Clive Palmer sends ‘please explain’ note over temporary protection visa deal PUP leader concerned after committee finds the government’s proposed new migration laws breach Australia’s human rights obligations Lenore Taylor, political editor Sunday 2 November 2014 17.57 +11:00 Clive Palmer has sent a “please explain” letter to the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, after a parliamentary human rights committee including five members of the Coalition found the government’s proposed new migration laws were incompatible with human rights. Guardian Australia reported last month that the “deal” between the PUP and Morrison to reintroduce temporary protection visas was looking shaky as PUP expressed deep concerns the legislation went far beyond what was agreed. Now a report from the parliamentary joint committee on human rights has found the whole intent of the new laws breaches Australia’s obligations, by seeking to “sever the connection” between Australia’s international obligations and its domestic law. It says that by trying to stop asylum seekers going to court when a minister might have breached Australia’s obligations not to return refugees to a place of persecution, the government was taking a risk this might happen. “The proposed amendments would remove judicial review … of executive decisions that may be inconsistent with the government’s stated intention to comply with international law,” says the report. “The committee therefore regards the proposed implementation of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations through executive action alone, and without any capacity for independent review mechanisms to guard against potential breaches of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations as ... a failure to comply with the obligation of non-refoulement.” Palmer told Guardian Australia he had written to Morrison asking him to explain. “I’m concerned about the issues raised in that report. I need information to decide whether this legislation is acceptable to us,” Palmer said. The original deal between Morrison and PUP allowed for the reintroduction of three-year temporary protection visas and a new five-year “safe haven enterprise visa” for refugees who agree to work in regional areas for a period of time. Both visas apply only to the estimated 31,000 asylum seekers who are in a kind of legal limbo because the government has refused to allow them permanent residency if they are processed and then found to be refugees. The parliament has so far refused to allow the reintroduction of temporary protection visas. Palmer said he was worried that the government’s legislation went “way beyond” the original deal to redefine what it meant to be a refugee. The human rights committee noted that “the new proposed definition of ‘refugee’ includes elements which the committee has already determined are not in accordance with Australia’s obligations under international human rights law” and said that it was “concerned that the unilateral interpretation of Australia’s international obligations as proposed by the amendments is not in accordance with accepted standards of international human rights law”. The government’s numbers ensured the bill passed the lower house last month, but even with PUP’s support the government needs to find three more votes on the Senate crossbench, assuming Labor again votes against it. Without PUP support it cannot pass. The bill – entitled the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 – does not contain much detail about the new “safe haven” visa class – although Morrison has clarified that “no one will be getting a permanent visa”. But it makes many other sweeping changes redefining the powers of the court and the executive on refugee policy. It removes most references to the 1951 Refugee Convention, upon which refugee law has been built, and inserts a new statutory framework. As the parliamentary digest on the bill explains: “The courts have been interpreting provisions in the Migration Act ‘in light of a presumed legislative intention for the Migration Act as a whole’ to facilitate Australia’s compliance with its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. This was, for example, the basis of the 2010 high court decision that refugees on Christmas Island had to be given procedural fairness when being processed and reviewed. “It says that although the government asserts that ‘it will continue to meet its non-refoulement obligations’ it is extremely difficult to see how the government can make such a statement when, under the proposed changes, people (including asylum seekers and others who fear being returned to a place where they are likely to suffer persecution, torture or other significant harm) can be returned to such a place, irrespective of whether the government has even determined or made an assessment, according to law, of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations in respect of the person.” The bill also does not say how safe haven visas will operate, but a big starting hurdle seems to be that state governments must nominate themselves as potential hosts for refugees on this kind of visa before any can be granted. theguardian/australia-news/2014/nov/02/clive-palmer-please-explain-temporary-protection-visa-deal?CMP=twt_gu
Posted on: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:13:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015