Navy leaving asylum seekers in the dark about their final destination
|
Asylum seekers intercepted by Australian authorities should be informed where they are being taken. But it seems many are still being left in the dark. In the wake of the SIEV 36 disaster, the boat that exploded near Ashmore Reef killing five people, processing changes meant informing people about what is going to happen to them and issuing language cards that explain they will be taken to “Australian authorities”. Stephen Walsh QC, counsel assisting the coroner, last week told the inquiry the changes to how the defence force handles unauthorised arrivals meant coroner Greg Cavanagh need not consider making any recommendations. I have asked four people from four different boats — rescued by Navy and Customs since the SIEV 36 disaster — if they were informed about what was happening to them. I asked specifically if they were told that they were being taken to Christmas Island. In each case they said no. The most recent person was rescued in November 2009. That man has no complaints about his treatment at the hands of Customs, but he reports sitting on the deck of a vessel for three days, apprehensive and anxious. Some among the group believed they must be going to Christmas Island while others worried that they were going back to Indonesia. It was only when they arrived at Christmas Island that one of the Customs officers said quietly “don’t worry mate, it is Christmas Island”. The question has to be asked — why is it necessary to leave vulnerable people in total uncertainty after they have been rescued? I have checked with the most recent arrivals — the practice is still to tell them nothing. This is irrespective of nationality. Some have been aboard Navy boats for up to 11 days floating around not knowing what is going to happen. I have also checked on the language cards. No one with whom I have spoken, including those from recent boats, has seen these cards in English or in any other language. Were questions asked during the coronial inquiry about these changes and, more importantly, their implementation? In essence what the changes are supposed to do is to explain to asylum seekers, at the point of rescue, exactly where they are going to be taken. Surely questions such as when the cards were printed, how many have since been given out and the content of the cards are essential in light of calls for no recommendations for changes to naval procedures? Surely the Navy is required to provide proof of its claims that it has changed its procedures in face of an appalling loss of life? Or is it immune from examination. And why is the content of the cards not being questioned? It is hardly reassuring to asylum seekers to be told “we are going to take you to Australian authorities”. What does this mean? Indonesia is crawling with “Australian authorities”. The Australian Federal police are everywhere — in Indonesian detention centres and sidling around with the Indonesian military and police. Australia pays the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) to record all asylum seeker arrivals. The statement is oblique and confusing at best. Furthermore, has an independent assessment been made of the translations to ensure that they say what is meant? It would not be the first time an unfortunate choice of words has turned up in translation. Why do the cards not say “we are taking you to Christmas Island”? This would provide real reassurance. Asylum seekers know what this means. Why are we fudging the destination? Is it because our Prime Minister, like his predecessor, is still hedging his bets on turning boats back if he thinks he can get away with it? Are the decisions regarding the destination of boats still being made by Prime Minster and cabinet? Is the Navy still hostage to these decisions? If the purpose of this coronial inquiry is to determine what happened and how and why deaths took place in an effort to ensure the circumstances leading to loss of life are not repeated, more questions need to be asked. Policy changes must be put into practice. Asylum seekers must have the right to know where they are being taken and what is going to happen to them. The Navy and Customs officers are entitled to clear guidelines to make decisions that ensure safety of life at sea (or SOLAS). This sacred duty of the sea must be made without reference to politicians thousands of kilometres away in Canberra. No one knows except the participants what happens on the high seas. It is dangerous territory when you have vulnerable people with no rights in the hands of people with consummate power. Australians need to have trust that the Navy is not being ordered by our government to place lives at risk for political imperatives that breach human rights and the international conventions in the process. The findings and recommendations of this coronial inquiry could provide a basis for this trust. |
|
|
|
17 Comments
I don’t know that you can say they have no rights.
In 2001 6 boats were towed back to Indonesia by the Navy at the orders of Prime Minister Howard. No one examined their claims under the Refugee Convention.
No one listened to their claims that they were refugees.
Some of those people after waiting 8 years were brought to Australia as refugees.
Some drowned.
Some gave up and went back to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some died there and were documented.
Some just disappeared.
Australia has signed onto the Convention but does this mean anything in the cut and thrust of Canberra politics where refugees on boats are just a tool for verbal warfare between the political parties?
I meant they had rights, not that those rights were observed. Perhaps I should have quoted some more from that page? (Amnesty International)
http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/20430/
And now I’ll hit moderation.
Is this another piece of bureaucratic cruelty by uncertainty or are the bureaucrats uncertain themselves until they are given direction on whether the boatload is to stay or be turned around? Just wondering?
Pamela makes some good points but I wonder if the real problem is a reluctance by the Australian Govt, and indeed many governments in Europe, to regularise and facilitate the smooth passage of refugees. In other words, maintain uncertainty and anxiety as a deterrent in an area where numbers are increasing and pressure on governments to take action to reduce those numbers is mounting.
Harsh as it is, sadly it seems to me that electorates want political solutions rather than humanitarian ones, regardless of conventions and agreements.
Probably because if the Card said “Christmas Island” but they were transferred to another ship which took them somewhere else, be it mainland Australia or somewhere else, it would be taken by their lawyers as being deceitful and grounds for an appeal if they didn’t like the results of the refugee appeal.
By stating that they are being taken to “Australian Authorities” it is correct, but non-specific, thereby avoiding vexatious claims by lawyers later, in the case that people are taken somewhere besides Christmas Island, which, due to its overcrowding, is almost at capacity, requiring refugees to be relocated somewhere else, such as the Cocus Islands for example.
I wonder how a more specific card could lead to more claims from lawyers? I thought that appeals to the Federal Magistrates Court post-RRT decision were only for challenging an error in the law made by the RRT? Would there be a place in the refugee process that it could become relevant where the refugees thought they were being conveyed? I suppose the cards were made deliberately vague so that they could be used in any situation, but restricting personnel for being more explicit about where refugees are headed does seem to add considerable unnecessary stress to someone already in such a terrible position. Even if the cards did not say exactly where, if this does leave other avenues open for litigation that would worry the government, surely something more explicit than “Australian Authorities” that could be interpreted as being sent back home or to a country such as Indonesia, would be better.
There does seem to be amisunderstanding about Refugee law as some sort of wide ranging infinitely appealable open slather type law. This is Howard Rudd spiel.
Facts are that a refugee claim is decided on CONVENTION GROUNDS ((Refugee Convention)which are to be fleeing because of a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of
race,
religion,
nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion,
is outside the country of his nationality
Thats it. Not just general fear or becasue of general mayhem but a person has to demonstrate that he or she was targetted in particular on these grounds.
I am not a lawyer so i will not go into the complexities but i know of no way that the information on acard can alter a decision as to whether a person is a refugee.
While I am not a lawyer either, that is the general understanding that I had as well. The original case for whether the asylum-seeker is entitled to stay in Australia for those reasons set out in the Migration Act is decided by an immigration officer. From there it can be appealed at the RRT, where it can be sent back to DIAC for another hearing. If the case loses at the RRT, it can be heard by the Federal Magistrates Court, who can only hear cases on the grounds of a legal error by the RRT and not on the merits of the case itself. If there is a negative decision also handed down here, the only path left is to appeal to the immigration minister on humanitarian grounds before the asylum-seeker is forcibly removed from the country. As far as I can see from my decidely very non-expert opinion, I dont believe that giving people as much information as possible in a stressful situation could lead to legal wrangling in this system.
In response to the comments of Meski, “I meant they had rights, not that those rights were observed,”: Is an unobserved right a right at all?
And yes, whilst Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention, this international law is not enforceable in Australian courts unless it is incorporated into Australian legislation. At the moment, you will find that the law regarding refugees is set out in the Migration Act, only by the definition of refugee. However, I believe that this information is also all available on the Amnesty International link you provided. Most of the decision making in regards to the determination of whether someone is a refugee is up to the immigration department and the minister on the grounds of “credibility” and not by following legislative guidelines, as there are none.
Well Scamper for a non lawyer - you sure have aclear and accurate grasp of the whole situation.
thnks.
I can say that neither of you have been at the wrong end of the system, dealing with the SIEVs and their cargo. I did 12 years in the ADF and have many friends on board the Navy ships who intercept these so-called ‘refugee boats’.
When Manoora carried SIEV passengers to Nauru, they were unbelievably difficult to deal with, including throwing urine and faeces at crew members, harassing and threatening crew members, in particular female crew members and basically being as non-cooperative as humanly possible.
Dealing with them required superhuman restraint.
Then the crews on the Armidale’s who have to deal with sabotage, threats, both to themselves and to children on board the SIEV, issues of threatened self-harm, potentially life-threatening situations, and then cop crap from ‘advocates’ who feel free to criticise what the Navy crews do without being there.
Let’s be bluntly honest here, the overwhelming majority of SIEV passengers have chosen to bypass friendly countries to come to Australia, usually having spent thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege,
They have chosen to jurisdiction shop, looking for a place where they will be granted a much better chance to stay than other countries much closer in both geographic and societal terms than Australia.
Yes, I know that the majority of illegal immigrants who come to Australia do so via plane, from places like the US and UK, but at least they had to get through the accepted customs and immigration processes, which weed out most of those who may pose a potential threat to our society before they get here.
This is unlike the system in place for SIEV passengers, who receive a much higher rate of acceptance as refugees under the current Government’s systems than the international standard for refugee applications. Several ‘refugees’ who have made it through via people smugglers have been found to have been either terrorists or potential terrorists (and lest anyone wish to doubt the terrorist claim, the Tamil Tigers have long been declared an international terrorist group).
Basically, the former Government made people smuggling to Australia a losing proposition for both the smugglers and their customers. The current Government has once again made the process lucrative enough for both groups that numbers are rising and will continue to do so until the system changes once more to a less profitable exercise.
The end result of this is that well-heeled economic refugees are displacing people in dire need because Australia has an annual refugee intake, and every person who pays a people smuggler $10,000 to get to Christmas Island, where there chances of being granted residency are very high, displaces someone from Darfur, or Ethiopia, or Afghanistan or somewhere else, who doesn’t have the cash but has a much better claim for refugee status.
The current situation supports the rich over the poor, something I would have thought the left would have opposed.
In your post it seems that you’re just reiterating the government’s rhetoric that asylum-seekers are “queue-jumpers” and “terrorists.”
It doesn’t seem valid to argue that because someone has money in their country that they can’t possibly have a valid claim to refugee status. Surely many middle class people, such as scientists, political activists, religious leaders, doctors etc are the most likely to be targeted for their beliefs. If you were suddenly to be persecuted, your life threatened, and the Australian government couldn’t or wouldn’t protect you, would you just sit around and wait to be killed or raped or tortured, if you had the resources to escape? I think it’s important to be compassionate towards people who are just doing the only thing they can to stay alive.
I also don’t understand what you mean by someone having a “much better” claim for refugee status? In the eyes of the law, you are either a refugee or you aren’t. You are either going to be persecuted and killed in your country or you aren’t. You can’t be a “better” refugee than someone. You either are or you aren’t. I think it’s somewhat offensive to suggest that someone can be a “better” refugee than someone else. And over 90% of those arriving in Australia are eventually deemed to be genuine refugees and allowed to stay anyway.
I do agree that we should be taking in more refugees who are suffering in camps such as Darfur, but I don’t believe that we should flout human rights law in order to do so, by turning back boats. Surely, we should raise our quota in order to include more refugees, considering we take such a small percentage of the world’s refugees. Australia takes only 13,000 refugees in a total migration problem of 300,000 migrants. Both the labour and liberal parties are committed to raising the amount of migrants but neither are committing to raising the amount of refugees accepted.
Australia also committed to the UN agreement of giving .7% of their GNI to poorer countries but fell short of this target in 2001. Australia is not doing all they can for those in need in the world, in order to help the refugee problem at the source. We spend almost 7 times as much on our defence force than we do on international aid. There is an obvious refugee problem in the world, we should be doing more to attack it at it’s source; with fairer trade conditions, development aid and releasing third world countries from debt. Initiatives such as these would also help combat terrorism.
However, you are correct in saying that most refugees are coming to Australia on valid visas via the airports. The media and governmental focus on the much smaller amount of “boat people” makes it obvious that this is a politics issue and not a really humanitarian issue. Also, many of those that come by boat simply have no other way. The countries around them are not friendly to them fleeing there, and getting a valid visa would never be possible. After all, do you really think it’s likely that Sri Lankan government would allow a young Tamil man to leave the country on a student visa? And yes, the Tamil Tigers are international recognised as a terrorist group, but being a Tamil does not automatically mean you are a Tamil Tiger.
In fact, in regards to terrorism, in 2007 - 2008, a whole 0.00003% of undocumented arrivals by boat seeking asylum were ‘of concern’ to ASIO regarding character issues. In 2000-2002, out of the 5986 security checks that ASIO had performed on boat people, no individuals had been assessed as a security risk.
Also, in your claim of “jurisdiction shopping,” part of the process of becoming a refugee is proving that there were no other nearby ‘friendly’ countries that you could have fled to. I like that you are willing to be “bluntly” honest, but were are your statistics? Who is this ‘majority’ and where are they coming from and bypassing? If they are being allowed to stay, they are having to prove that there is no where else they could have gone.
Obviously I do not like to hear about the experiences that you and other ADF personnel have been through when dealing with SEIV vehicles, and I do appreciate the contribution that the ADF make to our nation. However, I wasn’t there when and can’t comment on what happened. I can only suggest that by offering more information to asylum-seekers we can break down the fear of authority that was learned in their home countries and build a rapport that would stop anti-army personnel behaviour. I also think that many people forget that a large amount of refugees arriving in Australia are children.
It is important to note that turning back boats is actually flouting international human rights law, we are not allowed to do so. All asylum-seekers arriving in Australian waters have a right to have their claims processed. And under the current government we have actually accepted slightly less refugees than under the Howard government, so the idea that we are becoming a “soft target” is just the government trying to balance right and left wing voters.
Sorry, that should read “migration program,” bit tired today.
Curious to know, Scamper, if you believe that people in the navy have any rights.
GS
There’s no need to be deliberately inflammatory, Gary. Since you’ve read my comment, you’d already know that I don’t believe in anybody being abused in their line of work, and that I am sorry to hear about what Michael James described. I support those who dedicate their lives to protecting Australians as part of the defence force, but this doesn’t mean I have to defend the policy to which they are bound, policy which can be part of creating hostility and uncertaintly amongst asylum-seekers. I also believe that those in the navy have the right to know where their government stands on what should happen to SIEVs they encounter and not be asked to disobey international law in their line of work.
You’d also note that I described that giving extra information to refugees would help those on board SIEVs understand what was happening to them and take away the fear that would cause the kind of actions against the ADF that Michael James described.
I don’t know how often what Michael James described occurs, so I can’t really comment on the frequency. I personally haven’t heard much of this kind of thing described by the refugees that I know who arrived by boat, as many of them were children at the time. I would imagine that a lot of the sabotaging that occurs would be due to those on the boat fearing that they were going ot be sent home to face death or torture. Better refugee policy on the part of the government, and allowing better communication between navy personnel and asylum-seekers in regards to where they are going would help everybody involved.
I’m not trying to be inflammatory - it was a genuine question. You expressed regret that people carrying out the job of sea-rescue should be treated in such a way but avoided any mention of their own rights to safe, civil treatment and excused yourself from judgement on the basis that you were not there. This has not prevented you specifically promoting the same rights for assylum seekers nor passing judgment on other situations where you were not present. You also sought to justify threatening and abusive behaviour from assylum seekers as the product of their culture or a failure of Australian policy or Australian operatives. Further, you acknowledge that the refugees you know have not told you of these sorts of incidents. (Is it realistic to expect that they would?) You make no mention of seeking such information from ex-naval personnel and you would understand that people currently serving are prevented from speaking. This is a less than balanced approach and even appears to be a particular purblindness.
I’m inclined to think that the left simply can’t face the idea that within any group of people who arrive seeking assylum there is a percentage who are vicous, unscrupulous, cruel, mysoginistic, duplicitous and fanatical (the list could be much longer) exactly like the population already here in Australia and exactly like any human population anywhere on earth.
And like any other group, most of them are good people who seek to live in peace. Are they all? No - and it’s wrong to simplistically and reflexively blame Australia or Australians for that reality. It’s not only the hard right that needs to recognise that assylum seekers really are human beings.
GS
Sorry, I must have misunderstood your tone. I did feel that my comments did express that I don’t condone the abuse of anybody carrying out their duty, but hopefully my second comment cleared up any ambiguity about this. I thought that my expression of regret would explain this, and it would go without explicit detailing that I believe in a safe working environment for all, not just those in a position of seeking asylum. I also don’t believe that I have expressed an judgement on any specific situation that I wasn’t personally involved in or to speak to someone personally involved in, so I don’t think abstaining from judgement in the specific case that Michael James described is at all unbalanced. Would you prefer that I pass judgement on a situation where I wasn’t involved?
I didn’t seek to “justify” anybody’s behaviour and I think it is again very offensive to suggest that I would do so, as you suggested that I don’t believe in the rights of Australian Naval Personnel. I can’t help but feel that you are still intending to be inflammatory. I definitely did not blame Australian personnel and I suggested that policy change in order to decrease duress amongst these vulnerable people would help those on both sides of the system.
I’m really not sure what you’re trying to argue anyway? I wrote my comments in order to support policy that would give greater power to naval officers to advise asylum-seekers on where they are going. I think it’s ludicrous to suggest that “the left” do not believe that asylum-seekers possess the same human qualities that we all do as a community, but that does not negate the rights that asylum seekers should be given on a humanist level. I think it’s also misguided to lower this issue to the matter of “left” or “right.” The rights of asylum-seekers shouldn’t be a political issue, it’s a human rights issue. You yourself admit that the actions described my Michael James are perpetrated by those in the minority, does that mean that we should revoke the rights of all to know their fate?
I’m not sure why you believe that I am reflexively blaming Australians and for what? I am merely stating that, in my opinion, people fleeing to Australia have a right to know what’s happening to them, and that this policy would probably help those on both sides of the system. I can only assume from your post that you have spoken to many ex-naval personnel and asylum-seekers, so I’m interested to know your view on why you think that asylum-seekers should be kept in the dark about their destination and how would help naval personnel.