Page 38
Asylum
Conclusion Asylum law in Ireland is at a crossroads between ignoring systemic flaws and reforming the system in accordance with obligations under international law. While the German system is not perfect, it provides a valuable illustration of how to take account of refugees’ needs in a practical and human rights-oriented manner. It is recommended that Ireland look to countries such as Germany when implementing reforms of the Direct Provision system. This should ensure a fairer system for those seeking asylum while mitigating the most egregious human rights violations caused by Direct Provision.
Australia Open? The Fate of Asylum Seekers Down Under By Ellen Hyland, Copy Editor, SS Law and Political Science International attention turned to Australia’s immigration policy in January 2022 after Serbian tennis star Novak Djokovic attempted to enter the country without proof of vaccination to compete in the Australian Open tennis tournament. Within a matter of days, Djokovic was refused entry, detained, and deported from Australia after providing questionable proof-of-recovery documents and causing the Government to worry that his presence in the country “could stir anti-vaccination sentiments.” It was clear that the Government wanted to send a message to the international community that wealth is not a shield against Australian border control; Prime Minister Scott Morrison went so far as to Tweet that “Rules are rules, especially when it comes to our borders. No one is above these rules.” This is a questionable stance to take, given the arguably inequitable approach taken by the Government to one particular class of people entering into Australia. An aspect of the 11-day Djokovic saga that has been glossed over is where Djokovic was detained while awaiting deportation. The same building where the athlete waited for his expensive lawyers to argue his case also housed several asylum seekers, many of whom had been there for years. Rules are Rules, Unless on Christmas Island Australia’s border policy is notoriously strict – one need only remember documentary series from the early 2000s such as Nothing to Declare which displayed the country’s stringent border practices. Their refugee policy is also incredibly uncompromising. In the 2010 case of Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth, for example, it was found for the first time that asylum seekers who arrived at so-called “excised offshore places” could apply for a visa. Under the Migration Act 1958, “excised offshore places” are areas under Australian control that are not subject to usual immigration and asylum law, and include Christmas Island, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Cocos Islands, and other territories such as sea or resources installations. If applying for asylum in one of these places, potential asylum seekers were subject to a two-stage process. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship would first carry out an assessment, and if that failed, there was an ‘Independent Merits Review’ carried out by people hired by the same Department. Many applicants throughout the years complained of the unfair procedural process they were subjected to, but it was not until Plaintiff M61/2010E that the courts found that this procedure was unjust as it did not allow the asylum seeker to properly argue his case in the same manner as a person who sought refuge on Australia’s mainland. After an amendment to the Migration Act following this case, the process for people who arrive at “excised offshore places” is still not as straightforward as those on the mainland – asylum seekers are only allowed to
