Research EssayAEUS
The current asylum seeker policies of Australia are inhumane. Do you agree?
Asylum policies are one of the most controversial problems facing the Gillard Government. Thousands of asylum seekers in detention, recent protests at Villawood, and public disapproval of the Malaysia solutionreflect “a policy failure in action” (Breakfast2010). Although the Government claims its policies can address refugees’ and asylum seekers’ problems, most people would agree that the current asylum policies fail to give enough humanitarian aid.This essay will consider the inhumane aspects of the policies by examining both positive and negative effects ofthe asylum policies regarding the refugee determination process, in respect of human rights and during refugee settlement.
To begin with, regarding the determination policy of refugee status, the inhumane aspect seems to outweigh the advantage to Australia.On the one hand, the Australian Government believes that the tough policies can effectively deter the influx of asylum seekers. It argues that the implementation of more draconian policies tends to restrict the access of illegal arrivals, thus reducing an excessive number of asylum applications. According to the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) (2005, p.11), this measure is a key element in“Australia’s strategies against people smuggling and unauthorized arrival”, which aim to address theflow of refugee claimants. As a result of this policy, Hatton and Lim (2005, p.123) observed a downward trend between 2001 and 2004, with quarterly asylum applications in Australia declining more than half. On the other hand, many people point out that the current determination system is quite intolerant and discriminatory. Under this policy, plane arrivals are granted alternatives to detention, whereas boat arrivals may suffer from mandatory detention or offshore processing. In addition, those who arrive on boatshave fewer legal protections while claiming refugee status. To exemplify this fact, the Refugee Council of Australia (2010, p.2) reports that while boat-people can only apply for their protection visas through a non-statutory process, onshore arrivalsby air can automatically submit their protection claims or lodge an appeal for a judicial review in accordance withAustralia’s Migration Act. Given this evidence, Stevens (2002, p.879) indicates that the Australian Government has violated Article 31 of the Convention(United Nations 1948), which prohibits penalizing asylum seekers for their modes of arrival. To summarize, althoughit is claimed to be a deterrent to unauthorized asylum seekers, the current determination of refugee status is inhumane and unfair.
In terms of human rights, while the Gillard Government continues Australia’s humanitarian programs to protect refugees,it also abuses asylum seekers’ rights byenforcing mandatory detention.With respect to the contemporary humanitarian programs, there are primarily two components: onshore and offshore, both of which are effectively developed with the focus on pre-determined humanitarian immigrants. For instance, the quota for resettlement places is expected to be 13 750 in 2010-2011 (Australia. Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2011), which ranks the second highest at an international level (Oxfam Australia 2008, p.21). However, mandatory detention is said to be a malevolent policy. Generally applied to unauthorized boat arrivals, this policy has been criticized for keeping detainees under lengthy suspension in unhealthy incarceration centers. To illustrate, research by the Refugee Council of Australia(2010, p.2) reveals that the Migration Act allows the Federal Government to detain unauthorized asylum seekers for an unlimited time, the longest of which, according tothe Amnesty International(2009, p.1), was approximately seven years. In another study on the immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island, where almost 2000 asylum seekerswere under surveillance(Onishi 2009), the Australian Human Rights Commission (2009, p.5) discovered that these prison-like and highly-secured centres were not suitable for asylum seekerswith traumatic or tortured backgrounds. As revealed by Steel et al. (2004, p.527), retrospectiveexperience in detention raised the number of psychiatric disorders by three times in adults and ten times in children.In short, despite the development of humanitarian programs, the government has failedto respect human rights with their mandatory detention policy.
Furthermore, during refugee settlement, while manyasylum seekers are expected to address their problems with a recent increase in governmental support, most of them still suffer from harsh restrictions under the Bridging Visa E(BVE) regime. As for refugee-related spending, a financial rise is allocatedby the current Government, promising positive responses to asylum seekers’ issues. For example, the Refugee Council of Australia (2011, p.2) reports that the Government has contributed 10 million dollars, representing a rise of 80%, for the Red Cross to deliver the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme during 2010-2011. Nonetheless, at the same time, the granting of the Bridging Visa E deprives asylum seekers of many human rights. Although the Labour Government abolished the Bridging Visa E (or Temporary Protection Visa) when it came to power, the Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen, is discussing the possibility of bringing the BVE back to the refugee policies (World News Australia 2011, p.1). This visa allows holders lawful residence in the community, but denies themwork rights, Medicare access and any government-funded support. Hence, most asylum seekers have unacceptable hardships to support themselves. McNevin and Correa-Velez (2002, p.126) illustrate this fact by the story of a BVE holder, Ismael. He could not work and had no choice but to spend his modest savings on rent and necessities. Also, his wife, Elsa, in her third month of pregnancy, was unable to access medical services. According to theAustralian Red Cross (cited in McNevin & Correa Velez 2001, p.131), BVE holders ineligible for Medicarelike Elsa constituted 57% of the total number of asylum seekers in Australia. In brief, despite a better allocation for refugee spending, the Government does not seem to treat asylum seekers humanely underthe BVE’s constraints.
In conclusion, while the Government contends that their policies are beneficial, most asylum seekers in Australia still suffer from maltreatment. Currently, the lack of humanitarianismin the determination policy, detention policy and Bridging Visa E outweighs the possible benefits from controlling asylum seekers’influx, developing humanitarian programs and allocating increasedfunds for refugee solutions.For asylum seekers, it is believed that humane treatment in ahost country has a profound effect on their lives. PoulHartling (1984), former United Nations’ High Commissioner for refugees once said: “A lasting solution, the possibility to begin a new life, is the only dignified solution to the refugee himself”. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that the Australian government should review the asylum policies.
(Word count: 1033)
REFERENCES
Amnesty International 2009, Refugee campaign factsheet: Mandatory detention in Australia, pp.1-3,viewed 20 May 2011, <
Australia. Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2011, Fact sheet 60 – Australia's refugee and humanitarian program, viewed 26 May 2011, <
Australia. Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs 2005, Refugee and humanitarian issues: Australia’s response, Barton, ACT, pp.1-12, viewed 31 May 2011, <
Australian Human Rights Commission 2009, Immigration detention and offshore processing on Christmas Island, pp. 1-5, viewed 21 May 2011, <
Breakfast 2010, ‘Chris Bowen on Federal Labour's immigration policies’, radio program, ABC Radio National, 24 September, viewed 20 May 2011, <
Hartling, P 1984, Statement by Mr. PoulHartling, United Nations High Commissioner for refugees, to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, 12 November 1984, viewed 1 June 2011, <
Hatton, T & Lim, A 2005, ‘Australian asylum policy: The Tampa effect’, Agenda, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 115- 130, viewed 20 May 2011, < epress.anu.edu.au >.
McNevin, A & Correa-Velez, I 2006, ‘Asylum seekers living in the community on Bridging Visa E: Community sector’s response to detrimental policies’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 129-131, viewed 10 May 2011, <
Onishi, N 2009, ‘Australia puts its refugees on a remote island, behind razor wire’, The New York Times, 4 November, viewed 25 May 2011, <
Oxfam Australia 2009, Refugee realities education kit later adolescence: Topic9: An eye on Australia, pp. 1-33, viewed 25 May 2011, < >.
Refugee Council of Australia 2010, Asylum and detention in Australia: A two-tiered system, pp.1-3, viewed 31 May 2011, <
Refugee Council of Australia 2011, 2010-11 budget in brief: What it means for refugees and those requiring humanitarian protection, pp.1-4, viewed 22 May 2011, < >.
Steel, Z, Momartin, S, Bateman, C, Hafshejani, A, Silove, DM, Everson, N, Roy, K, Dudley, M, Newman, L, Brick, B, and Mares, S 2004, ‘Psychiatric status of asylum seeker families held for a protracted period in a remote detention centre in Australia’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 28, no. 6, p.527, viewed 20 May 2011, < >.
Stevens CA 2002, ‘Asylum seeking in Australia’, The International Migration Review, pp. 879-881, viewed 20 May 2011, < >.
United Nation 1948, Universal declaration of human rights, viewed 7 May 2011, <
World News Australia 2011, Temporary protection visa flagged, pp. 1-2, viewed 31 May 2011, <
Page 1