Greens slam jailing of boat people

March 9, 1994
Issue 

By Pip Hinman

"The policy of detaining people seeking refugee asylum in this country harms those detained and cannot be justified", said Greens (WA) Senator Christabel Chamarette as she tabled her dissenting report on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration's inquiry into migration detention on March 2.

The majority report, widely criticised by refugee and human rights groups, recommends continuing mandatory detention for illegal immigrants and urges a further tightening of legal channels of appeal.

It took nine months, 122 submissions, numerous exhibits and more than 100 witnesses to produce Asylum, Border Control and Detention. Chamarette told Green Left that while the overwhelming majority of evidence heard was against Australia's mandatory detention policy, the report's conclusions don't reflect this. Instead, what came through were the "existing prejudices of both the government and opposition parties with respect to boat people".

Despite the "left" credentials of some committee members — MP Laurie Ferguson and Senator Barney Cooney — and chairperson Senator Jim McKiernan, in Chamarette's opinion "no-one was philosophically to the left". Without exception, all shared the same view. "There was no attempt to empathise with asylum seekers."

Chamarette opposed the report's recommendation that Australia continue a policy of mandatory, or, as she terms it "arbitrary", detention. "While it is technically true and stated in the Migrant Act that all illegal entrants will be subject to mandatory detention, in practice only boat people will be detained." Thousands of other illegal immigrants are allowed to remain in the community while their claims for refugee status are reviewed.

The government cannot have it both ways, Chamarette said. If it decides that documented arrivals who overstay their visas do not pose any threat to Australia's immigration program, it is difficult to see why it is not the same with unauthorised arrivals. "The so-called boat people are treated as if they have committed a major crime."

Of concern was a submission from the human rights commissioner which said that Australia's mandatory detention policy, unique among Western countries, is in breach of international conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

According to Chamarette, alternatives to detention were never seriously considered by the committee. She recommends that conditional release be made available to all unauthorised border arrivals claiming refugee status once preliminary identity, security and health checks have been completed. "The basic thrust of a conditional release scheme would be to release relevant detainees into the community under specific conditions." Such a scheme, piloted in Canada, came up with encouraging results.

"Replacing mandatory detention with a conditional release scheme is basically a risk benefit approach", Chamarette continued. "Of course, some unauthorised border arrivals may abscond, just as do some illegal entrants and some citizens on bail. It should not be forgotten that what is being offered is no more than what is offered to Australian citizens, who are invariably able to apply for release when the type of offence involves a relatively minor level of criminality."

There would also be financial advantages to such a scheme. While the committee's report was vague on the costs of the current detention system, Chamarette estimates that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs spent a total of $18.43 million in 1992-93, not including legal costs.

The majority report's "conditional release recommendations" which can take place only after six months, and then only by ministerial discretion and only for those who fall into specific age or health related categories, are far too narrow, says Chamarette.

Also of great concern is the recommendation that people's right to judicial appeal be further restricted. Already the federal Labor government, with opposition support, has introduced a range of restrictive amendments to the Migration Act to head off court challenges by asylum seekers locked up in Port Hedland and Villawood. International obligations require either an administrative or judicial process, and most countries provide both for asylum seekers.

However, the majority report stated that Australia could do with just one, and is recommending that access to the courts be further limited.

Chairperson McKiernan's justification for this change makes it sound as though Australia were under siege: "... legal challenges in the migration field ... can be and are used to buy time in Australia, as applicants seek to exploit every avenue and loophole open to them in their bid to remain in Australia".
[Senator Christabel Chamarette will be one of the keynote speakers at the International Green Left Conference in Sydney from March 31 to April 4.]

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.