Reforming Australian Government Policies On Asylum Seekers In Essay.

Background

Discuss about the Current policy skilled immigration policy.

The Australian government has adopted several policies that purported to prevent asylum seekers from arriving by sea. During this phase, mandatory offshore processing and immigration detention have been the essential polices that aimed at reducing the number of boats arriving in the country. Australia is one of the signatories to the United Nations 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol with respect to the condition of the refugees. This signifies that the Australian government is under statutory obligation to enact policies and laws pertaining to the Refugee Convention for both the Federal and State jurisdictions. The ‘mandatory immigration detention system’ was introduced in 1992 as Migration Act 1992 as an amendment to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). There are certain policies that address refugee and asylum seekers, which require major reforms to be undertaken by the Australian government to ensure that they are in conformity with the international human rights laws.

This research paper aims at identifying the policy that the Australian government considers is required to be reformed to enable the country complies with the obligations of International Human Rights. The research paper further entails about the policies that the Australian government has initiated with respect to the asylum seekers and the refugees and critically determines the aspect of the policies that requires to be reformed. In addition, it assesses the situations/circumstances under which such reforms can be appropriately applicable to the country. 

When the asylum seekers and refugees enter into the country, the Australian government is obligated to respect and safeguard the basic human rights of such people in terms of the International Human Rights Treaties and Convention like International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 1994, the mandatory detention regime expanded which became applicable to all the refugees/ asylum seekers who entered into Australia without a valid visa. At this time, the bridging visas were introduced that permitted persons to be released under certain circumstances from immigration detention. According to this legislation, migration seekers arriving in Australia without having any valid visa are sent to an offshore processing unit or are subjected to immigration or community detention. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection is entrusted with the responsibility to administer the law and programs with respect to migration in Australia. The government is responsible for the enactment of laws addressing migration related issues, implementation of such laws and raising awareness among people about such law. The two fundamental elements in immigration program encompass Humanitarian program and migration program for family and skilled migrants. Further, the Humanitarian program includes offshore resettlement application and onshore protection application.

Australia's Obligations under International Human Rights Law

Recently, the refugee and asylum seeker policies of Australia have undergone significant changes that are primarily based on the political response to the increasing death rates of the asylum seekers arriving in Australia through sea between Indonesia and Australia. The major political parties in Australia have made several attempts to dress the issues pertaining to the increased death of asylum seeks arriving in boats through formulation of polices which purported to deter and block the accessibility of the asylum seekers/refugees to Australian protection by imposing penalties upon the people arriving through sea.

Several people are compelled to leave their homes/countries in the fear of being persecuted and deprived of their human rights on the grounds of race, political opinion, religion beliefs, etc. Under the Migration Act, it is mandatory for every non-citizen who enters into Australia without a valid visa to be subjected to detention irrespective of the circumstances of the individuals. Once the non-citizens are detained, they are not released until they are removed from Australia or are granted with an Australian visa. Most of the illegal non-citizens are detained in closed immigration detention facilities. For instance, in 2013, there were 9375 people approximately who were detained out of which almost 70% of these people were held in secure immigration detention facilities and the remaining detained persons were held in community detention. Some of these detainees were held up for 3 months or less; some were detained for 6 to 12 months whereas some of them were even detained for more than a year. 

In Australia, four distinct categories are used to classify immigration detention facilities. Firstly, the Immigration Detention Centre (IDC), which is a high security detention facility; secondly, Immigration Residential Transit Accommodation (ITA), which is a closed detention facility that includes less invasive security measures than an IDC; thirdly, Immigration Residential Housing (IRH) that is considered as a secured detention in a domestic environment. Lastly, Alternative Place of Detention (APOD) is a place that is designated by the Immigration Department for detaining illegal non-citizens who are considered likely to pose small risk to the security of the Australian community.

In regards to the immigration detention policy, the Human Rights Commission have raised several concerns for past years stating that the mandatory detention regime results in contravention of the International Human rights obligations of Australia. For example, the obligations stipulated under Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[1] and Article 37(b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)[2] are binding on Australia, which ensures that no person is subjected to arbitrary detention. According to Nethery, Amy and Holman (2016), the prohibition on arbitrary detention includes detention which is although lawful under the domestic law, but is otherwise considered as disproportionate and unjust. The UN Human rights Committee has frequently asserted that Australia has been acting in contravention of the international provisions stipulated under Article 9(1) of the ICCPR. In order to deter any arbitrary detention, a person should be detained only when such detention is reasonable and is considered as a necessary measure under any circumstances.

Mandatory Immigration Detention System

Essex (2017) asserts that the mandatory detention regime of Australia which subjects an individual to detention, is not based on individual assessment of such unlawful citizen which is essential to detain any person. Further, such policy deprived the detained persons from seeking judicial review to determine whether such detention is necessary or not. In the opinion of Wilsher (2016), it deprives the persons from human rights, as under the Migration Act, there is no time limit on the detention period of such persons. This issue is a significant concern and highly criticizes this aspect of Australia’s Immigration detention regime solely because it subjects people to indefinite and prolonged detention, resulting in infringement of the international obligations of Australia. Consequently, the substantial impact of the mandatory immigration detention regime on the detainees results in decline in mental health of such detainees.

The Human Rights Commission has made recommendations related to such mandatory detention of the immigrants according to which, a person should be detained only under circumstances, when such detention is considered as a necessary measure in their individual case[3]. Further, Boucher, Anna and Cerna (2014) states that time limits for detention and accessibility of the detainees to judicial review should be established to ensure that a person is not held up or deprived of his human rights unnecessarily for a prolonged period.

The mandatory immigration detention policy is required to be reformed as it gives rise to another significant concern pertaining to the treatment of and conditions for people held in detention, which is contravening the obligation, stipulated under Article 10 of the ICCPR. The provision ensures that the persons detained are treated with respect and humanity and their dignity is maintained. The Human Rights Commission has often visited the immigration detention centers for monitoring the conditions of the detainees and based on the visits, the Commission has found that some of the detention facilities are not appropriate for holding the detainees for a long period and are in contravention of article 10 of the ICCPR. Furthermore, Sampson (2015) believes that this mandatory detention regime is highly criticized for its expenses. In 2011-2012, the immigration detention expenses have caused the Australians taxpayers approximately $1.235 billion and have questioned the efficacy of the detention system to deter people from seeking asylum.

According to Sampson (2015), there are several challenges pertaining to the circumstances under which children immigrants are held up and the prolonged period for which the children are detained. According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the detention of a child should be a last resort. Newman et al. (2013) asserts that the mandatory detention system in Australia requires children to remain in closed immigration detention until the children are granted with the Australian visa or are removed from Australia[4]. The only exception to removal of the immigrant children from the country is if the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Minister) considers the detained children eligible for residence and live in community detention. According to Article 37(c) of the CRC, children held up as detainees are entitled to be treated with respect and humanity and their inherent dignity should be respected.

Recent Changes to Refugee and Asylum Seeker Policies

Further, the Human Rights Commission raised concerns regarding the anxiety and despair that the unaccompanied minors are facing when they held up in detention facilities. According to Nethery (2015), Australia is acting in contravention of the obligations that it owes towards the children arriving in Australia as asylum seeker, in particular, unaccompanied minors. Australia being one of the signatories to the CRC is obligated to ensure that it provides alternative care for these children and that they receive special assistance and protection[5]. An essential aspect of care in respect of the unaccompanied minors is effective guardianship, which implies that legal guardian of an unaccompanied minor, shall be conferred with all the responsibilities of a natural guardian. The legal guardian shall be primarily responsible for the nurture and growth of the unaccompanied child.

Griffiths (2016) states that there are various issues concerning the unaccompanied minors in immigration detention as it may give rise to conflict of interest. This is primarily because the Minister is accountable for managing the mandatory immigration detention regime under the Migration Act and is accountable for determining whether visas should be granted to those children. Given such multiple responsibilities, Griffiths (2016) believes that it is likely to be intricate for the Minister or any of his delegates to ensure welfare of the child while making decisions for unaccompanied minors. The Commission has made several recommendations regarding the appointment of legal guardians for such unaccompanied minors for ensuring their rights are safeguarded.

The Refugee and Humanitarian program is one of the initiatives that is taken by the Australian government with respect to addressing the issue. During 2012-2013, the program expanded to 20000 places and has been categorized between offshore resettlement and onshore resettlement[6]. The program was the most successful program in the past 30 years and there has been 87% rise in the total number of offshore resettlement visa that has been granted by the government. However, with the change in the Australian government, there has been decline in the program to 13750 places. There was an incline in the program to 16250 in 2017-18, which is proposed to increase up to 18750 by 2018-19[7]. According to Grant-Peterkin (2014), the Australian Government implemented the Refugee and Humanitarian program in relation to the onshore and offshore protection that is motivated through the political agendas[8].

However, this program has been supported by Grant-Peterkin (2014) who asserts that this program is a significant step towards the protection of asylum seekers in Australia as is evident from the expansion in the program to maximum places. In regards to detention of the refugees and       asylum seekers in detention facilities, the Australian government has shifted such detainees from closed detention into the detention community, in particular, those detainees whose claims for protections is pending. This has been possible with bridging visa and community detention. This reform in the immigration detention policy is based on the measures introduced by the preceding Australian governments, after the establishment of the ‘community detention mechanism’ in 2005. In addition, the amendment made in the Migration Act empowered the Minister to make ‘residence determination’ with respect to persons detained in immigration detention, which permits that person to dwell within a precise residence in the community, also known as ‘community detention’.

Concerns Regarding Immigration Detention Policy

The government does not provide working rights to those who are residing within the community detention facilities. Elliott (2015) argued that as community detention does not have a time limit, the asylum seeker/refugee may be deprived of leading a normal life as the Australian government disentitles them from the right to work. Australia being a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), is obligated under Article 6 of the Convention, to at least ensure the right to employment for the marginalized and disadvantaged individuals and groups, in particular[9]. Moreover, it may not be financially possible for the country to pay for the expenses incurred on the standard of living of these individuals until they are granted visas or are removed from the country. On a contradictory note, Elliott (2015) argued that if the people detained in the community detention are permitted to work, there would be an incline in the rate of immigration in the country which would be inconsistent with the interest of the country altogether. Here, it can be stated that reforms in the working rights of the immigrants policy does not require any immediate reform to be made.

The refugees/asylum seekers who arrive in Australia without any valid visa shall be subjected to community detention or immigration detention by the government. As discussed earlier, this detention for a prolonged time is a contravention of provisions ICCPR to which Australia is a signatory. The provisions prohibit detention of people for unlimited days and without any reasonable reasons[10]. The asylum seekers/ refugees arrive in the country without any valid visa for reasons like forced displacement from their native land and fear of being persecuted or being subjected to torture owing to their political reasons, conflicts, race, religions, beliefs, etc.

These factors attributes to the fact that they were unable to collect their passports or apply for an Australia visa. Additionally, the persons who usually flee from their own country fail to carry any documents that could be used for their identification.  According to the provisions stipulated under MA, persons arriving in Australia without any visa are required to be detained until a visa is granted to them or they are removed from Australia. The issue pertaining to such immigration detention policy is that it does not stipulates any particular time period for which such detainees should be held up in the detention facilities.

For the past few years, the Human Rights Commission has appreciated the incline in the use of community arrangements, which signifies that the treatment provided to the asylum seekers/refugees is consistent with the obligations stipulated under the International Human Rights law. There are several other advantages associated with the adoption of the alternative detention methods that complies with the obligations of the International Human Rights[11]. The Minister has discretionary powers to grant a bridging visa to persons who are held up in the detention facilities if the Minister considers that granting visa to such detainee is not contrary to the public interest[12].

Reforming the Mandatory Immigration Detention Policy

As the asylum seekers/ refugees have to wait in the detention facilities for an indefinite period of time for their claims to be resolved. The delay in resolving their claims is attributed to several factors such as health checks, identity and security checks, which are essential to determine whether the detainees are entitled to obtain visa or they should be removed from the country[13]. Elliott (2015) states that the adoption of the alternate immigration detention, which is community detention arrangement, is beneficial as the community arrangements include condensed risks to the health, welfare and safety of the refugees and asylum seekers, which ultimately, is likely to result in low-rate of self-harm. It also leads to fewer claims for compensation as compared to the circumstances that prevailed in the mandatory immigration detention centers[14].

The effective community arrangements enable smoother transformation to life in the form of an Australian resident in respect of people who are detained and are approved protection. In regards to people who are determined not to be entitled to protection have shown more willingness and are capable to go back to their own country, when such people have been living in the community as compared to people who have been living in closed detention[15].

Cornelisse (2016) argues that this alternate detention approach addresses the issues related to high expenses that are incurred on detention facilities as community placemen is comparatively cheaper than the costs incurred in respect of closed detention facilities[16]. Community placement reduces the likelihood of absconding of the detainees as compared to the chances of absconding that prevails in respect of mandatory immigration detention. Community placements permit complete enforcement of migration law and conditions shall become applicable within a community placement that will eventually, result in elimination of any identified risks. 

According to Conversation (2017), there were approximately 541 asylum seekers who had been subjected to immigration detention for period of one year out of which 314 people have been held up in detention for a period of 2 years or more, approximately along with 5 child immigrants who were detained in such closed immigration facilities[17]. On the other hand, several people have been granted bridging E visa by the Australian government. The situation where some people including children are being held up in immigration detention whereas some are granted with bridging visas arose because bridging visas are granted to people who have already served lengthy tenure in immigration detention.

On 21 November 2012, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship declared that some of the asylum seekers who arrived by boat since 13 Aug 2012 have remained in Australia shall be granted with bridging visa and are allowed to subsist in community detention, while their protection claims are being assessed[18]. Since the Commission prohibited the asylum seekers from working, the financial hardship that the asylum seekers on bridging visas experience have made them eligible for partial financial assistance[19]. Such restricted financial assistance is available for six weeks to assist the asylum seekers with the change from immigration detention to subsisting in the community. However, if the asylum seekers can establish any vulnerability criteria, they shall become entitled to financial assistance for an extended period.

The International Human Rights law does not permit any unnecessary detention of any person based on unjustified and unreasonable grounds. However, Australia seems to contravene such provisions as is evident from the statistics which signifies that people are subjected to immigration detention as soon as they are recognized entering into Australian main land without a visa. Conlon et al. (2017) provides a strong argument in support of the mandatory immigration detention policy by stating that such regime is crucial to safeguard the security of the nation. Additionally, Chacón 2014 asserts that it is essential to adopt stringent measures with respect to the asylum seekers/refugees to prevent an incline in their arrival rate in the country that might affect the economic stability of the country[20]. Moreover, in the absence of stringent immigration prevention measure like mandatory immigration detention, the security of the nations and the safety of its nations are likely to be at risk due to such blended cultures. These arguments in favor of mandatory immigration detention make the immigration detention policy valid, hence, any doubts claimed regarding its inconsistency with the fundamental human rights is required to be addressed as well.

As per the human rights law, no person should be subjected to random and uninformed arrest or detention on unjustified grounds. This provision is stipulated under the Right to Security and Freedom of people from arbitrary detention. Conlon et al. (2017) states that Australia’s immigrant detention policy that detains the refugees/asylum seekers for indefinite period has been considered as arbitrary and illegal by the United Nations based on recent cases[21]. The UN Human Rights Committee ordered the Australian government to compensate those detainees who were held up in the detention facilities without any established charge for a period of 6 years. This judgment of the UN Human Rights Committee may have a significant impact on the attempts made by the country to obtain a seat in the UN Human Rights Council.

The UN Human Rights Committee adjudicated in respect of five refugee, namely, Afghan Hazara, Three Sri Lankan Tamils and One Iranian who had been unlawfully detained between 2009 and 2015 on the grounds of ‘adverse security assessment’ as alleged by the Australian Security Intelligence Organization[22]. The Australian government had determined the above-mentioned people as refugees and their return to their native country was determined to be unsafe. Further, these people were even denied Australian visa as they were considered to pose a threat to the security of the nation[23]. Furthermore, these people were held in immigration detention for an indefinite period irrespective of any charges and were denied a fair trial. Later, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) reversed the security assessment and the refugees were permitted to live within the Australian community. Nevertheless, these people have spent 6 to 7 years in detention facilities before they have been permitted to live in Australia[24].

The Human Rights Committee has raised concerns about people who are detained on ground of ‘adverse security assessments’. Refugees with ‘adverse security assessments’ are unable to return to their native country as they have well established fear of being persecuted[25]. As per the Australian government policy, it is mandatory that the detainees remain in immigration detention facilities unless a third country consents to resettle such detainees. According to Brooker (2016), the Third country immigration does not seem to be a reasonable resolution, hence, individuals together with children are forced to experience imprisonment in detention, regardless of any established charge or any crime convictions.

From the above discussion, it can be inferred that the Australian policy with respect to refugees/asylum seekers immigration detention for indefinite period is need of much reform as compared to any other policies. To sum up the reforms discussed in this research paper includes alternative detention facilities should be used to permit refugees/ asylum seekers to live within the community until their immigration status is assessed instead of forcefully detaining them in immigration detention centers, immigration transit facilities[26]. The alternate detention facility can be achieved by providing the asylum/seekers with bridging visas and the amendment in MA conferring discretionary powers upon the Minister to determine residences for refugees/asylum seekers is an additional initiative. With this initiative, the refugees/asylums seekers shall be entitled to the right to move freely within the community without being subjected to any physical supervisions and constant reporting to authorities as they face in detention centers.

The alternate immigrant detention/ community detention facilities are much better than the other immigration detention initiatives. Nevertheless, no procedure in Australia can remove the stringent immigration detention regime and implement the alternate detention policies. The refugees/ asylum seekers become entitled to community detention after serving a significant period in the mandatory immigration detention facilities. Thus, the much needed reform that could be made in the immigration detention policy is to ensure that the refugees/asylum seekers are removed from the detention centers sooner and are not subjected to unjustified detention in such closed detention centers. The verification or the screening process should be done timely to ensure liberty of refugees is safeguarded and safety of the nation is secured[27].

The implementation of such reform shall not raise any significant concern relating to the security and safety of the nation and its nationals. This is evident from the fact that several people who are held up in detention centers have been released into the community after some point of time, hence, if only such people are removed from such detention centers to community faster, it is likely to raise any significant concerns regarding security of the country. On the contrary, if the refugees/asylum seekers are detained for longer, it is likely to pose greater risk in that such agencies would consumer larger amount of time to assess the refugees/asylum seekers. Additionally, it has been observed that long detentions have a significant impact on the psychological health of the detainees including children and they are not receiving adequate medical assistance provided by the Australian Government. This issue can be addressed only when the refugees/asylum seekers are assured of the period that they will be held up in the detention centers, it shall not take a toll on their mental health[28]. Therefore, although there are no reforms that can be made to abolish the mandatory immigration detention completely to ensure the security and safety of the nations and its nations, but a specific time should be stipulated within the immigration detention policy beyond which no refugee/asylum seekers shall be detained.

Furthermore, the issue pertaining to detention of people on secret security grounds requires to be addressed. The detainees are not provided with sufficient evidence to establish that they have committed wrong resulting in extension in their detention period. One of the basic principles of law states is that a person is prosecuted only after he is provided with the evidence justifying their prosecution. The persons are entitled to a fair trial and a right to defend themselves against any allegations that have been brought against them[29]. The lack of this opportunity is a significant deficiency in the immigration detention policy in Australia. The entitlement of these rights to the detainees would enable the government to determine the immigration status of the detainees without consuming much time and such reforms shall not have any adverse impact on the government neither on the country. The implementations of these reforms would not only ensure compliance of the country with the international human rights law provisions but it shall also enhance the status of the country as one having the most effective immigrant policies. 

Akbari, Ather H., and Martha MacDonald. "Immigration policy in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States: An overview of recent trends." International Migration Review48.3 (2014): 801-822.

Alternatives To Detention | Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Humanrights.gov.au https://www.humanrights.gov.au/alternatives-detention

Asylum Seekers And Refugees Guide | Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Humanrights.gov.au https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/asylum-seekers-and-refugees-guide

Australia And Asylum Seekers: Where Do The Rudd Reforms Leave Us? (2017) The Conversation https://theconversation.com/australia-and-asylum-seekers-where-do-the-rudd-reforms-leave-us-16252

Australia. Human Rights Commission, and President Triggs. The forgotten children: national inquiry into children in immigration detention. Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014.

Bosworth, Mary. Inside immigration detention. OUP Oxford, 2014.

Boucher, Anna, and Lucie Cerna. "Current policy trends in skilled immigration policy." International Migration 52.3 (2014): 21-25.

Brooker, Stephen, et al. "Challenges to providing mental health care in immigration detention." Geneva: Global Detention Project (2016).

Chacón, Jennifer M. "Immigration detention: No turning back?." South Atlantic Quarterly 113.3 (2014): 621-628.

Conlon, Deirdre, and Nancy Hiemstra, eds. Intimate economies of immigration detention: Critical perspectives. Vol. 214. Routledge, 2016.

Conlon, Deirdre, Nancy Hiemstra, and Alison Mountz. "Spatial Control: Geographical Approaches to the Study of Immigration Detention." (2017).

Cornelisse, Galina. "Immigration Detention: An Instrument in the Fight Against Illegal Immigration or a Tool for Its Management?." Immigration detention, risk and human rights. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 73-89.

Doherty, Ben, Australia's Indefinite Detention Of Refugees Illegal, UN Rules (2017) the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/18/australias-indefinite-detention-of-refugees-illegal-un-rules

Elliott, Elizabeth J., and Hasantha Gunasekera. The Health and Well-being of Children in Immigration Detention: Report to the Australian Human Rights Commission: Monitoring Visit to Wickham Point Detention Centre, Darwin, NT, October 16th-18th 2015. Australian Human Rights Commission, 2016.

Essex, Ryan, and Poonkulali Govintharajah. "Mental health of children and adolescents in Australian alternate places of immigration detention." Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 53.6 (2017): 525-528.

Essex, Ryan. "A community standard: Equivalency of healthcare in Australian immigration detention." Journal of immigrant and minority health 19.4 (2017): 974-981.

Grant-Peterkin, Hugh, et al. "Inadequate mental healthcare in immigration removal centres." BMJ 349 (2014): g6627

Griffiths, Melanie. "Inside Immigration Detention. By Mary Bosworth." (2016): 425-427.

Hernandez, Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez. "Immigration detention as punishment." Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev. 35 (2014): 385.

Immigration Detention And Asylum Seekers (2017) Lawcouncil.asn.au https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/tags/immigration-detention-and-asylum-seekers

Immigration Detention And Human Rights | Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Humanrights.gov.au <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/projects/immigration-detention-and-human-rights>

Nethery, Amy, and Rosa Holman. "Secrecy and human rights abuse in Australia’s offshore immigration detention centres." The International Journal of Human Rights 20.7 (2016): 1018-1038.

Nethery, Amy, and Stephanie J. Silverman, eds. Immigration detention: the migration of a policy and its human impact. Vol. 6. Routledge, 2015.

Newman, Louise, Nicholas Proctor, and Michael Dudley. "Seeking asylum in Australia: immigration detention, human rights and mental health care." Australasian Psychiatry 21.4 (2013): 315-320.

Questions And Answers About Refugees & Asylum Seekers | Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Humanrights.gov.au https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/questions-and-answers-about-refugees-asylum-seekers

Recent Changes In Australian Refugee Policy - Refugee Council Of Australia (2017) Refugee Council of Australia <https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/publications/recent-changes-australian-refugee-policy/>

Refugee Laws In Need Of Reform (2017) Theaustralian.com.au <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/refugee-laws-in-need-of-reform/news-story/0a7909c3d47cde19c88d05a71597eda5

Sampson, Robyn. There are Alternatives: A Handbook for Preventing Unnecessary Immigration Detention Including the Revised Community Assessment and Placement Model (CAP). International Detention Coalition, 2015.

Wilsher, Daniel. "Immigration Detention: The Migration of a Policy and Its Human Impact." Refuge 32.3 (2016): 153.

[1] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at article [9(1)].

[2] Convention on the Rights of the Child at article [37(b)].

[3]Australia. Human Rights Commission, and President Triggs. The forgotten children: national inquiry into children in immigration detention. Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014.

[4]Australia. Human Rights Commission, and President Triggs. The forgotten children: national inquiry into children in immigration detention. Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014.

[5]Bosworth, Mary. Inside immigration detention. OUP Oxford, 2014.

[6]Alternatives To Detention | Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Humanrights.gov.au https://www.humanrights.gov.au/alternatives-detention.

[7]Australia And Asylum Seekers: Where Do The Rudd Reforms Leave Us? (2017) The Conversation https://theconversation.com/australia-and-asylum-seekers-where-do-the-rudd-reforms-leave-us-16252

[8]Asylum Seekers And Refugees Guide | Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Humanrights.gov.au https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/asylum-seekers-and-refugees-guide.

[9]Brooker, Stephen, et al. "Challenges to providing mental health care in immigration detention." Geneva: Global Detention Project (2016).

[10]Chacón, Jennifer M. "Immigration detention: No turning back?." South Atlantic Quarterly 113.3 (2014): 621-628.

[11]Conlon, Deirdre, and Nancy Hiemstra, eds. Intimate economies of immigration detention: Critical perspectives. Vol. 214. Routledge, 2016.

[12]Questions And Answers About Refugees & Asylum Seekers | Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Humanrights.gov.au https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/questions-and-answers-about-refugees-asylum-seekers

[13]Conlon, Deirdre, Nancy Hiemstra, and Alison Mountz. "Spatial Control: Geographical Approaches to the Study of Immigration Detention." (2017).

[14]Recent Changes In Australian Refugee Policy - Refugee Council Of Australia (2017) Refugee Council of Australia <https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/publications/recent-changes-australian-refugee-policy/>

[15] Newman, Louise, Nicholas Proctor, and Michael Dudley. "Seeking asylum in Australia: immigration detention, human rights and mental health care." Australasian Psychiatry 21.4 (2013): 315-320.

[16]Cornelisse, Galina. "Immigration Detention: An Instrument in the Fight Against Illegal Immigration or a Tool for Its Management?." Immigration detention, risk and human rights. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 73-89.

[17]Nethery, Amy, and Stephanie J. Silverman, eds. Immigration detention: the migration of a policy and its human impact. Vol. 6. Routledge, 2015.

[18]Doherty, Ben, Australia's Indefinite Detention Of Refugees Illegal, UN Rules (2017) the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/18/australias-indefinite-detention-of-refugees-illegal-un-rules

[19] Immigration Detention And Human Rights | Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Humanrights.gov.au <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/projects/immigration-detention-and-human-rights>

[20]Elliott, Elizabeth J., and Hasantha Gunasekera. The Health and Well-being of Children in Immigration Detention: Report to the Australian Human Rights Commission: Monitoring Visit to Wickham Point Detention Centre, Darwin, NT, October 16th-18th 2015. Australian Human Rights Commission, 2016.

[21]Refugee Laws In Need Of Reform (2017) Theaustralian.com.au <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/refugee-laws-in-need-of-reform/news-story/0a7909c3d47cde19c88d05a71597eda5.

[22]Immigration Detention And Asylum Seekers (2017) Lawcouncil.asn.au https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/tags/immigration-detention-and-asylum-seekers.

[23]Grant-Peterkin, Hugh, et al. "Inadequate mental healthcare in immigration removal centres." BMJ 349 (2014): g6627

[24] Griffiths, Melanie. "Inside Immigration Detention. By Mary Bosworth." (2016): 425-427.

[25] Hernandez, Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez. "Immigration detention as punishment." Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev. 35 (2014): 385.

[26]Sampson, Robyn. There are Alternatives: A Handbook for Preventing Unnecessary Immigration Detention Including the Revised Community Assessment and Placement Model (CAP). International Detention Coalition, 2015.

[27]Wilsher, Daniel. "Immigration Detention: The Migration of a Policy and Its Human Impact." Refuge 32.3 (2016): 153.

[28] Essex, Ryan. "A community standard: Equivalency of healthcare in Australian immigration detention." Journal of immigrant and minority health 19.4 (2017): 974-981.

[29]Nethery, Amy, and Rosa Holman. "Secrecy and human rights abuse in Australia’s offshore immigration detention centres." The International Journal of Human Rights 20.7 (2016): 1018-1038.