Asylum Seekers Case Study

Good morning members of the Annual Human Rights Commission. I am here to speak about Australia’s imposition of mandatory detention, for the asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat without visa’s and how this is in violation of common human rights principles. An asylum seeker is a person who has left their home country as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another country. This policy was introduced in 1992 and has since been a highly controversial issue that has generated considerable debate. The policy of mandatory detention is in breach of a number of international human rights conventions and should therefore be repealed. This will be proven through an examination of the legislation, an analysis of a case that has challenged
A major issue with mandatory detention is that it is in breach of a number of human rights principles. Human rights are a set of moral and legal guidelines that promote and protect a recognition of our values, our identity and ability to ensure an adequate standard of living. Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, many of which Australia is a signatory of. Unfortunately, Australia’s imposition of mandatory detention is in breach of many of these international conventions. A convention that these laws violate is article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that, “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. “ Section 46A of the Act is in breach of this treaty because it does give everyone the right to seek asylum in Australia. In addition, section 196 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is in breach of article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that, “No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.” Section 196 is in breach of this Act because not only are children in detention indefinitely as opposed to the
A stakeholder that has strong views supporting this policy is the government. The government believe that asylum seekers are a potential threat to border security and national sovereignty. In addition, the government believes that this policy protects the Australian public by not only striving to deter unauthorised arrivals on Australian shores, but also by allowing processing time for health, identity and security checks. Although this policy is beneficial to some people, this policy does not benefit many others. For example, mandatory detention has extremely negative effects on the mental health of asylum seekers such as: depression, anxiety, cognitive problems, difficulties regulating emotions and suffering from insomnia. Moreover, indefinite prolonged detention also has a number of negative effects on mental health like uncertainty about their future, lack of independence and loss of control over their lives.12 These problems have in some cases resulted in self- harm and suicide. The Australian Human Rights Commission strongly oppose this policy because, “a person should only be held in an immigration detention facility if they are individually assessed as posing an unacceptable risk to the Australian community, and that risk cannot be met in a less restrictive way. Otherwise, they should be permitted to reside in the