Freedom of Speech under the Southern Cross—It Arrived and Departed by Sea?

Wendy E. Bonython, Bruce Baer Arnold

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Australian offshore processing of asylum seekers and others seeking to enter the country without authorisation has attracted substantive criticism for abuses of their human rights, particularly their mandatory detention in Australian-funded facilities located in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Official and corporate disregard of the rights of Australians in dealing with those people-contrary to the official accountability that underlies the liberal democratic state-has attracted less attention. This article explores the offshore processing regime through an examination of how legislation that criminalises disclosure of information about mandatory detention is conceptually inconsistent with the freedom of political communication implied under Australia’s Constitution, and expected by Australian citizens. That legislation treats asylum seeking as a matter of national security rather than humanitarian law. It conflicts with the ethical obligations of health practitioners and others, and with Australian expectations about effective mandatory reporting intended to prevent abuse of children and other vulnerable people. It affects Australian and other officials, contractors, care providers, advocates, and journalists who deal with asylum seekers inside and outside Australia. Accountability and minimisation of harms to non-citizens can-and should-be achieved through an independent oversight mechanism reporting directly to parliament.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)203-216
Number of pages14
JournalThe Round Table: the commonwealth journal of international affairs
Volume107
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 4 Mar 2018

Fingerprint

asylum seeker
freedom of opinion
accountability
legislation
Micronesia
responsibility
national security
political communication
abuse of children
Papua-New Guinea
authorization
human rights
journalist
parliament
obligation
constitution
criticism
abuse
communication
regime

Cite this

@article{683976cb4a5b45848d72741f18df196a,
title = "Freedom of Speech under the Southern Cross—It Arrived and Departed by Sea?",
abstract = "Australian offshore processing of asylum seekers and others seeking to enter the country without authorisation has attracted substantive criticism for abuses of their human rights, particularly their mandatory detention in Australian-funded facilities located in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Official and corporate disregard of the rights of Australians in dealing with those people-contrary to the official accountability that underlies the liberal democratic state-has attracted less attention. This article explores the offshore processing regime through an examination of how legislation that criminalises disclosure of information about mandatory detention is conceptually inconsistent with the freedom of political communication implied under Australia’s Constitution, and expected by Australian citizens. That legislation treats asylum seeking as a matter of national security rather than humanitarian law. It conflicts with the ethical obligations of health practitioners and others, and with Australian expectations about effective mandatory reporting intended to prevent abuse of children and other vulnerable people. It affects Australian and other officials, contractors, care providers, advocates, and journalists who deal with asylum seekers inside and outside Australia. Accountability and minimisation of harms to non-citizens can-and should-be achieved through an independent oversight mechanism reporting directly to parliament.",
keywords = "Australia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, offshore processing, asylum seekers, Offshore processing, Asylum seekers, Papua new guinea",
author = "Bonython, {Wendy E.} and Arnold, {Bruce Baer}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1080/00358533.2018.1448337",
language = "English",
volume = "107",
pages = "203--216",
journal = "Round Table",
issn = "0035-8533",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

Freedom of Speech under the Southern Cross—It Arrived and Departed by Sea? / Bonython, Wendy E.; Arnold, Bruce Baer.

In: The Round Table: the commonwealth journal of international affairs, Vol. 107, No. 2, 04.03.2018, p. 203-216.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Freedom of Speech under the Southern Cross—It Arrived and Departed by Sea?

AU - Bonython, Wendy E.

AU - Arnold, Bruce Baer

PY - 2018/3/4

Y1 - 2018/3/4

N2 - Australian offshore processing of asylum seekers and others seeking to enter the country without authorisation has attracted substantive criticism for abuses of their human rights, particularly their mandatory detention in Australian-funded facilities located in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Official and corporate disregard of the rights of Australians in dealing with those people-contrary to the official accountability that underlies the liberal democratic state-has attracted less attention. This article explores the offshore processing regime through an examination of how legislation that criminalises disclosure of information about mandatory detention is conceptually inconsistent with the freedom of political communication implied under Australia’s Constitution, and expected by Australian citizens. That legislation treats asylum seeking as a matter of national security rather than humanitarian law. It conflicts with the ethical obligations of health practitioners and others, and with Australian expectations about effective mandatory reporting intended to prevent abuse of children and other vulnerable people. It affects Australian and other officials, contractors, care providers, advocates, and journalists who deal with asylum seekers inside and outside Australia. Accountability and minimisation of harms to non-citizens can-and should-be achieved through an independent oversight mechanism reporting directly to parliament.

AB - Australian offshore processing of asylum seekers and others seeking to enter the country without authorisation has attracted substantive criticism for abuses of their human rights, particularly their mandatory detention in Australian-funded facilities located in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Official and corporate disregard of the rights of Australians in dealing with those people-contrary to the official accountability that underlies the liberal democratic state-has attracted less attention. This article explores the offshore processing regime through an examination of how legislation that criminalises disclosure of information about mandatory detention is conceptually inconsistent with the freedom of political communication implied under Australia’s Constitution, and expected by Australian citizens. That legislation treats asylum seeking as a matter of national security rather than humanitarian law. It conflicts with the ethical obligations of health practitioners and others, and with Australian expectations about effective mandatory reporting intended to prevent abuse of children and other vulnerable people. It affects Australian and other officials, contractors, care providers, advocates, and journalists who deal with asylum seekers inside and outside Australia. Accountability and minimisation of harms to non-citizens can-and should-be achieved through an independent oversight mechanism reporting directly to parliament.

KW - Australia

KW - Nauru

KW - Papua New Guinea

KW - offshore processing

KW - asylum seekers

KW - Offshore processing

KW - Asylum seekers

KW - Papua new guinea

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044086021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/freedom-speech-under-southern-crossit-arrived-departed-sea

U2 - 10.1080/00358533.2018.1448337

DO - 10.1080/00358533.2018.1448337

M3 - Article

VL - 107

SP - 203

EP - 216

JO - Round Table

JF - Round Table

SN - 0035-8533

IS - 2

ER -