The australian government should provide better treatment for refugees

By this time, Rudd was struggling in the polls for a number of reasons and had lost the confidence of the Labor Party Caucus, which, fearing defeat in the upcoming election, installed Julia Gillard in his place. Gillard argued it was wrong to give special privileges to asylum seekers. She was against a return to the Pacific Solution, instead arguing for the establishment of a regional offshore processing centre. The so-called Malaysian Solution was eventually ruled unconstitutional, partly because Malaysia was not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

The australian government should provide better treatment for refugees

By Peter Mares Updated October 14, Unless we ground our responses to asylum seekers on a political level as a matter of addressing injustice, we risk faltering when emotions sway. Mark Trenorden There has been a pause in boat arrivals but the asylum seeker issue hasn't gone away. Now is the time to outline a more just solution that accounts for past responses and international law, writes five experts.

Current policies to prevent and deter asylum seekers from reaching Australia by boat are justified by the assertion that these policies save lives. Yet forced and irregular migration is a global phenomenon, so tighter controls along some borders tend to increase the level of migration along other routes and across other frontiers.

If all borders are closed to them, they will continue to suffer the harm from which they would flee if they could. So, should Australia simply ignore the loss of life at sea and accept people-smuggling to our shores as inevitable? That would amount to applying a survival-of-the-fittest filter to refugee protection - prioritising those who manage to raise the money for a perilous journey and then survive it.

The australian government should provide better treatment for refugees

Such acceptance would also ignore the potential pull factor that successful journeys to Australia can create. But nor should we accept the application of systematic cruelty to unauthorised arrivals in order to "send a message" to deter others from making a similar journey.

This is ethically indefensible. It is to use people as means, rather than to treat them as ends. It is also rank hypocrisy to claim to care for the wellbeing of asylum seekers, while inflicting extreme suffering on those who actually come within our effective control.

A more humane and ultimately more effective way of addressing forced and irregular migration is to adopt long-term strategies that will reduce the number of asylum seekers wishing to get on boats in Indonesia or elsewhere.

This approach requires us to engage with the issue of why people feel compelled to leave their home countries. Inequalities lie at the heart of forced and irregular migration, and necessitate more sophisticated approaches to addressing its root causes.

This is not to say that our response should be limited to addressing the root causes of displacement; but any response that does not tackle these root causes risks losing sight of the fact that forced and irregular migration is a symptom of broader problems. Human mobility is the result of a complex mix of factors.

The dichotomy that contrasts "genuine refugees" with "economic migrants" is misleading because it suggests that every individual falls into one category or the other. In fact, all migration derives to a greater or lesser extent from an uneven distribution of security the ability to live a safe, dignified life with a reliable livelihood and opportunity the capacity to flourish.

The fact that security and opportunity are generally more available to Australians than to, say, Hazaras in Afghanistan or Congolese is an accident of birth, rather than a matter of entitlement. However, those who lack security and opportunity will not inevitably seek to obtain it in Australia or other wealthy countries.The Australian Government cut core funding to the Refugee Council of Australia, the national umbrella body for refugees and the organisations and individuals who support them, despite allocating $, just two weeks before in its Budget.

Thousands of refugees have sought asylum in Australia over the past decade, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; degrading treatment or punishment.

The australian government should provide better treatment for refugees

The Australian government does not provide services to link asylum seekers with potential housing. Think Australia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers is OK?

About other animals have also been assessed as refugees and most now have better accommodation living in the Nauruan. (Sydney) –The Australian government should press Cambodian authorities to implement key reforms to improve treatment of refugees in Cambodia before transferring any refugees from Nauru, Human.

Understanding past responses

The inquiry also recommended the government seek advice in relation to whether improvements are required to the medical treatment options available to asylum seekers and refugees in Nauru and. UN slams Australia's treatment of refugees.

By. Guest Blogger By Guest Blogger, along with the Government's refusal to provide them with information and procedural rights, together inflicted 'serious psychological harm' upon the refugees in violation of international human rights law.

the Committee said that the government should.

Australian Government assistance to refugees: fact v fiction – Parliament of Australia