by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Public Sector Informant : PSI
[MAY 2010] 40 THE PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMANT [IMMIGRATION:SAVITRI T AYLOR] The war goes on, but without refugees International law Past freezes on processing asylum claims did nothing but prolong refugees' misery As anti-people smuggling measures, the asylum processing freezes make no policy sense End is nigh? A photo montage of diggers on patrol in Chora in Afghanistan last year. The war is entering its 10th year, but Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's new Afghan asylum-seeker scheme implies that it is about to end. On April 9, the Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, and his front-bench colleagues Stephen Smith and Bren- dan O'Connor issued a joint media statement announcing ''Changes to Australia's Immigration Processing System''. The takeaway message came in the very first sentence: ''Effective immediately, the Aust- ralian Government has today intro- duced a suspension of the processing of new asylum applications from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.'' Following this statement came 2144 words (yes, I counted) of elaboration and justifi- cation, and since the announcement thousands more words have been written by way of commentary. Many lawyers have questioned whether the suspension is consistent with dom- estic law as it stands and have raised the possibility of a legal challenge. But Julian Burnside cut to the heart of the matter when he pointed out that, in the domestic sphere, the passage of legislation is all that is needed to provide a sound legal basis for implementation of the new policy. There is no doubt that any necessary validating legislation would get the support of the Coalition in the Senate and would therefore pass. The question I wish to consider here is whether the Government's new policy is internationally lawful. This is quite distinct from the question of domestic lawfulness because it is a principle of customary international law that a state cannot defend a claim that it has breached its international legal obligations by saying that its conduct was permitted or even mandated under its domestic law. And in order to assess inter- national lawfulness we need to drill down into the details of the policy and its justification. The Government has said that processing of Sri Lankan nationals will be frozen for an initial period of three months beginning on April 9; for Afghan nationals, the freeze will be for an initial period of six months from the same date. The freezes apply to all Sri Lankan and Afghan asylum- seekers arriving in Australia on or after April 9, regardless of mode of arrival. In other words, it applies to those who arrive by plane as well as those who arrive by boat, and to those who enter on a visa as well as those who do not. The freezes will be ''reviewed'' at the end of the initial periods, leaving open the possibility of their continuation. The details of the policy fit with the expressly articulated rationale: that conditions in both Sri Lanka and Afghanistan are improving so rapidly that individuals who are either clearly or arguably refugees now may well fall outside the refugee definition if the assess- ment is made after the current freezes end. According to the Government, it does not wish to grant permanent residence on the basis of protection needs to people who may, in the very near future, be found not to have such needs. For reasons that continue to baffle me, the Government went on to devote over half of the very long media statement to outlining all of the measures it is taking to combat people-smuggling. It surely was mindful of the fact that this would create a strong impression that the processing freezes were also intended as anti-people-smuggling measures. Smith compounded that impression a couple of days later by saying, ''We're not asserting or suggesting that this will stop the flow of boats in the short term, but it does send a message to the people-smugglers and to their potential prey, that if you come to Australia, from Sri Lanka or from Afghanistan, there'll be a three or a six-month pause and you will not be guaranteed a visa.'' As anti- smuggling measures, the processing freezes make no policy sense. First, Sri Lankans and Afghans who have not been helped by people-smugglers will be subject to the freezes and, conversely, nationals of other coun- tries who have been so helped will not be. Secondly, it is implausible that the processing freezes would deter even Afghan and Sri Lankan asylum-seekers from travelling to Australia (with or without the help of people-smugglers) in either the short or long term. Unless there is an extra element to the policy that the Govern- ment has yet to disclose -- for example, a determination to renew the processing freezes for as long as it remains in power and/or to reject all Sri Lankan and Afghan asylum claims from now on regardless of merit -- travelling to Australia is still likely to be the least worst choice for those who have any choice at all. All that the Government has accomplished by entangling the processing freezes with the people- smuggling problem is to grant a free kick to the Opposition by allowing it to gain traction with its claim that the policy is, in Liberal leader Tony Abbott's words, ''an admission by the Government that it was always pull factors -- not push factors -- that was causing the flow of boats.'' The Government's political ineptness is not, however, pertinent to the ques- tion of whether the processing freezes place Australia in breach of its international obligations or expose it to the risk of such a breach. It is to that question that I now turn. As long as the Sri Lankan and Afghan asylum-seekers whose claims have not been determined are allowed to remain here, Australia is fulfilling its obligation of non-refoulement -- the obligation under the Refugees Convention, human rights treaties and customary international law to refrain from removing individuals to places in which they would face serious violations of their human rights. This is not, however, the only international obligation that Australia has in relation to asylum-seekers and/ or refugees. Article 3 of the Refugees Conven- tion provides that states must apply its provisions to refugees ''without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin''. More broadly, article 26 of the International Coven- ant on Civil and Political Rights essentially prohibits discrimination ''in any field regulated and protected by public authorities''. A difference in treatment between individuals or groups only amounts to discrimi- nation, however, if there is no ''objective and reasonable justifi- cation'' for it. I am no expert on conditions in either country, but those with the relevant expertise have cast considerable doubt on whether the Government's stated justification passes this test in respect of either Sri Lanka or Afghanistan. Apart from the probably valid charge of discrimination, the main international legal criticism of the Government's new policy is that it will lead to arbitrary detention in breach of, for example, article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This outcome does not flow from the suspension of processing alone but from its con- junction with the policy of mandatory detention, which the Government has expressly said will continue to apply to all ''irregular maritime arrivals claiming asylum . . . including those subject to the suspension.'' Given that the conjunction exists, the cogency of the criticism is beyond question. Detention is ''arbitrary'' if it is not permitted by domestic law or is not a necessary and proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end. While protecting the community and ensuring failed asylum-seekers are available for removal are considered internationally to be legitimate purposes, detention must still be a necessary and proportionate means of achieving those purposes. The only way to ensure that the requirements of necessity and proportionality are met is for detention decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis. The ''necessary'' criterion is satisfied if it can be shown that there is no other, less restrictive, means of achieving the end in question in the particular case. Satisfaction of the ''proportion- ate'' criterion requires demonstrating that the importance to society of the end to be achieved by detention outweighs the importance to the individual of his or her liberty. Detaining unauthorised maritime arrivals without regard to their indi- vidual circumstances already exposes Australia to the risk of breaching article 9 of the International Coven- ant on Civil and Political Rights, even in relation to those who are not subject to the processing freezes. Superimposing these freezes will
PSI - September