Anna Samson
Following last year's deal with four Liberal MPs, it seemed that the Howard government had finally acknowledged that children do not belong in immigration detention. It was tempting to believe this was the beginning of a reversal of the worst aspects of the government's immigration policies.
However, no sooner had the ink dried on the Palmer inquiry's recommendations into Cornelia Rau's wrongful imprisonment, immigration minister Senator Amanda Vanstone announced that the so-called "Pacific Solution" would be expanded.
The proposed changes came after the Indonesian government expressed its fury at Canberra's decision to grant asylum to 42 West Papuans who reached Australia's shores in January. While the government argued that the "Pacific Solution Mark II" was a response to domestic concerns, the timing and Indonesia's approval of the policy point to an attempt to solve a diplomatic blue by undermining the rights of refugees.
Under the plan, all of Australia will be excised from the migration zone, in addition to the numerous islands no longer considered part of Australia for migration purposes.
All asylum seekers who arrive by boat will be detained, possibly indefinitely, in Nauru while their claims are processed. They will have no guarantee of resettlement in Australia even if their claims for refugee status are recognised. Men, women and children would be detained, with no access to satisfactory health, welfare and legal services, and no possibility for a review of the department of immigration's (DIMA) initial decision.
The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill (or DUA bill) continues the same racist vein of much of Australia's immigration laws. Having won an election on the strength of its "border protection" policies, the Howard government's reversal of last year's reforms should come as no surprise. The DUA bill makes clear that last year's compromise, which allowed for children to be released from detention camps, was little more than political pragmatism.
Given this, the Coalition backbenchers' response to the DUA bill is interesting. While Family First Senator Steve Fielding stayed mum, the Liberal Party's Judi Moylan and Bruce Baird publicly supported community opposition to the proposals.
In mid-June, when the bill was slated for debate in the lower house, Moylan and Baird attended a press conference hosted by refugee advocacy organisation A Just Australia and online campaigners GetUp!. Together with the Greens, the Democrats and the Labor Party, the Liberal MPs received a letter addressed to the PM from more than 80 prominent Australians, including former navy chief vice admiral Sir Richard Peek, and an e-petition signed by more than 32,000 people (numbers have since rocketed to more than 78,000) demanding that the bill be dumped.
Besides Moylan and Baird, there are between three and eight Coalition MPs, including senators, who share their views. Some of these concerns were put in the senate inquiry into the bill, which, despite being dominated by government senators, unequivocally recommended the bill not be passed.
So significant is the discontent among government MPs that rumours Howard would gag debate and force a vote on the bill before parliament went into its winter recess came to naught.
On June 21, the PM's office released its new-look DUA bill, which provides for those detained on Nauru to have legal assistance and, "where possible", a three-month time limit on processing claims. While there will be no access to community housing, as there is in Australia, some form of community-style detention will be provided with the assistance of the Nauruan government. Canberra will also lobby the Nauruan government to allow the Commonwealth ombudsman to oversee detention conditions. Refugees will not be held indefinitely on Nauru if no other country is willing to resettle them; they will be accepted by Australia. Merit reviews of failed refugee claims will also be conducted by former Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) members.
The amended bill is a marked improvement on its predecessor. Should it be passed, it will result in an upgrade of conditions for current and future asylum seekers in Australia's off-shore processing centres.
However, although Australia will be a resettlement country "of last resort", refugees could still be detained on Nauru for years waiting for approval to live in Australia. DIMA still believes it is "reasonable" to continue to imprison stateless people for more than four years after their refugee status has been recognised, simply to prevent their resettlement in Australia.
Many of the amendments are also purely aspirational, with Canberra having no power to ensure they will be enforced. While asylum seekers will be detained on behalf of the Australian government, they will be detained under Nauruan, not Australian, law. This means the Nauruan government will have authority over the treatment of asylum seekers and their processing arrangements. Given that Nauru is not a signatory to United Nations refugee conventions, there is no impetus for it to abide by international standards in the treatment of refugees, or to accept Australia's suggestions for how refugees should be processed.
Also, the amendments still attempt to prevent refugees whose claims are rejected by DIMA from having their cases reviewed by the Australian legal system.
Judicial review has been vital for ensuring refugees are granted the protection they deserve, and if removed would compromise Australia's adherence to its international obligation to protect refugees. According to the RRT's 2005 annual report from 2002-05, 473 refugees who had their claims rejected by DIMA and the RRT were subsequently recognised as refugees by the courts.
There has also been no scrutiny of the navy's rules of engagement with asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia's shores. If navy officers are required to "turn boats around", refugees are likely to be returned to persecution. It makes little difference under what conditions asylum seekers are processed if they never get the chance to escape persecution and claim asylum in the first place.
To their credit, the dissenting Liberals rejected the amendments, preventing the DUA bill from becoming law and forcing Howard to tell the Indonesian president last week he was unable to deliver on his promise to "discourage" West Papuans from claiming asylum in Australia.
Years of grassroots campaigning and the rapid mobilising of public opposition to this latest bill contributed to the Liberal MPs' willingness to break with their party. But while the bill's postponement is a win for the refugee rights movement, it is just one battle in the ongoing war to secure humane treatment for refugees.
The revised bill is due to be tabled in early August. Now is the time to step up the campaign to force the government to abandon, once and for all, its pernicious off-shore processing policy.
[Anna Samson is a campaign officer with A Just Australia. These are her personal views.]
From Green Left Weekly, July 5, 2006.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.