A DECISION by the High Court ruling Australia’s offshore detention of asylum seekers is lawful has been labelled immoral by Warrnambool refugee advocates.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The decision was made on Wednesday by the full bench of the high court, which found the federal government had the power under the constitution to detain people in other countries, finding that the conduct was within the law.
The decision potentially cleared the way for the government to return about 250 asylum seekers presently in Australia, including 37 babies, to Nauru.
Former Baptist Pastor and south-west Victoria’s Love Makes A Way spokesman Joel Rothman called on the government to show mercy and compassion. “We want them to recognise that human beings are human beings,” he said. He said children in off-shore detention had been subjected to abuse and harm when the government had the option to re-settle the children in Australia or in New Zealand.
Mr Rothman pointed to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and said Australia would in the long run be judged harsher for its asylum seeker policies. He said Member for Wannon Dan Tehan had engaged seriously with the group but his justification for off-shore detention had fallen flat.
He said a competent government could listen to its moral compass and still have an adequate solution.
Warrnambool Rural Australians for Refugees member and Love Makes A Way group member Don Stewart said the High Court ruling did not reduce Australia’s moral responsibilities.
“Both groups strongly believe that our nation is acting immorally and despicably by endangering the lives and welfare of innocent and vulnerable people especially children,” he said.
The test case was run on behalf of a woman from Bangladesh who was brought to Australia from Nauru in August 2014 for medical treatment, along with her baby daughter. Supporters said the mother was "terrified" of returning to Nauru, where asylum seekers say they have suffered physical and sexual abuse, poor health care and inadequate living conditions.
The woman argued that the Commonwealth's conduct, including restraining her liberty and entering into contracts to allow her detention, was not authorised by any valid Australian law. In a majority verdict the court ruled that the woman was not entitled to declare that her past detention was unlawful.
Mr Tehan did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
With The Age
