Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Refugee issues - Indefinite detention for adverse security assessed genuine refugees

Refugees imprisoned for the rest of their life?
The Australian government has imprisoned over 50 recognised refugees, including toddlers, ‘technically’ for the rest of their lives. Already many of the 50 refugees have been deprived of their liberty for over two years, with no prospect of resolution to their matters in the foreseeable future. The NSWCCL asserts this action by government is a failure to adhere to basic democratic principles and all Australians should be concerned about such unchecked government action,resultingthe breach of civil liberties.

Why indefinite imprisonment?
Once a person seeking asylum in Australia is found by the Australian government to be a genuine refugee according to the Refugee Convention and Australian law, they are required to undergo a number of checks including health, character and security. Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) is the organisation responsible for security assessments. ASIO has the power to make an assessment that a refugee is a ‘security risk’. If an adverse security assessment is made about a refugee, the refugee is then imprisoned in a detention centre in Australia.
Under the Refugee Convention, Australia cannot return a refugee to their country of origin. No other country will take a refugee with an adverse ASIO assessment, and those failing the ASIO security check aredenied community release according to the Immigration Minister. With nowhere to go, these refugees technically face imprisonment for the rest of their life.

No right of review
No one knows exactly what ASIO looks for or how the security checks are made.
Under current Australian law, ASIO is not required to reveal its reasonsfor an adverse security assessment, nor is there a right of review of the decision. Despite there being an existing system for Australian citizens to seek such a review of the ASIO decision through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, this mechanism is denied to refugees in Australia. New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom allow a Court or special advocate to review security assessments and provide the refugee with a summary of the case against them. This basic fairness - an underpinning principle of Australian law and democracy - is denied to refugees. The absence of the opportunity for an independent review of ASIO’s decision about a refugee by any court or organisation in Australia, and the refugees’ subsequentindefinite imprisonment, is an aberration internationally. The Australian government’s position has been criticized by the Australian Office of the United Nation High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), who state that the ASIO decisions are ‘not warranted,’ and that its own assessment has found the refugees‘do not reach the serious threshold that would exclude a person from refugee protection on security grounds, under the Refugee Convention.’

Breach of Civil Liberties& human rights
NSWCCL asserts that the current ASIO security assessment process for refugees is a profound breach of civil liberties, and such an unchecked government action has the potential to impact on any Australian citizen. NSWCCL argues breaches of civil liberties for the following reasons:
• The Australian government is imprisoning people without charge or trial;
• The reasons and evidence for the refugees’ adverse security assessment is not given;
• ASIO’s decisions are mere opinion, and not proven;
• ASIO’s decisions are not reviewable by any court;
• ASIO’s actions are beyond independent scrutiny by any court or body;
• The imprisonment of refugees with adverse security assessments is unlawful because the conditions of detention are unsafe and harmful to their mental and physical health;
• There is no consideration to alternatives to imprisonment, such as community detention;
• There are no reasonable prospects for refugees with adverse security assessments to be relocated to another safe country;
• Australia has unlawfully interfered in the protection of the rights of the families imprisoned.

Who is imprisoned?
The current cohort of imprisoned refugees with adverse security assessments are mostly Sri Lankan Tamils and several RohingyaBurmese. They have had their permanent visas block by ASIO because of their adverse assessments, many since January 2010. Many Tamils fled Sri Lanka to Australia following the defeat by the Sri Lankan Army of the Tamil Tigers (or LTTE) in May 2009. The Tamils feared persecution when most were hearded into huge military camps by the Sri Lankan government. During the civil war, there existed a Tamil government in many parts of Sri Lanka, for whom most Tamils were required to work in some capacity or another - be it as cooks or accountants. The Tamil Tigers remain listed as a terrorist group in Australia, despite the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka 3 years ago.Many of the imprisoned Tamil refugees with adverse security decisions deny participating in terrorist activities, but as they have no access to the ASIO decision or right of reply, there is no opportunity to provide contrary evidence to that upon which ASIO has made their decision about their individual cases.The Rohingya Burmese are an ethnic Muslim group persecuted by the Burmese junta. It is presumably alleged by ASIO that Rohingyas maybeterrorists in opposition to the Burmese junta. As with Tamil refugees with an adverse security assessment, imprisoned Rohingya have been provided with no reasons as to why they are viewed as a security risk to Australia. All they know is they have sought Australia’s protection, and that they now face the possibility of imprisonment in a detention centre in Australia for the rest of their lives.

UN labels Australia’s Asylum Seeker Obsession “Out of Proportion”

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has asked that the “very politicized” debate regarding so-called ‘boat people’ be conducted in a less polarized manner.

High Commissioner Antonio Guterres, addressing an audience in Sydney, said that while people smuggling was a “nasty business” the victims of the trade should be protected by the authorities.

Commissioner Guterres stated that it was hard to consider approximately 6,000 people arriving in Australia by boat each year as a “very important problem” when approximately 57,000 and 100,000 asylum seekers arrived by boat to Italy and Malta, and Yemen respectively in the past year. A further 1,500 people were reported to have died in the Mediterranean Sea during this period whilst fleeing their home countries.

The NSW CCL has long championed the cause of asylum seekers, who in many cases have no legal way of escaping their situation. Click to read the NSW CCL Statement on Refugees and Asylum Seekers.

Mandatory Immigration Detention:

Baxter Detention Centre 'Behaviour Plan'

Global Solutions Limited ('GSL') is the private company that runs the immigration detention centre at Baxter in South Australia. CCL has recently obtained a copy of the 'Behaviour Plan' which details the internal handling of detainees in the 'Redgum' compound within Baxter. The plan makes for very disturbing reading indeed.

Baxter Redgum Compound Behaviour Plan (size: 111k)

Prime Minister's coastal surveillance taskforce

In June 1999, after several boats of asylum seekers arrived on the East Coast of Australia, Prime Minister John Howard set up a Coastal Surveillance Taskforce. It was headed by his close advisor, Max Moore-Wilton. In many ways the report sets out the Howard government's policy of border protection, long before the MV Tampa arrived at Christmas Island in August 2001.

The report is one the most important documents produced by the Howard Government. The report is no longer available on the Prime Minister's website, so CCL provides a copy here:

Report of the Prime Minister's Coastal Surveillance Taskforce (size: 5.5M)

'Inquiry into the Cornelia Rau matter'

Cornelia Rau disappeared from the psychiatric wing of a Sydney hospital in March 2004. About two weeks later she was stopped by police in Far North Queensland. She identified herself as a German tourist who had overstayed her visa. She was detained as an 'unlawful non-citizen'. She was now caught up in Australia's inhumane mandatory immigration detention regime.

Ms Rau was transferred to a Queensland prison, where she spent six months in detention with convicted criminals, and then transferred to the Baxter immigration detention centre.

In February 2005, Ms Rau’s true identity was established when her family contacted police after reading an article in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled ‘Aid sought for ill, nameless detainee’ and contacted police. She was finally released from detention into the care of a psychiatric hospital in South Australia.

A former AFP Commissioner, Mick Palmer, was asked to undertake an inquiry into how this could have occurred. His Report of the Inquiry into the Cornelia Rau Matter was published in .July 2005. It condemned the prevailing culture of the Department of Immigration and the company that runs the detention centres.

You can read CCL's submission to Mick Palmer's inquiry'. In our submission we argue that conditions in Australia's mandatory detention centres are unacceptable. We also argue that Australia needs a Bill of Rights to ensure that there is judicial review of the propriety of such conditions, not just their legality.