Australia's highest court: Keep asylum seekers on islands. What's next?
Australia鈥檚 high court has of asylum seekers in offshore facilities.
The decision, announced Wednesday, came after the Human Rights Law Centre brought a case on behalf of a Bangladeshi woman who had been held at a detention center on the island of Nauru, but had been transferred to the mainland for medical treatment during pregnancy.
The ruling鈥檚 most immediate impact concerns the fate of more than 250 asylum seekers currently on the mainland for medical treatment, allowing, but by no means obliging, the government to return them to Nauru.
Yet the ramifications run deeper, marking another milestone in the debate over Australia鈥檚 controversial - yet effective 鈥� immigration policies.
鈥� and it is drawn at our border,鈥� said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull during Wednesday鈥檚 question time, reaffirming the government鈥檚 policy of deterring asylum-seekers and ensuring 鈥渢his pernicious, criminal trade of people smuggling cannot succeed."
Australia鈥檚 policy of interning asylum-seekers on islands such as Nauru dates back to 2001, introduced under the prime ministership of conservative John Howard.
The Labour government, under prime minister Kevin Rudd in 2007, scrapped聽the policy, with the incoming Immigration Minister Chris Evans calling it "a cynical, costly and ultimately unsuccessful exercise," as 海角大神 reported, citing a cost to the government of about $223 million.
Yet the policy undeniably discouraged would-be asylum seekers 鈥� mostly聽Afghans, Iraqis, Vietnamese, and Rohingyas 鈥撀燼s new arrivals dwindled to almost nothing.聽
It also enjoyed a degree of support, and Labour's Julia Gillard revived the practice when she replaced Rudd in 2010.
Today鈥檚 approach has at its core Operation Sovereign Borders, a 鈥�."聽Indeed, the numbers, once again, speak of the fulfillment of goals: In 2013, 300 or so boatloads of asylum seekers reached Australia. In 2014, the total was 1.
Yet the policy has been marked by controversy, plagued by allegations of rape and abuse at detention centers.
A report carried out by the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2014 concluded:
鈥淭丑别 overarching finding of the Inquiry is that the prolonged, mandatory detention of asylum seeker children causes them and developmental delays, in breach of Australia鈥檚 international obligations.鈥�
In reacting to Wednesday鈥檚 ruling, the Commission's president, Prof. Gillian Triggs, said, 鈥淭丑别 High Court has confirmed that third country processing is lawful under our domestic legislation, but it did not judge .鈥�
Professor Triggs went on to talk of Australia鈥檚 obligations under international human rights law 鈥渢o protect the safety and wellbeing of all people under our jurisdiction, including people seeking asylum."
The group that launched the legal challenge, the Human Rights Law Centre, went further:
鈥淭丑别 ,鈥� said Daniel Webb, director of legal advocacy. 鈥淩ipping kids out of primary schools and sending them to be indefinitely warehoused on a tiny remote island is wrong. We now look to the Prime Minister to step in and do the right thing and let them stay so these families can start to rebuild their lives.鈥�
And while the government can now choose whether to return the affected asylum seekers to Nauru or not, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton indicated that such action would indeed be taken, , though he put no timeframe on it.
Yet opposition to the Australian government鈥檚 policy is by no means universal. One national paper, The Australian, ran a headline of "Australia controls its borders," describing the ruling as "."
They [these policies] have prevented tens of thousands of people from taking risky voyages and being detained, allowed at least 10 detention centres to be emptied and closed, saved hundreds of lives and freed the immigration system to accept record levels of refugees in orderly processes.
鈥淒espite this record of success against the odds, refugee advocates and Greens politicians still campaign to have the policies weakened.鈥�
The piece then goes on to talk of the alternative path, stating that Europe is currently an apt example, 鈥渁 social, economic and humanitarian disaster."
Yet it seems clear that some Australians want more scrutiny of the policy. Another news outlet, The Age, writes that a report is to be released Thursday by the Human Rights Commission, detailing a visit to a detention center near Darwin, where 鈥渃linicians , and the prospect of return was aggravating their condition."
