Stopping the boats at any cost

10 July 2014

The last weeks have shown how far the Australian Government is prepared to go in order to deny the claim for protection made by people who come to Australia by boat.

The Government has acted to nullify the effect of the June High Court decision that declared unlawful the cap imposed by the Government on permanent protection visas. The cap, which had been set so low that it effectively excluded all current applications, was designed to nullify an earlier Senate vote that disallowed Government regulations reintroducing temporary protection visas.

The Government responded to the High Court decision by reserving all decisions on permanent protection to the Minister. His decisions, based on a National Interest Test, would not be open to review by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Minister Scott Morrison indicated that he would reject all applications made by unlawful maritime arrivals.

Under the National Interest test, no visa would be allowed if the grant would erode the confidence of the community in Australia’s Immigration Policy, would offer a product that people smugglers could market, would favour people who arrived unlawfully in Australia over other applicants, or would affect negatively Australia’s relationships with other nations.

Like the Dictation Test devised devised to enforce the White Australia Policy, the National Interest Test would allow the Minister to exclude anyone he wanted. It was also calculated to thwart the expressed will of Parliament and to deny effect to a ruling by the High Court. It was an expression of untrammelled executive power.

The Government’s determination to do whatever it takes was also shown in the legislation it has introduced to redefine the interpretation of the duty to protect refugees. Signatories to the United Nations High Commission Convention on the Status of Refugees commit themselves to treat as refugees those with a well founded fear of persecution. The fear of persecution has been taken to be well founded if there is a real chance of persecution. The new legislation redefines a well founded fear as demanding a more than 50% chance of persecution.

This change may seem quibbling with words. But you can appreciate the difference if you imagine taking your sick child to a hospital and being turned away because, although there was only a real chance of her being seriously ill, it could not be said to be more likely than not. Or imagine a woman calling the

AUSTRALIA

Stopping the boats at any cost

Subscriber login