Australia celebrated loudly in 2012 when we were admitted to the UN Security Council. There are 15 members of the Council, five permanent and 10 elected members. We are an elected member. So what does the UN Security Council do?

“The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Australia is also a signatory to a number of UN conventions. I want to examine three of them. These are The UN Convention on Refugees, UN Convention on the rights of Disabled Persons (NB their nomenclature not mine) and the UN Convention on the rights of the Child. There are clauses in each of those conventions that will be examined in this article.

The UN convention on Refugees states the following in part (emphasis added):

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits states parties from imposing penalties on refugees who, when coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and can show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

This Article recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to do so if they are seeking asylum.   

Article 31 also prohibits states parties from restricting the freedom of movement of refugees who arrive without authorisation, with the exception of restrictions necessary for regularising their status. Furthermore, such restrictions should be applied only until their status in the country is regularised or they obtain admission into another country.

Article 32 of the Refugee Convention prohibits states parties from expelling a refugee who is lawfully in their territory, except on grounds of national security or public order.

Article 33 of the Refugee Convention outlines the principle of non-refoulement. According to this principle, states parties must not forcibly expel or return (refouler) a refugee to a situation where their life or freedom may be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The principle of non-refoulement has become part of customary international law and is considered to be binding on all states, even those which have not signed the Refugee Convention.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following in part:

Article 9 states the following: Children should not be separated from their parents unless it is for their own good. For example, if a parent is mistreating or neglecting a child. Children whose parents have separated have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might harm the child.

Articles 22 and 23 state that: Children who come into a country as refugees should have the same rights as children who are born in that country.

Article23: Children who have any kind of disability should receive special care and support so that they can live a full and independent life.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons states that:

  1. j.        Recognizing the need to promote and protect the human rights of all persons with disabilities, including those who require more intensive support,
  2. k.       Concerned that, despite these various instruments and undertakings, persons with disabilities continue to face barriers in their participation as equal members of society and violations of their human rights in all parts of the world,
  3. l.        Recognizing the importance of international cooperation for improving the living conditions of persons with disabilities in every country, particularly in developing countries,
  4. m.    Recognizing the valued existing and potential contributions made by persons with disabilities to the overall well-being and diversity of their communities, and that the promotion of the full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of their human rights and fundamental freedoms and of full participation by persons with disabilities will result in their enhanced sense of belonging and in significant advances in the human, social and economic development of society and the eradication of poverty,
  5. n.      Recognizing the importance for persons with disabilities of their individual autonomy and independence, including the freedom to make their own choices,
  6. o.      Considering that persons with disabilities should have the opportunity to be actively involved in decision-making processes about policies and programmes, including those directly concerning them,
  7. p.      Concerned about the difficult conditions faced by persons with disabilities who are subject to multiple or aggravated forms of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic, indigenous or social origin, property, birth, age or other status,
  8. q.      Recognizing that women and girls with disabilities are often at greater risk, both within and outside the home of violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation,
  9. r.       Recognizing that children with disabilities should have full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children, and recalling obligations to that end undertaken by States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

Having established the basic elements of our status as a member of the UN Security Council and signatory to a few of the relevant conventions let us look at two incidents that have raised our compliance with these conventions. The first of these involves a profoundly disabled child. The matter was best reported in The Global Mail as reproduced hereunder and can be accessed here:

The Tamil girl was injured in utero by shrapnel following a bomb blast in her native Sri Lanka, according to sources who know her and describe her as “heavily disabled”; she is confined to a chair and that she “can’t walk, can’t talk”.

A source who regularly visits the girl and her father at the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation (BITA) facility, explains that the pair were separated from the girl’s mother and two siblings as the family attempted to board a boat to Australia. The girl was “strapped to her father”.

“The army intercepted the mother and she was left behind with two little children,” the source says, adding that the mother was jailed in Sri Lanka after the incident but has since been released.

“So he’s here with a heavily disabled child. She’s bright-eyed and beautiful. She turns around and looks everywhere. The other day I thought I’d just hold her hand for a bit and she held my fingers with a really strong grip and I was able to pull her little chair with me just holding her fingers. She thought that was wonderful.”

Another asylum seeker now in BITA was caught in the same bomb blast in Sri Lanka; her name is Suthakaran. “She was also pregnant at the time. Her husband was killed in the bombing, and she is now confined to a wheelchair,” the source says.

“The concern is [immigration authorities] are going to use the story of [the disabled child] and the woman in a wheelchair to say they’re just looking for medical assistance and they’re really not refugees.”

Refugee activists understand that Suthakaran is likely to be deported back to Sri Lanka.

Human rights lawyer and refugee advocate Julian Burnside, who visited Nauru in June this year, says he seriously doubts that medical facilities in Nauru are sufficient to deal with a seriously disabled child.

The second case involves a Rohingya woman, Latifa. Heath Aston reported this matter in the Sydney Morning Herald as follows:

An asylum seeker who was moved off Nauru to give birth is being locked up for 18 hours a day in a detention centre in Brisbane while her week-old baby remains in hospital.

The case of Latifa, a 31-year-old woman of the persecuted Rohingya people of Myanmar, has shocked churches and refugee advocates. She was separated from her baby on Sunday, four days after a caesarean delivery, and has since been allowed to visit him only between 10am and 4pm in Brisbane’s Mater Hospital.

The boy, named Farus, has respiratory problems and needs constant medical care.

Latifa is confined to the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation, 20 minutes away, where her husband and two children, four and seven, are being held.

Latifa’s husband, Niza, is not allowed to visit the child at all, according to people in daily contact with the family.

Read more here:

Clearly the treatment meted out in these two cases does not satisfy the basic articles cited here from the three relevant conventions. Morrison’s approach in these matters has been roundly criticised by refugee advocates. However, we now have his behaviour overlapping the areas of Asylum Seeking and goes to the treatment of Children and the treatment of Persons with Disabilities.

When Prime Minister Abbott arrived in Sri Lanka recently for the CHOGM meeting, he refused to raise issues relating to human rights abuses by Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa and his government. His comments were reported as follows:

TONY Abbott has defended Sri Lanka’s human rights record, saying the Rajapaksa government was committed to upholding the democratic charter of the Commonwealth but that “sometimes in difficult circumstances difficult things happen” – See more here:

So far Mr Abbott has not given me cause to agree with much of his sentiments. However, this time I am hesitatingly in agreement in so far as his reluctance to criticise Sri Lanka is concerned. The fact is that with Morrison flagrantly abusing the UN Conventions in respect of these two cases as well as a host of other refugee issues, Australia is in no position to be critical of anyone else in the world abusing human rights issues.

The case of the Tamil child with disability has disturbed me greatly. It is indicative of a government without compassion for the human element. This minister continues to amaze me as to his inhumanity. Of course, we also continue to operate in an information vacuum created by the Minister’s insistence that these are operational matters that will not be discussed.

In the words (adapted) of Lara Bingle in the advertisements that were created by Tourism Australia when Scott Morrison was the Executive Director (until being unceremoniously dumped from the position), “So, where the Bloody Hell are you??”

Stand up and be counted, Mr Morrison.

 

What can we do as readers of this article who agree with my sentiments that this treatment is inappropriate? Our priority has to be to contact our local Member of Parliament and advise them that we do not countenance a culture that forsakes those that most require our consideration. Sharing this article with your database is a good starting point.