From the National Council of Churches in Australia
“Australia’s Churches have repeatedly stated their strong opposition to the interception, transfer and detention in the Pacific of those fleeing persecution,” said the Revd John Henderson, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches in Australia.
“Far from being rebels, the Senators opposing the amended Bill are expressing deep-felt community concerns over the extension of the Pacific Solution. We hope they hold the line.”
Mr Henderson said the amendments proposed by the Prime Minister on 21 June and rejected by Liberal Senators did not go far enough and offered no guarantees that they would be implemented in Nauru.
“The Government’s amendments do not address church or community concerns and offer few concrete guarantees,” said Mr Henderson.
“Most Australians are also opposed,” said James Thomson, spokesperson for the Council’s Refugee Program. “In May, when the legislation was first proposed, only 16% of Australians believed that our immigration policies should be changed. 70% were against any change. Over 60% of Australians also believe that children should not be in detention.”
“The Government says it is committed to the principle that ‘children should only be detained as a last resort in accordance with the Convention Against Torture and the Convention on the Rights of the Child”, however, the government also admits that “none of these arrangements would prevent host countries from making restrictions on the movement of children,” said Mr Thomson.
“The Bill proposes a 90-day processing time limit, but only ‘where possible’. No mention is made of who will be held accountable for not meeting the deadline. Nor does it specify that detainees will be released after 90 days. In fact, there is no provision to release people from detention even when they are found to be refugees. Rather, it is only when a resettlement country is found that those recognised as refugees will be guaranteed of being released. Australia says it will only offer resettlement as the country of last resort. So far, no other countries have offered resettlement places,” said Mr Thomson.
“The Bill proposes that the Federal Ombudsman be given oversight, but the Minister is under no obligation to act on the Ombudsman’s recommendations. The Minister will be given the power to issue visas, but the Minister cannot be compelled to even look at a case and her decisions will not be reviewable.”
“The Bill states that there will be no financial impact, but it is well known that the Pacific Solution was a costly affair. Military operations to detect, intercept, detain and transfer asylum seekers to the Pacific come at a heavy price, as does establishing offshore detention centres and providing financial aid to Nauru.”
“If the purpose of the Bill is to send refugees to another country where the accountability, transparency and responsibility for these people is weak and unclear, then this is a grave injustice and will have dire consequences for the human rights of those intercepted.”
For more information, please contact:
James Thomson, National Advocacy and Education Officer, National Program on Refugees and Displaced People, NCCA Christian World Service – (02) 92992215 or 0402 67 55 44
John Henderson, General Secretary, NCCA – 0419 224 935
NOTE: The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 is scheduled to be introduced to Parliament on Tuesday 8 August.
