The Border Force Protection Act : “Primum Non Nocere – First, Do No Harm”

KAITLYN KRAHE

The Border Force Act is yet another bleak installment in the Australian Government’s dismal treatment of asylum seekers detained in detention centers such as Nauru and Manus Island.

Our country’s most recent history with this issue is one already coloured by international criticism from humans rights bodies such as the United Nations, who have found the Australian Government to be in breach of the UN Convention Against Torture, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child due to the conditions faced by detained asylum seekers.

Despite this, our government have shown no signs relenting their harsh border protection regime, which as of May 31st 2015, means a total of 3624 asylum seekers in both immigration detention and community detention facilities. And now, the government are punishing people who report harm and abuse.

Perhaps the most horrific aspect of this statistic is that 27% of detained asylum seekers are children. This is especially disturbing in light of the recent Australian Human Rights Commission report ‘The Forgotten Children’. The report has confirmed fears that children are particularly susceptible to the inevitable psychological harm that asylum seekers are experiencing detainment. The report found that children as young as 12 are experiencing significant psychological disturbances and many pose a risk to themselves and others.

These recent changes to Australia’s border protection and immigration policies, as stipulated by the Border Force Act, will mean that any person working directly or indirectly for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection who reports the mental or physical harm of asylum seekers in detention centers can be punished by imprisonment of up to two years.

This new legislation was introduced to the House of Representatives in February. The Act moved through the Senate swiftly, having been met with bipartisan support. In May, the legislation came into force.

The inner workings and conditions of detention facilities are already largely shrouded in secrecy, and the new legislation is designed to further deter whistleblowers and clandestine channels of communication to and from the detention centres. How can the public, the media, international human rights bodies and non-government organisations scrutinise the Australian Government’s treatment of asylum seekers and rally for justice if those with the most valuable knowledge are too scared to say anything?

There is no doubt that the healthcare industry performs an invaluable role in our society. In any aspect of the health sector, a medical professional’s priority is the wellbeing of their patient. It is simply unreasonable for the government to force medical professionals to weigh up the value of their own freedom and professional integrity against their moral and legal obligations to cater to the physical and emotional needs and rights of their patient.

Since the Border Force Act has been implemented, outraged medical professionals across the nation have strongly engaged with the issue and mobilised themselves in remarkable demonstrations of solidarity to protest the new legislation.

Rallies have already been held in New South Wales, Coffs Harbour, Broome, Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney under the collective movement title “Doctors against the Border Force Act” and more are sure to ensue. With many opting to cover their mouths at the rallies in a poignant and symbolically silent protest, it is clear that a significant proportion of Australia’s health care professionals are not yet ready to be silenced.

 

Terms

Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means “first, do no harm”. This phrase is taught to all healthcare students as a guiding ethical principle and reminder that their patient’s well-being is always the priority.

 

References

1. “Australia Border Force Bill 2015”
2015.15 July.2015

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5408

 

1. “UN finds Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers violates the convention against torture” 2015. 15 July. 2015 http://hrlc.org.au/un-finds-australias-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-violates-the-convention-against-torture/

 

1. “Children in detention: Is Australia breaching international law?.” 2014. 15 July. 2015 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31/children-in-detention-is-australia-breaching-international-law/5344022

 

1. “Immigration Detention Statistics” 2015. 15 July. 2015

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/immigration-detention-statistics

 

1. “A last resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” 2015. 15 July 2015

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/last-resort-national-inquiry-children-immigration-detention/9-mental-health-children

 

1. “Australia’s reputation for child protection has crumbled with the Border Force Act” 2015. 15 July 2015

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/global-reputation-for-child-protection-has-crumbled-with-the-border-force-act-20150707-gi6xvh.html#ixzz3fxprFsla

 

1. “Coff’s medical staff rally against the Border Force Act”. 2015. 15 July 2015

http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/news/coffs-medical-staff-rally-against-border-force-act/2704951/

 

1. “Medical professionals protest against Border Force Act”. 2015. 15 July 2015

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/07/11/medical-professionals-protest-against-border-force-act

Image Credit: Luis Ascui

‘No’ to Death Penalty but ‘Yes’ to Inhumane Treatment of Asylum Seekers? Make Up Your Mind Australia!

CELIA DOWLING

IN CASE you have been living under a rock or simply hiding from the news these past couple of weeks, here is a quick run-down on what is now known as ‘The Bali 9 Execution’.

It was just two weeks ago when two Australian citizens faced the firing squad under a state-sanctioned execution, having been convicted ten years ago of organising the smuggling of heroin from Bali to Australia. In the lead-up to Wednesday April 29, Julie Bishop and multiple human rights activists pushed for the clemency of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran through appealing to Indonesia’s humanitarian responsibilities and presenting the significant rehabilitation of the two. Each denounced the Indonesian government for their use of capital punishment, saying that it broke international law. However, their efforts came to no avail.

Now, the Abbott government is being encouraged to take action on its objection to the death penalty. And it certainly looks like they shall, with the PM withdrawing the Australian ambassador to Indonesia after Julie Bishop stated “there will be have to be consequences” directed at the Indonesian government.

HOWEVER, before jumping on the band wagon with the rest of the world to fight for the upholding of human dignity, we must stop and analyse what grounds AUSTRALIA has for calling out the faults of other countries.

Let’s face it, we don’t have the greatest track record when it comes to the treatment of humans.

In the late 1700s, European settlers used disease, massacre and kidnapping to shrink the Indigenous population in Australia by 90%. In the mid 1800s, wealthy citizens and governors condemned the labour force by implementing severe and exclusive gold mining taxes, culminating in fatal battle of the Eureka Stockade. In the early to mid 1900s, the Immigration Restriction Act (otherwise known as the White Australia Policy) impeded certain European and in particular Asian immigrants from entering into the Australian community.

And now, Australia’s asylum seeker policies are being challenged internationally through their breaching of multiple human rights conventions.

It is a tad awkward.

It is a tad awkward that Australian human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson has called for the United Nations (UN) to intervene in Indonesia’s practice of the death penalty, when the same UN has recently expressed its concern to the Australian government on the indefinite and inhuman sentencing of asylum seekers to detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru. It is a tad awkward that post-executions, the government announced that “[w]e do deplore what’s been done and this cannot be simply business as usual”, when Australia’s own routine of locking away children and subjecting them to torture is in itself deplorable. It is a tad awkward that Tony Abbott replied to the accusations of breaching the UN Convention Against Torture saying “I really think Australians are sick of being lectured to by the United Nations,” despite clearly encouraging the UN’s distaste of Indonesia’s death penalty.

Just a tad awkward, I say, in a tone saturated with sarcasm.

In order to better visualise how Australia’s claim against the death penalty is thwarted by hypocrisy, let’s compare notes on how Indonesia’s capital punishment breaches differ from those of Australia’s asylum seeker policies.

 

	INDONESIA ~ capital punishment	AUSTRALIA ~ asylum seeker policy
Breach of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which both countries are signatories.	The initial covenant stated that capital punishment should only be used for “the most serious crimes, that is, those involving intentional killing, and only after a fair trial.” Not drug trafficking.	Arbitrary detention is prohibited. Australia’s “turn back” policy and the mandatory yet often indefinite onshore/offshore detention of asylum seekers are in violation of these principles.
Breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which both countries are signatories.	–	As of February 2014, there were 929 children held in onshore and offshore detention centres as complying with Australian law, for time periods averaging over 8 months. This is despite that Article 37 of the convention says that “no child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily… The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.”
Breach of the UN Convention Against Torture to which both countries are signatories.	After a prolonged period of imprisonment on death row, it is improper to carry out execution as “the constant alternation of hope with despair [amounts] to mental torture, and [is] contrary to the convention on torture.”	“Torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment is prohibited.” However asylum seekers held in detention centres particularly on Manus Island and Nauru are subject to harsh conditions and frequent outbreaks of violence. UN Committee says in a report that “the combination of … harsh conditions, the protracted periods of closed detention and uncertainty about the future reportedly creates serious physical and mental pain and suffering.”
Amnesty International’s response.	They do not approve of the executions, calling them “cruel, senseless and abhorrent”.	They are encouraging a “call on the Australian Government to release all children from immigration detention,” appalled by the physical and psychological damage done to children.
Human Rights Commission report ‘The Forgotten Children’ conducted by Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs	–	Children as young as 12 observe high levels of violence, partake in self-harming and are found to be experiencing substantial issues regarding mental health.
Other responses.	“The international community must renew its resolve to rid the world of this barbaric practice.”Australian opposition leader Bill Shorten and shadow foreign minister Tanya Plibersek in their released statement, 2015 post-executions. “Investigations by human rights groups have found that individuals sentenced to death have been tortured and forced to sign police investigation reports. Many did and do not have lawyers, in particular after arrest and during interrogation,” Researcher Papang Hidayat in a global report on capital punishment, 2015.	“Its own human rights track record is increasingly tarnished by a willingness to violate human rights for domestic political gain.” The Human Rights Law Centre, June 201 “The minister’s powers are outside the ‘rule of law’, they are beyond appeal. He has the powers of a tyrant… It presents a destruction of democratic process.” Former Australian PM Malcolm Fraser, 2014. “Claims are not processed in a fair, transparent, or expedient manner, with significant cost to detainees.” Human Rights Watch, 2015.

 

Clearly, each government perceives a different issue to be a threat to the nation’s security, with or without good reason. For Australia, it’s the trickle of immigrants who flee persecution and can only afford the services of leaky boats. And for Indonesia, it’s drug traffickers. Unfortunately, due to instilled fear and systematic tradition, these habits of disrespecting the dignity of human life are so ingrained into political proceedings, making them difficult to suddenly abolish.

This comparison gives us an insight into the complexity of diplomacy and the unfortunately multiple ways by which governments violate basic human rights to maintain control and public interest.

What is most important to understand is that the legitimacy of any humanitarian claim made by Australia is doomed to be heavily doubted until we start rolling up our sleeves and correcting our own faults. How is any international committee or foreign government supposed to thoroughly consider our objection to an issue such as capital punishment, when we condemn to live in discomfort helpless people yearning for security?

 

Terms and definitions:

Bali 9: 9 Australians with heroin strapped to their bodies were caught boarding an Australia-bound flight in Indonesian customs in Bali, October 23, 2004.

State-sanctioned: approved of by the government of an organised political nation.

Julie Bishop: Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs; deputy of the Liberal Party.

Clemency: mercy; pardon.

Humanitarian: concerned with human rights, human welfare.

Rehabilitation: the restoration of previous privileges and rights of a person, usually after spending time in prison.

Capital punishment: punishment for a crime by death.

Coalition: a temporary alliance of political parties (for example, Liberal and Labour) formed through combined action.

Tony Abbott: Australia’s Prime Minister, leader of the Liberal Party.

Ambassador: someone sent by a nation or territory to represent them in another country.

Convention: an agreement between states, similar to a treaty, on a specific issue.

Barrister: a type of lawyer, often an advocate for common law and often in the higher courts

United Nations (UN): International Human Rights Council.

Signatory: a party (especially a state) that has signed an agreement, obliging them to uphold the responsibilities of the said agreement.

Protocol: a procedure or system of rules agreed upon to govern affairs or action

Arbitrarily: basing on random choice or spontaneity as opposed to reason.

Diplomacy: managing international relations.

 

Resources 17.05.2015

___________________________________________________________________________

1. Indonesia’s Death Penalty Or Australia’s Asylum Policy.” 17 May. 2015 <http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexlee/indonesias-death-penalty-or-australias-asylum-policy>
2.  “Hard line on refugees undermines principled opposition to …” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://theconversation.com/hard-line-on-refugees-undermines-principled-opposition-to-execution-40953>
3. “Geoffrey Robertson calls on Australian government to use …” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/geoffrey-robertson-calls-on-australian-government-to-use-international-law-to-save-andrew-chan-and-myuran-sukumaran-20150428-1mvgxe.html>
4.  “UN finds Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers violates the …” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://hrlc.org.au/un-finds-australias-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-violates-the-convention-against-torture/>
5. “The story of the Bali Nine: How two Australians … – Mashable.” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://mashable.com/2015/04/28/indonesia-bali-nine-australians/>
6.”Bali 9 duo’s execution ‘will have consequences’ says … – ABC.” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4225605.htm>
7. “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” 2013. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx>
8. “Act now: Speak up for kids in detention – Amnesty …” 2015. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/36905/>
9.  “From The United Nations | Death Penalty Information Center.” 2008. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/united-nations>
10.   “Children in detention: Is Australia breaching international law?.” 2014. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31/children-in-detention-is-australia-breaching-international-law/5344022>
11. “Australia’s detention of refugees is forbidden by …” 2014. 17 May. 2015 <http://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-detention-of-refugees-is-forbidden-by-international-law-un-committee-against-torture-20141128-11wjas.html>

Refugee Facts and Myths

KIM NGUYEN

Every year, millions of people around the world have no choice but to flee their homeland to escape war, genocide, torture and persecution. “Boat people” is a media and political term that has come about following the increased number of asylum seekers travelling to Australia from all over the world via boats.

An asylum seeker is someone who is seeking international protection but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been determined.

They slightly differ from refugees, A refugee is someone who has been recognised under the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Convention defines a ‘refugee’ as any person who is outside their own country and is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their:
• race
• religion
• nationality
• membership of a particular social group or
• political opinion.

Essentially, an asylum seeker is a person who has sought protection as a refugee, but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been assessed. Every refugee has at some point been an asylum seeker.

“In Australia, public debate about asylum seekers and refugees right has been distorted by myths and misconceptions. Current government policy is shaped by around strategies of deterrence, border protection concerns, and the idea that asylum seekers are “breaking the rules”. The result has been asylum seeker policy that is ineffective, inefficient, inhumane, and in many cases in violation of international human rights law”. (Amnesty International, 2013)

Myth #1: Asylum seekers are “illegal”
It is not illegal to seek asylum in Australia, even if they are arriving by boat. ((UN Refugee Convention and Australian Migration Act 1958)

Myth #2: Boat people are “economic immigrants” choosing Australia for a better life.
Over 90% of asylum seekers who arrive by boat are found to be genuine refugees fleeing persecution, torture and violence.

Myth #3: Asylum seekers destroy their documentation to cheat the system.
Destroying documents has no benefit to asylum seekers. They often flee quickly and aren’t able to get all necessary documentation before leaving.

Myth #4: Australia is being swamped by boats.
Asylum seekers arriving by boat make up less than 3% of Australia’s annual immigration

Myth #5: Boat people are potential terrorists and pose a security risk to Australia.
No boat person has ever been proven to be a terrorist. Boat arrivals receive the most scrutinised security checks of all.

Myth #6: Charity begins at home, let’s help our poor & homeless first.
Australia spends billions on mandatory detention and offshore processing. Placing people in the community would cost a fraction of that.

Myth #7: They come here because they know they’ll get Centrelink and the red carpet treatment.
Asylum seekers do not receive any payment from Centrelink whatsoever. Most live below the poverty line, relying on charity to survive.

Myth #8: Boat people are queue jumpers; they take the place of refugees patiently waiting in overseas camps
For most asylum seekers, there is no queue to join – coming by boat is the only option between life and death

Myth #9: We already do our fair share, Australia is one of the most generous nations in the world with refugees.
80% of refugees are in developing countries. In 2012, Australia ranked 49th for number of refugees hosted, way behind German, the UK and US.

Myth #10: Asylum seekers are ‘country shoppers’; they could have stopped at other places along the way.
Country shoppers? Malaysia and Indonesia are not signatories to the Refugee Convention. Asylum seekers are illegal there so they can’t stop.

Source(s):

Click to access ASRC_10_Myths.pdf

Click to access MythBusterJuly2013FINAL.pdf

For more info, watch this mini series “The Faces of Asylum” produced by Our Lady of Mercy College and Enamoured Iris.

The Single Syrian Female Refugee

KIM NGUYEN

Women play a vital role in providing for their families in Syria with one in four being the breadwinner and provider of shelter for their children. The UNHCR states over 145,000 Syrian refugee families situated in countries of the Middle East such as Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan have women as the heads of the family (The Guardian). Access to food, adequate housing, employment and financial resources is quite challenging as these women who are displaced often endure harassment, violence, humiliation and isolation (IB Times). Often they end up living alone in exile due to circumstances outside their control such as the warfare within their country, husbands departing to fight as insurgents in neighbouring countries or undergoing the deaths of their children and loved ones as result of malnutrition or critical injuries sustained from fighting.

As countries such as Syria are strictly conservative, women without male partners are rendered voiceless and are unable to hold positions of power as they are viewed as outcasts by other citizens of society. This leads to many becoming reliant on assistance from external providers such as the UNHCR and international aid organisations. In addition to suffering mental health issues of anxiety and stress after being heavily traumatised by their experiences, the UNHCR reports from the individual testimonies of 135 women that most of the Syrian refugees in the area are unable to live in camps where a safe environment is fostered and additional assistance, including food is provided.
These women end up living along the outskirts of towns and cities in derelict locations which resembles huts, garages and ramshackles or renting out rooms at highly expensive prices

It is known that only a fifth of refugee women are employed while many struggle to be find a job. The majority of women undergo exploitation, are susceptible to instances of sexual abuse and other forms of intimidation and harassment by taxi drivers, local charity workers or landlords (VOA News).

A personal testimony from Naiwja said that she was raped by a neighbour who initially offered her rent to pay for looking after his children. This occurred in Lebanon after the explosion of a car bomb outside her home which resulted in them fleeing Aleppo to start a new life in Lebanon (IB Times).

Living as a single woman in the rural areas of Middle Eastern societies can be quite dangerous as there are many unknown dangers that can be faced. After escaping from their homeland which have been destroyed by warfare, they become vulnerable to other threats to their society and are deemed to be outcasts, all because their men have died after fighting for their country at war. It is beyond distressing that after losing so much, these women continue to be harmed and violated over and over again.

In summary of a statement released by the UNHCR special envoy Angelina Jolie, ‘It is important that recognise the strength and valour of Syrian women even in spite of these tragic circumstances. These women are in need of great assistance and to be protected by other member states whenever possible’ (The Guardian).

References:
The Guardian 2014, “Syria’s female refugees facing poverty, harassment and isolation”, The Guardian, viewed 8th July 2014.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/women-head-quarter-syrian-refugee-families

The IB Times 2014, “Syria’s Single Female Refugees: ‘No One Respects Me Because I’m Not With a Man”, viewed 8th July 2014.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syrias-single-female-refugees-no-one-respects-me-because-im-not-man-1455846

Voice of America 2014,”Syrian Female-headed refugee families struggle to survive.”, viewed 8th July 2014.
http://www.voanews.com/content/syrian-female-headed-refugee-families-struggle-to-survive/1952963.html

How does the 1951 Refugee Convention and Australia’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers relate to issues of security in global politics?

KIM NGUYEN

The 1951 Refugee Convention provides the legislative framework in protecting and upholding the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. It contains various provisions in ensuring that refugees and asylum seekers are not mistreated and are granted legal, social, economic and mobility rights upon entry into their host country.

An important right to be upheld is right to be protected from refoulement which means the international community has the obligation to protect refugees and those seeking asylum persecution, degradation and tortures as well as preserving the liberty and safety of the individual.

Richard Marles, the immigration spokesman of the Labor Party denounces the current treatment of asylum seekers under the Australia government claiming it fails to adhere to the provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and thus, does not demonstrate the principle of non-refoulement (The Guardian).

The United Nations Refugee Agency has expressed their “grave concern” over the Australian government’s management of the current refugee crisis especially in regards to the interception of the two boats carrying more than 153 Tamil asylum seekers where individual screenings are taking place through teleconferencing instead of face-to-face meetings to properly assess the needs of these individuals. They are then being transferred over to the Sri Lankan Navy where they will be returned to a country of persecution and political oppression instead of being able to live in peace and harmony in a democratic country like Australia.

This is highly disturbing as not only does this violate the principle of non-refoulement but it also contravenes with international law including multiple articles of the UN Declaration of human rights, such as article 3, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”, article 9, “Noone should be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”, article 14, “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

International law establishes that “no individual can be returned voluntarily to a country in which he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution”. According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, “State are responsible for protecting and promoting the human rights of their people”, in this case as the Sri Lankan government has blatantly ignored the corruption and violent activities of the Tamil Tigers in the past decade or so, the people have experienced immense suffering. Thus, when nation states are unable to intervene to prevent these gross abuses of human rights from occurring, they have a responsibility to protect these citizens from maltreatment rather than just focusing on issues of national interest and sovereignty. This is through allowing the people to seek refuge and be welcomed into the country by being provided with access to housing, food and education, etc as in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The realist perspective emphasises national interest and sovereignty. As global politics is so heavily centred upon the these ideas that when security dilemmas and unjust incidents happen, they are commonly misconstrued into issues of power, domination and national pride, when in reality, the welfare of citizens should always be at the top of the security agenda.

References:
UNHCR 2014, 1951 Convention, UN Refugee Agency,pp. 2-4.

The Guardian 2014, Scott Morrison putting himself ‘above high court’ on asylum, says Labor,The Guardian viewed on 6th July 2014.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/04/scott-morrison-putting-himself-above-high-court-on-asylum-says-labor

Australian Government imposes “national interest test” to deny asylum seekers their right to live in Australia.

In an attempt to refuse asylum seekers their right to live in Australia, the Australian government has developed a national interest test where only temporary visas are granted which prevents them from  having permanent residency. 

The High Court’s refusal to pass the border protection plan proposed by the Australian government which comprises of a cap on the number of places in Australia’s refugee boat intake has angered the government into denying permanent protection visa for the 1400 asylum seekers despite them already being granted refugee status. This has generated many implications for more than thousands who those who claims have not been processed yet.