Immigrants and Refugees Welfare Law in Australia: An Overview

This essay examines the welfare law in Australia as it pertains to immigrants and refugees. It begins with an introduction highlighting Australia's historical status as a destination for immigrants and the current debates surrounding immigration policies. A literary analysis of various authors' works reveals concerns about the treatment of offshore detainees, particularly in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, focusing on issues of human rights violations, inadequate healthcare, and the psychological impact of indefinite detention. The analysis includes critiques of the secrecy surrounding detention centers and allegations of torture. The essay then explores the Australian legal framework, referencing both domestic and international laws, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It discusses the absence of a straightforward immigration policy and the government's discretion in forming migration policies. The essay concludes by emphasizing the need for urgent solutions to address the mistreatment of immigrants and refugees, advocating for respect for human rights and dignity, and calling for policies that align with international conventions and ethical standards. The essay also discusses the impacts of the government's policies on immigrants and refugees.

Running Head: Welfare law; Australia 1
Immigrants and Refugees Welfare law in Australia.
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation

Welfare law; Australia 2
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Literary Analysis.............................................................................................................................3
Conclusions derived from literary analysis.....................................................................................5
Australian Law on Welfare of Immigrants and Refugees...............................................................5
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................6
References........................................................................................................................................7

Welfare law; Australia 3
Introduction
For a long time Australia has been known to be a favourite destination of many foreigners;
ranging from tourists, students, immigrants and asylum seekers to refugees (McAuliffe &
Jayasuriya, 2016). In recent times, however, a heated debate has emerged in the country over the
ever increasing number of immigrants. Actually, a report of the productivity commission in 2016
asserted that the large number of immigrants means that “Immigration is a defining feature of
Australia’s economic and social life.” (Doherty & Evershed, 2018). This report estimated that, as
a result, Australia’s population could rise to about 40 million by 2050. The Australian
government is taking steps towards controlling the immigration, but there is controversy arising
from its recent treatment of immigrants especially those arriving through the sea. This paper
reviews the immigrants and refugees welfare law in Australia.
Literary Analysis
Many authors are engaging in the conversation of the issue of offshore detention camps in
Australia. Many are indeed concerned with the ‘torturing’, and specifically the health situation of
the detainees, with children and women said to be the major victims.
Nethery and Holman (2016) in their article on this subject do note that people arriving in shores
under the territory of Australia
“…are subject to mandatory, indefinite and unreviewable detention…”
This is done in the countries of Nauru and Papua New Guinea where the detention centres have
been set up. The authors further claim that there is a lot of secrecy that is involved in the said
activities. The ‘closed, opaque system’ as the two refer to it in the article is meant to conceal the
violation of the detainees’ human rights.
Ryan Essex does argue that Australia has taken a leading role in making the developed world to
start
“…implementing the most damaging and regressive measures aimed at deterring asylum seekers
and refugees,” (Essex 2016).
Citing Isaacs (2016) who claims to have spent time at the processing centre in Nauru, the author
backs claims that torture is involved in the process. Women and children get to feel the most

Welfare law; Australia 4
painful pinch of the oppression. The article sensationally claims that Australia has violated the
international Convention Against Torture (1987) by the involvement of children in the activity,
and also keeping the immigrants seeking asylum in conditions which it refers to as ‘dangerous
and violent.’ Essex’s work seems to back claims by some researchers that there are no credible
healthcare services in the centres, part of what amounts into the torture.
Essex is not the only one concerned with the health situation of detainees in Nauru and Papua
New Guinea. Given that the detention centres have been positioned in sequestered areas, they do
not get the ideal medical professionals to cater for their specific needs; especially as a result of
the torturing. (Isaacs, 2016). The author actually loathes the seclusion of the detention centres to
an extent of comparing them to ‘black sites’ around the world. The healthcare workers, he
claims, are stuck between catering for the medical needs of the detainees and fulfilling the
interests of the government, a conflict of interests that he claims has gained attention previously.
It is even worse that the government of Australia has purposely been either delaying or denying
the transfer of these people from the islands into mainland Australia for emergency treatment
(Human Rights Watch, 2019). Furthermore, Isaacs agrees with Essex that there is torture in the
camps; citing mental health issues he claims are caused by the long time detention as befitting
the conventional definition of torture.
Ross Crisp indeed echoes the previous authors in the conversation on the mistreatment of
offshore immigrants in Australia. His proposal is however cautionary and more leaning towards
social ethics (Crisp, 2018). He advocates for a person – centred approach in achieving a
‘constructive practice’ of social civic responsibility by the healthcare providers for the
immigrants held in the camps.
A few authors seem to disagree with these claims, though. Some allege wrongdoing on the part
of the immigrants. Missbach, for instance, argues that asylum seekers coming off the shores have
severed the previously healthy relationship between Australia and Indonesia. (Missbach, 2018).
Though he does acknowledge that the immigration is not the sole cause of the now strained ties,
he argues that the offshore asylum seekers have catalyzed the process in the last two decades.
This approach can be critiqued for turning a blind eye on the violation of human rights of the
detainees.

Welfare law; Australia 5
Conclusions derived from literary analysis.
It is evident that there is a humanitarian problem in Australia that requires an urgent solution. As
all Nethery and Holman, Essex and Isaacs concur, the way in which the immigrants by sea are
being handled in Nauru and Papua New Guinea is not only a violation of human rights but also
an act that places human dignity in jeopardy. It is no secret that the mandatory detention is
causing pain and suffering to asylum seekers. As Crisp suggests there is need for a person-
centered approach to relieve the situation.
Obviously the immigration per se has a few demerits, much like everything else. Missbach’s
concerns although open to criticism bears some weight. Some of the said immigrations may
indeed be illegal; but nothing is supposed to override the upholding of human rights and dignity.
Australian Law on Welfare of Immigrants and Refugees
Australia is bound by both domestic and international law as to matters regarding immigration.
Under Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, which
Australia is party to, everyone has the right to look for and enjoy asylum in other countries.
Australia as a country lacks a straightforward immigration policy or ministry. It is left at the
discretion of the government of the day to form policies on migration (Markus, Jupp &
McDonald, 2009). The productivity commission asserts that “Australia’s immigration policy is
its de facto population policy.” These policies have changed in years in order to regulate the
number of people seeking asylum by boat, which is a political move. For instance, before the end
of 2014 asylum seekers who arrived in Australia after mid-year 2012 did not have the right to
work in Australia and earn a living.
The Status Resolution Support Services (SRSS), which for a long period has been a program to
cater for the needs of asylum seekers who are unable to cater for their basic needs, is not serving
its purpose as it did previously. The government has intentionally made it harder for the
immigrants to access (Refugee Council, 2018).
It is of essence to note that under the Migration Act of 1958, there is no time limit for the
detention of an illegal immigrant into Australia. At the end of 2014 a section of this statute was
modified to include ‘character’ among the factors that could lead to the termination of an

Welfare law; Australia 6
immigrant’s visa (Refugee Council, 2018). Upon cancellation one cannot be deported to their
home country but to be taken into the same controversial detention centres.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Australian policies on refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants have been left
open for manipulation by the government. This is exploited with no respect to human rights and
dignity in the way that offshore immigrants have been treated. Even the international
conventions that bind Australia have been ignored. This is an emerging problem that needs
urgent solution, one that taunts the good image of Australia. If the is no longer keen on allowing
immigration into its territory then it should express itself in ways that do not human rights and
dignity.

Welfare law; Australia 7
References
Crisp, R. (2017). The person-centred approach and social ethics: a cautionary tale concerning
persons seeking asylum in Australia. Person-Centred & Experimental Psychotherapies,
16(3), 270-285. doi: 10.1080/14779757.2017.1323667
Doherty, B. & Evershed, N. (2018, March 23). The changing shape of Australia’s immigration
policy. Retrieved 19th May 2019 from,
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/24/australias-fierce-immigration-
debate-is-about-to-get-louder
Essex, R. (2016). Torture, healthcare and Australian immigration detention. Journal of Medical
Ethics, 42(7), 418-419. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103387
Human Rights Watch. (2019, January 17). Australia: Reverse Cruel Refugee Policy. Retrieved
19th May 2019 from, www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/17/australia-reverse-cruel-refugee-
policy
Isaacs, D. (2016). Are healthcare professionals working in Australia’s immigration detention
centres condoning torture? Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(7), 413-415.
Markus, A., Jupp, J. & McDonald P. (2009) Australia’s Immigration Revolution (1st ed.): Allen
& Unwin.
McAuliffe, M. & Jayasuriya, D. (2016). Do asylum seekers and refugees choose destination
countries? Evidence from large-scale surveys in Australia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka. International Migration, 54(4), 44-59. doi:10.1111/imig.12240
Missbach, A. (2018). Big fears about small boats: how asylum seekers keep upsetting the
Indonesia-Australia relationship. Strangers Next Door?: Indonesia and Australia in the
Asian Century, 125.
Nethery, A. & Holman, R. (2016). Secrecy and human rights abuse in Australia’s offshore
immigration detention centres. The International Journal of Human Rights, 20(7), 1018-
1038. doi: 10.1080/13642987.2016.1196903

Welfare law; Australia 8
Refugee Council. (2018, July 7). Recent Changes in Australian Refugee Policy. Retrieved 19th
May 2019 from, www.refugeecouncil.org.au/recent-changes-australian-refugee-policy/3/