

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison now has unchecked power to decide the outcomes that will affect the lives of asylum seekers and refugees coming to Australia.
Previous immigration ministers have had this power, but the passage of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 this week handed Morrison unprecedented, unchallengeable and secret powers to control the lives of asylum seekers.
So, what does this mean for Australia’s obligations under international law?
It means that Australia is now no longer obliged to adhere to the UN Refugee Convention – a treaty Australia was instrumental in constructing and implementing after the Second World War. Australia was, at that time, at the forefront of human rights in terms of the status of refugees. It signed the initial UN convention and the subsequent 1967 Protocol. This had previously set the framework for Australian immigration and refugee policy.
It also highlighted and placed Australia as a “good world citizen” with an agenda to uphold human rights, and, in this case, treat people seeking sanctuary with dignity, fairness and compassion.
Refugee law is built upon the fundamental principle of non-refoulement: that is it is forbidden to return a person to a country where they may still be persecuted or tortured. This is recognised by every country and exists in the Refugee Convention.
Morrison’s bill, now Australian law, states that:
… it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.
This is saying that Australia is now entitled to return an asylum seeker to a country where they have been, or know they may be, tortured or persecuted.
Arrivals by boat will also no longer have access to the Refugee Review Tribunal. They will have an appeal mechanism which is not a hearing but only a paper review. This too is an alarming and worrying development.
Top Comments
They jeered and they hissed, "it cannot be done!" "You can't stop the boats!" they cried; "it's push factors!", they lied. Then comes this man, this Scott Morrison. He stopped the boats, it really is done. And noone has drowned, not even one.
"Morrison’s bill, now Australian law, states that: '… it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.'"
It should be noted that the principle of non-refoulement is customary international law, that is, all states are required to comply with this even if they are not party to the relevant Convention(s) or seek to exclude this through national legislation. That statement in Morrison's bill is absolutely not permitted under international law.
"It means that Australia is now no longer obliged to adhere to the UN Refugee Convention..."
Simply trying to exempt Australia from its obligations in the Refugee Convention (and, it should be mentioned, other conventions like the Convention against Torture which provide for non-refoulement) through national law is not allowed - as long as Australia is a party to the Refugee Convention, we are subject to its provisions, no matter what our domestic law says.
If it is ultimately passed, I can't wait to see who challenges the legality of this first.
I was wondering that - I didn't think that Australia could just legislate themselves out of international law - who would challenge it and how?
Unlike other countries (the USA springs to mind, but I'm sure there are others) international treaty obligations do not automatically become Australian law when the treaty is signed/ratified. The provisions of the treaty have to be passed into Australian law as normal legislation. It therefore IS subject to change to suit the whims of the current government.
The international community can (and possibly will) cause a stink over it, and the international courts may become involved if such provisions are ever used; but the fact that Australia has signed a treaty that says we can/can't/must/mustn't do something has absolutely no bearing on Australian domestic law.