THE UK must not adopt a “morally offensive” Australian-style immigration system, ethicists have warned.
Leave campaigners including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove pledged to bring in a “genuine Australian-style points-based immigration system” before the next general election.
In a joint statement also signed by employment minister Priti Patel and Gisela Stuart of Labour, the Tory MPs said replicating the regime is necessary to “restore public trust” in immigration.
However, in a special issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics, published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Australian experts warn that following their nation’s lead may bring the mandatory detention and torture of asylum seekers – including children – to Europe.
Dr John-Paul Saggaran, of New South Wales University, and Professor Deborah Zion of the Centre for Cultural Diversity and Wellbeing in Victoria, wrote: “Europe is contending with the largest migration crisis since the Second World War resulting from the Syrian crisis. The authors in the strongest terms counsel others against following on the same path as Australia, lest the same mistakes and unjustifiable suffering come to be repeated.”
According to the paper, the system’s lack of transparency helps to perpetuate serious human rights abuses and allows the use of cruel and unusual punishment.
Allegations have surfaced of the use of waterboarding at one facility on Nauru, as well as “zipping”.Meanwhile, doctors who speak out on behalf of patients face jail sentences of up to two years and the Australian parliament voted down a motion to make the reporting of child abuse within immigration detention facilities mandatory.
The United Nations special rapporteur on torture has also found Australia in breach of the UN Convention Against Torture, despite having signed up in 2009 to the Optional Protocol on the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT).
The paper says: “The situation in Australia is particularly important when seen in the broader context of the humanitarian crisis in Syria which is forcing people to seek refuge in the Middle East and Europe.
“Australia’s mandatory detention regime, with an emphasis on deterrence, is being promoted by the likes of Australia’s former prime minister Tony Abbot, with some evidence that he is being listened to. This now includes the Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, calling for the European Union to adopt Australian-styled and inspired immigration policies.”
The paper was released hours after Abbot welcomed Brexit, telling Sky News Australia: “One of the great attributes of sovereignty is to be able to decide who comes to your country. It is not a rejection of immigration. In fact, it’s a reaffirmation of the nation’s determination to decide, as I declared and argued and as the current government does, that we’ll decide who comes, the numbers, where they come from and what skills they bring with them.
“This was a dramatic reminder to all political leaders around the world that, if you live in a democracy, you’ve always got to listen very carefully to what people are saying and thinking over a long period of time.”
In a pre-referendum statement, Leave campaigners said: “Those seeking entry for work or study should be admitted on the basis of their skills without discrimination on the ground of nationality.
“To gain the right to work, economic migrants will have to be suitable for the job in question. For relevant jobs, we will be able to ensure that all those who come have the ability to speak good English.”
The statement was welcomed by Ukip’s Nigel Farage, who tweeted: “Everything I’ve said on immigration, for which I’ve been condemned, is now mainstream. I now believe we will win this referendum.”
Responding to the ethics paper, Edinburgh University’s professor Kenneth Boyd, associated editor of the journal, wrote: “Since, in Europe recently, Australia’s immigration control policies are frequently cited as an example for others to follow, the practices of its detention centres and the role of health professionals in those centres should be of interest and moral concern elsewhere also.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here