Right: detention camp on the island of Nauru. The physical and mental health of detainees in offshore centres are a concern to refugee advocates. Attempted and actual suicides, disease and psychological disorders have been cited as a reason to find an alternative to the present system.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against detaining asylum seekers and processing them offshore
1. Australia has agreed, since 1951, to offer refuge to asylum seekers
Australia is one of 147 nations that have signed the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention.
The Convention states that the host country, referred to, as the 'Contracting State', will 'facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees'. Thus, a refugee is entitled to become a permanent citizen of his or her host country and is to be helped to do so.
The host country is also expected to make available to refugees 'the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to ... nationals'. Thus the same welfare assistance is to be offered to refugees as to other citizens of the host country.
Critics of mandatory detention and offshore processing claim that what Australia is currently doing runs counter to the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention.
On October 31, 2012, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees criticised the Australian government for leaving in limbo the asylum seekers who have arrived since its August 13 announcement of offshore processing.
It said it was increasingly concerned about the unresolved status of these more than 5700 people in detention in Australia and Nauru.
The United Nations has stated, 'This effective suspension of processing raises serious legal issues, as well as concerns for the health and wellbeing of those affected.'
The United Nations has indicated that the government's plan to excise the Australian continent from its migration zone - so it can send asylum seekers who arrive on or near the mainland to be processed offshore - has no bearing on Australia's obligation to abide by its international obligations.
Nick Riemer, in an opinion piece published in New Matilda on November 19, 2012, wrote, 'Refugees cannot be processed in a way that respects their rights on disease-ridden, impoverished islands with no support infrastructure. And regardless of the conditions, processing refugees anywhere offshore is inherently unacceptable, since it undermines the international principle of refugee protection Australia is obliged to uphold.'
Critics of the current Australian policy argue that while there are people all around the world facing violent persecution at the hands of their governments, this country should be ready to help those who arrive on our shores seeking refuge.
2. The Government's supposed concern regarding asylum seekers drowning is hypocrisy
Critics argue that Australia's current treatment of asylum seekers is not motivated by concern by those might drown attempting to come to Australia by boat.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on November 2, 2012, Waleed Aly wrote, 'There's a ... pernicious fiction here that simply must be called out: the fiction that we're doing this because we're so benevolent. "The government is committed to ... giving people better options than risking their lives at sea," said Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, as though we're providing a service.'
This claim of concern for the wellbeing of asylum seekers has been vigorously contested. Waleed Aly has argued, 'Let's be honest. The aim here is to make staying in no man's land the only option. We're not providing any alternatives. We're not hurriedly clearing the backlog of asylum seekers that haven't been resettled since forever. We're not, say, processing applications in the region within a year. The only message we're sending is: don't come.'
A similar point has been made by Paul Syvret in an opinion piece published in The Courier Mail on November 27, 2012. Paul Syvet argues, 'Don't stop the boats. Stop the hypocrisy. It is not the trickle of barely seaworthy fishing vessels and their desperate human cargo that poses a threat to Australia. It is the rank dissembling, crocodile tears and dog whistle bigotry that presents far more danger to our social fabric.'
Critics have claimed that the government is actually operating in response to Australian fear and bigotry regarding people coming uninvited to our shores. They claim that the supposed concern for asylum seekers' welfare is merely a smokescreen intended to hide the true motive which is to gain the electoral support of the majority of Australians who are opposed to asylum seekers coming to this country by boat.
3. The processing of asylum seekers in overseas camps is slow and problematic
It has been claimed that very few asylum seekers have a genuine opportunity of being placed in a host country through remaining in a refugee camp and applying for a placement through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).
The 'queue' notion, which holds that asylum seekers are best served by waiting to be placed in potential host countries such as Australia, has been disputed.
It has been claimed that in reality only a small proportion of asylum seekers are registered with the UNHCR.
In a background note produced by the Australian Parliamentary Library in January, 2011, it was noted, 'UNHCR offices registered some 119 100 applications out of the total of 923 400 claims in 2009, a 62 per cent increase compared to 2008 ...
The [UNHCR] Office's share in the global number of applications registered in 2009 was 13 per cent compared to 8 per cent in 2008 and 12 per cent in 2007.'
The same background note further observed, 'According to the UNHCR, less than 1 per cent of the world's refugees may be resettled in any given year.
Millions of refugees around the world continue to live with little hope of finding a solution to their plight ... resettlement benefits a small number of refugees; in 2008 [and in 2009], less than 1 per cent of the world's refugees directly benefited from resettlement.'
Critics of offshore processing and mandatory detention note that asylum seekers who come to Australia without prior authorisation may have to wait a very long time in detention centres if they are meant to have "no advantage" over those waiting for placement from refugee camps.
Critics also note that those people who seek to come to Australia by boat cannot be condemned as 'queue jumpers' as there is no effective queue.
4. Detention harms those asylum seekers who endure it
The conditions under which asylum seekers are being kept on Nauru have been condemned by a variety of international agencies, including Amnesty International and the United Nations.
A team of UNHCR officials visited Nauru for three days at the beginning of October, 2012. In their report they describe the conditions at the detention centre as 'harsh' and 'unsatisfactory'.
The UN group described the Nauru tent facility as congested, with little privacy, and they found little natural shelter from the heat during the day, which is exacerbated, they claimed, by the noise and dust of the nearby construction of a permanent detention facility.
In regard to the psychological wellbeing of the asylum seekers detained on Nauru, one of the UN observers noted, 'Well, it's our understanding, from discussing these issues with service providers, that there is an increasing level of frustration and various forms of mental and physical ill health. The questions are arising.'
The same observer further stated, 'There are, in addition to that, people who've come to the islands with what we understand to be pre-existing indications of torture or trauma which, in these kinds of settings, can quickly become more serious.'
Additionally, the observer commented, 'They [asylum seekers] are very confused and disoriented about what the situation is, what their rights are, when they're going to be processed, what the future holds for them if they're refugees and if they're not, and of course they listen to the internet, they hear rumours of how other asylum seekers have been dealt with and treated in Australia.'
A New Matilda report published on November 19, 2012, noted that as of the time of publication two hunger strikers had been hospitalised. A further five were on their nineteenth day without food. There were frequent psychotic episodes. Three asylum seekers had attempted suicide. Two detainees had mutilated their heads and necks and four had dug symbolic graves. Psychotic episodes have become more frequent; three asylum seekers have attempted suicide, with one trying to hang himself from a light pole; two other detainees have mutilated their heads and necks; and four have dug symbolic graves.
5. Detention and offshore processing has not deterred asylum seekers
It has been claimed that the new off-shore processing provisions and the application of the "no advantage" principle when determining the length of detention have not succeeded in reducing the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat.
It has been estimated that some 7,000 asylum seekers have attempted to come to Australia since the Australian government began offshore processing in August 2012.
The number of asylum seekers has outstripped the capacity of the Nauru facilities.
In November, 2012, the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, announced the reopening of the Pontville detention centre outside Hobart in Tasmania and the expansion of the Melbourne immigration transit accommodation site at Broadmeadows in Victoria to help to accommodate the asylum seekers who could not be held in offshore facilities.
Asylum seekers are now being transferred to facilities on mainland Australia where the same "no advantage" principle is being applied. This combination of growing numbers of arrivals and extended periods of detention is likely to see growing numbers of asylum seekers held in detention.
The Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen, has stated, 'People arriving by boat are subject to this "no advantage" principle, whether that means being transferred offshore to have their claims processed, remaining in detention, or being placed in the community.'
Critics of this detention policy have noted that it has not succeeded as a deterrent. They claim that asylum seekers leave their home country not because of the attractions of a particular host country, but due to 'push factors', that is, they are seeking to avoid persecution and the threat of death.
According to this argument, detention fails as a deterrent because the dangers people are trying to escape are far greater than the stress and discomfort to be endured in a detention centre in Australia.
In August, 2012, Afghanistan's ambassador to Australia, Nasir Andisha, stated, 'The trend so far shows it doesn't have any effect . . . because the people keep coming.'
Mr Andisha further stated, 'As far as the people who are stuck in Indonesia are concerned, I think for them even Nauru is a better place than Indonesia . . . At least there are some facilities. At least they are not in fear of police or corrupt officials.'