UNHCR on excision of Australia from its own migration zone

UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, does not leave any doubt where it stands in relation to the scandalous legislation being enacted in our Parliament today, with the support of all the major parties. To quote from today’s media release on the subject:

UNHCR's longstanding view is that under international law any excision of territory for a specific purpose has no bearing on the obligation of a country to abide by its international treaty obligations which apply to all of its territory. This includes the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Australia is a party.

What could be plainer than that? I am pleased to have my own longstanding understanding of the law confirmed, but would be even more pleased if our nation’s “leaders” had the moral fibre to do the right thing and head in the opposite direction, returning Christmas Island, the Cocos Islands and Ashmore and Cartier Reef to the migration zone.

UNHCR’s media release is short and to the point, so I reproduce it below in full.

UNHCR Statement: Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012

31 October 2012 

UNHCR Statement

Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012

UNHCR's longstanding view is that under international law any excision of territory for a specific purpose has no bearing on the obligation of a country to abide by its international treaty obligations which apply to all of its territory. This includes the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Australia is a party.

UNHCR's preferred position has always been for all asylum-seekers arriving into Australian territory, by whatever means, and wherever, to be given access to a full and efficient refugee status determination process in Australia. This would be consistent with general practice, and in line with the principle of non-discrimination.

If asylum-seekers are transferred to another country, the legal responsibility for those asylum-seekers may in some circumstances be shared with that other country, but such an arrangement would not relieve Australia of its own obligations under the Convention.

In this respect UNHCR considers it imperative that all asylum-seekers affected by the '13 August' arrangements be provided with a fair and effective asylum procedure, with due process, as soon as possible, and that any detention of asylum-seekers be strictly in accordance with Australia’s refugee and human rights law obligations.

UNHCR is increasingly concerned about the unresolved status of the more than 5,700 people who have arrived in Australia since 13 August and who are being held in detention in Australia and Nauru. This effective suspension of processing raises serious legal issues, as well as concerns for the health and wellbeing of those affected.

Read the original on the UNHCR website here.

Petro Georgiou on playing the asylum seeker card

Let's hear it from former Liberal MP Petro Georgiou on the Government's scandalous and unprincipled intention to excise the whole of mainland Australia from the migration zone. Do not adjust your screen, this is not a typo, the Government wants to excise the whole of mainland Australia from the migration zone. That way boat arrivals will have no rights under the Refugee Convention (they could be apprehended walking down Martin Place and for the purposes of the Migration Act they would be deemed not to have arrived here).

That way the only people who would have any claim on us would be people who can successfully lie their way onto a plane by saying they want to come for a holiday or business, and then asking for asylum on arrival.

We would be more honest if we just denounced the Refugee Convention and said we are not interested in helping refugees anymore. Almost as sickening as the Government’s approach to asylum seekers is the way Ministers intone that we will abide by our obligations under the Refugee Convention. Don’t be taken in – we don’t go within a bull’s roar of abiding by a Convention that stipulates that people with a well-founded fear of persecution in their own country have a right to flee and claim asylum in a state that is party to the Convention; that detention will be used only as a last resort, that they will be able to ply their trade or profession at the going rate, that they will have access to the courts etc.

Far from excising the mainland from the Migration Zone, we should be returning Christmas Island, the Cocos Islands and Ashmore and Cartier Reef to the Zone, so that in respect of all territory under our jurisdiction we accept the responsibilities as well as claiming the rights. We are happy to draw 200 mile circles around tiny specks of land and claim any fish, oil, gas or minerals therein, but please don’t ask us to regard them as part of Australia when it comes to our obligations under the Refugee Convention.

For earlier posts on asylum seekers see Asylum seekers: all aboard the bad ship Bigotry, Deterring asylum seekers, People smuggling: let’s be honest about who’s under attack, Turning away refugees, No card, no entry, Asylum seekers: the Greens have it right, Returning Sri Lankan and Afghan asylum seekers, What is border protection?, No connection between asylum seekers and population, New policy violates refugee law, Shameful policy on asylum seekers, Gillard’s Malaysia solution, and Grog’s Gamut on the “Malaysian Solution”.

Governing the Global Drug Wars

Since 1909 the international community has worked to eradicate the abuse of narcotics. A century on, the efforts are widely acknowledged to have failed, and worse, have spurred black market violence and human rights abuses. How did this drug control system arise, why has it proven so durable in the face of failure, and is there hope for reform?

This IDEAS Special Report contains is a superb set of essays about the origins of global drug prohibition and the current policy debate. It was launched at The Global Drugs War event.

Richard Farmer on the Asia White Paper

I find it hard to disagree with Richard Farmer’s pithy commentary on the White Paper on the “Asian Century” which the Prime Minister released yesterday, published in today’s edition of Crikey:

Round we go again. Australia's "awakened Asia-mindedness" was what the Japanese Prime Minister Kishi called it back in 1957. The Australia-Japan Agreement on Commerce signed on July 6 that year was talked of as a growing realisation that our future prosperity was tied inextricably to the future of the Asia Pacific region. And 55 years later we still have a government talking as if there is something bold, significant and new about developing relations with the countries to our north.

Listening to the Prime Minister being interviewed on the subject by Fran Kelly on Radio National this morning, I didn’t hear her saying anything that we weren’t talking about at length just a bit under thirty years ago, in the early years of the Hawke Government. And there is nothing in the track record of the current government that gives me confidence that it will develop and sustain an implementation plan for any of this. Tactical manoeuvring for short term gain is more its style than the development and implementation of long term policy based upon a coherent intellectual framework.

Under the Elms

On Sunday 11 November the University of New England will be hosting an event called “Under the Elms”, at which an opportunity to sample some of the best food and cool climate wines that Armidale has to offer will be presented, together with “a living art gallery under the trees”. It sounds like a great idea to me – a lovely setting for the occasion. For details and tickets see here.

Elm Avenue will be closed for the occasion for the first time in its history (apart that is, for the odd occasions when a flood in the Dumaresq Creek would cut off what was then the only route to town, isolating the University for a few hours until the waters subsided).

My mental image of Elm Avenue dates of course from the 1960s when I was living in Wright College – the sort of scene which these three photos illustrate.

My memory goes further back, however. A couple of days ago I discovered in a battered old photo album a photo that I took with a Box Brownie in about 1953, when I was still at primary school; I travelled this route often because it was the way from home to the University, where both my parents worked. If you look closely at this photo you can see that not a sod has as yet been turned to develop the colleges, starting with Wright College (first occupied 1956) – the left hand side of the road is still fenced. Note that this photo is taken looking north, whereas the ones above were taken looking south.