find the latest legal job
Senior Associate - Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Category: Litigation and Dispute Resolution | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Come work for a firm ranked in Lawyers Weekly Top 25 Attraction Firms
View details
Associate - Workplace Relations & Safety
Category: Industrial Relations and Employment Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Employer of choice · Strong team culture
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Banking and Finance Law | Location: All Perth WA
· Freelance opportunities through Vario from Pinsent Masons
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Adelaide SA
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Opposition grows to Migration Bill

Opposition grows to Migration Bill

In the face of international condemnation of Australia’s mandatory detention of refugees, a new Bill threatens to further blemish our human rights record. Alex Boxsell reportsAMENDMENTS PROP

In the face of international condemnation of Australias mandatory detention of refugees, a new Bill threatens to further blemish our human rights record. Alex Boxsell reports

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED to a Migration Bill presently before Federal Parliament have done nothing to assuage the fears of organisations that say it will violate human rights.

As Lawyers Weekly went to press this week, both the Public Interest Law Clearing House (PILCH) and the Human Rights Law Resource Centre (HRLRC) said the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill2006 has the potential to violate fundamental human rights and freedoms and would constitute a repudiation of Australia’s international human rights obligations.

Efforts to address criticisms in a report by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee by amending the original Bill are without substance, according to PILCH and HRLRC. They said that if the amended Bill were to be passed, then Australia would risk repudiating its international obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees1951.

The Bill aims to transfer all those arriving on the Australian mainland by sea — without a visa — offshore, which will place Australia’s refugee determination system out of reach. The Minister will withhold the discretion to allow any person to remain in Australia and be processed accordingly.

PILCH said that nothing within the Bill guarantees that those who arrive by sea and are consequently moved offshore, if found to be a legitimate refugee, will be afforded the protection of Australian law. According to the organisation, no amendment could salvage what is essentially a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.

“The Refugee Review Tribunal recently overturned the decision of the Department of Immigration not to afford protection to David Wainggai, who was the only West Papuan refugee from the group which arrived in January 2006 who was refused a visa,” said Michelle Panayi of PILCH.

“If the Bill had been passed, with the proposed amendments, David Wainggai would have had no legal recourse to challenge the decision of the Department of Immigration to refuse him a visa and would have faced indefinite detention offshore or forcible removal to West Papua.”

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission weighed in to the argument with reference to a recent decision of the UN Committee that Australia has once again breached its obligation to protect people from arbitrary imprisonment.

In D & E v Australia, the UN found Australia had for the fifth time since 1997 breached human rights in its use of mandatory detention. In the face of these rulings, Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes believes Australia “should be looking to improve the detention laws, not make it worse for people seeking our protection”.

“There is no question that, even with the changes proposed by the Prime Minister on 21 June 2006, the Migration Bill will mark a big backward step in Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers,” Innes said.

“Australia has an obligation to protect the human rights of every person sent to Nauru under Australian law, yet by sending them to a third country Australia loses the control to make sure that those rights are enforced.”

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Opposition grows to Migration Bill
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Scales of Justice, ALA, right-to-die law
Oct 24 2017
‘Right-to-die’ laws would be a relief for terminally ill: ALA
The passage of an assisted dying bill through the lower house of Victorian Parliament has been haile...
Diversity
Oct 24 2017
Diversity top of agenda for future WA Law Society president
The advancement of diversity in the Western Australian legal profession will be one of the key items...
Jetski
Oct 23 2017
How to fail well
The legal profession is due for an attitude adjustment when it comes to perceived failures, accordin...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...