop policies and practices that will have a positive impact on these children’s psychological development and mental health?

Legitimising Rejection : International Refugee Law in Southeast Asia

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees are the two primary international legal instruments that states use to process asylum seekers' claim to refugee status. However, in Southeast Asia only two states have acceded to these instruments. This is seemingly paradoxical for a region that has been host to a large number of asylum seekers who, as a result, are forced to live as ‘illegal migrants’. This book examines the region's continued rejection of international refugee law through extensive archival analysis and argues that this rejection was shaped by the region’s response to its largest refugee crisis in the post-1945 era: the Indochinese refugee crisis from 1975 to 1996. The result is a seminal study into Southeast Asian's relationship with international refugee law and the impact that this has had on states surrounding the region, the UNHCR and the asylum seekers themselves.

Hosting an asylum seeker in Australia: A nationwide exploratory study

In recent years, there has been a rise in the number of people seeking asylum in Australia, resulting in over-crowded detention centres in various parts of the country. Appropriate management and assistance of asylum seekers has been an issue of major socio-political concern. In mid-2012, the Australian ruling government introduced a ‘first of its kind’ community placement initiative, which involved relocating low-risk asylum seekers from detention centres to homes of those Australian families who volunteered for this program. The present study investigated host families’ motivations for volunteering into this scheme and their resulting experiences. Twenty-four men and women from all over Australia were interviewed in person or over the telephone. Consistent with theoretical frameworks of altruism, acculturation, and intergroup contact, thematic analysis indicated participants’ interest in diversity/humanitarian issues were major factors that motivated them to host asylum seekers. Language and cultural barriers were reported as challenges, but generally, participants found the experience positive and rewarding. The initiative was regarded as an excellent avenue of learning about new cultures. The hosts played a strong role in promoting the English language proficiency and intercultural settlement of the asylum seekers. The scheme was considered as one way of diffusing fear/biases against asylum seekers prevalent amongst the Australian community at-large. Participants also provided suggestions to improve the scheme.

Leaving family behind: Understanding the irregular migration of unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors - A qualitative study

This qualitative study investigated the drivers and determinants of irregular maritime migration among 17 protection visa holders who arrived in Australia as unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with eight non-government service providers working with unaccompanied minors in the Greater Brisbane area.