 "..LEE LIN CHIN: It has been suggested that the Sri Lankan Embassy here and officials there are being involved in discussions over the fate of the asylum seekers. Is that the usual process?
JOHN DOWD: No, it's not. The country from which these people are seeking refuge - and they may well be Tamils, they may well be a people at war with the government - should not have their lives and their danger...at risk by information being provided. This is contrary to normal international practice. Refugee countries like Australia don't do this kind of thing. And it's for political gain - tacitly at the moment with the support of the Opposition - that they are doing this to stop a further 'Tampa' incident as happened in 2001..."
JOHN DOWD, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS: As a matter of international law, no, because we are a party to the Refugee Convention. These are people presumably claiming to be refugees or having the right to make that claim. As a matter of Australian law, certain parts of Australia have been excluded, therefore the Government's stance presumably is that it's not part of Australian law, therefore there is no control and they should be sent back to the nearest country.
LEE LIN CHIN: So you're saying that by taking this course of action, the Australian Government would actually be in breach of its international obligations under the Convention.
JOHN DOWD: Yes. We are one of the few Convention countries in this area. We have ratified it. It's law, international law. But of course the enforcement of that is a matter of international pressure. Australia has a very good reputation under the Refugee Convention. We take very large numbers of resettled people. But if we send these people back, it is contrary to human decency to send people back via Indonesia, a non-Convention country, to Sri Lanka, where these people may be at risk as to their lives. That is a monstrous precedent for Australia to carry out.
LEE LIN CHIN: It has been suggested that the Sri Lankan Embassy here and officials there are being involved in discussions over the fate of the asylum seekers. Is that the usual process?
JOHN DOWD: No, it's not. The country from which these people are seeking refuge - and they may well be Tamils, they may well be a people at war with the government - should not have their lives and their danger...at risk by information being provided. This is contrary to normal international practice. Refugee countries like Australia don't do this kind of thing. And it's for political gain - tacitly at the moment with the support of the Opposition - that they are doing this to stop a further 'Tampa' incident as happened in 2001.
LEE LIN CHIN: Do you think these people should be brought to the mainland for processing?
JOHN DOWD: Of course. We shouldn't have an exclusion zone. Australia is Australia. By having an exclusion zone, you force people to come hundreds of miles further to an inhospitable place like parts of the WA border. They should be treated here - in Sydney, in Melbourne, in the large cities where they have got access to lawyers where they can then be properly assessed as to whether they are refugees or not. If they are refugees, they should be treated in accordance with the law.
LEE LIN CHIN: Thank you very much, Justice John Dowd.
JOHN DOWD: Thank you.
Courtesy: http://www.theworldnews.com.au/transcript.php# |
