Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
When High Court rulings challenge government policy, they usually prompt reflection and refinement. But for the Federal Government, a recent decision on non-citizen rights has sparked a legislative overreach, mirroring the Opposition’s hardline stance.
Pope Francis has frequently voiced sympathy for refugee concerns and before leaving on this trip, he reaffirmed his call for safe migration pathways for people fleeing their own countries for fear of persecution, describing any refusal to harbour asylum seekers as a ‘grave sin’.
There is no doubt that laws for determining refugee status and onshore protection are complex. The cases of NZYQ and ASF17 demonstrate that when laws regarding asylum and protection intersect with laws regarding character and protection of the community, the results can be extremely messy.
The Albanese government’s refugee and asylum policy is in a mess. When Minister Giles introduced his Migration Amendment Bill, they bypassed typical parliamentary procedures, wanting to be seen as tougher than Peter Dutton in getting unvisaed non-citizens out of the country. It’s time for the government to return to due process in this whole field.
With the Queensland Government changing the Youth Justice Act, detention of children will no longer be seen as a last resort, causing widespread dismay among youth justice advocates. It invites reflection on what we should expect when we advocate for a cause, ranging from climate change to perceived injustice, and how we should evaluate our efforts.
This week, the Federal Government quickly introduced a new policy in response to a recent High Court decision that prevents them from indefinitely detaining a small number of individuals they wish to remove from Australia.
What links the debate about the conduct of the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, the detention of children in a crowded and under-resourced Cairns watch house, and British legislation to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
Throughout recent decades of Australian history, the stance every government has taken on asylum seekers has reflected the shifting political landscapes and challenging humanitarian issues that have continually shaped Australia's response to those seeking refuge.
On 8 November, the High Court ordered a stateless Rohingya refugee known only as NZYQ to be released from detention. He could not be granted a visa because he was found gulity of sexually assaulting a minor, and he could not be sent anywhere because he is stateless. Until 8 November, he was stuck in indefinite mandatory detention.
Last month, the High Court overturned a controversial 2004 decision, reaffirming the principle that asylum seekers cannot be detained indefinitely without prospects of deportation. This ruling not only corrects a historical misstep but also reasserts the High Court's commitment to limiting executive overreach.
Any legislation hastily designed to negate the effect of the High Court decisions will be vulnerable again to be struck down on judicial appeal. That haste suggests an initial disregard for human rights and the rule of law by Governments and an ingrained resistance to any limitation of its power. Vindictive laws come at a heavy cost to the integrity and reputation of the lawmakers.
In a better world, people who seek protection in Australia and people removed from prison would not be detained in the same detention centres. But the grounds for differential treatment are not based on the difference between guilty and innocent people; between asylum seekers and 'hardened criminals'. Both groups are worthy of respect and compassion.