International Court of Justice currently hearing South Africa's application for a provisional finding that the Government of Israel was and is committing acts of genocide against the Palestinian people within the Gaza Strip

 

IMAGE: ABC News, 12 January 2024

 

On Thursday 11 January 2024, at 8pm Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time, the International Court of Justice began the first of two public hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by South Africa in the case South Africa v. Israel.

The first hearing day of the full Court (comprising fifteen sitting judges & two ad hoc judges representing South Africa & Israel) was given over entirely to South Africa's evidence and argument.

What followed was almost three hours of detailed, frequently distressing and often very shocking evidence of the Government of Israel and its defence forces' strong desire and deliberate sustained intent to destroy the Palestinian people within the occupied Gaza Strip. Thus breaching the international universal prohibitions against genocide as found in the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 

This is one video submitted in evidence:

את עזה אני בא לכבוש
ולחיזבאללה נותן בראש
ובמצווה אחת דבק
למחות את זרע עמלק

את הבית השארתי מאחור
ועד הניצחון אנ'לא אחזור
את הססמה שלנו מכירים
אין בלתי מעורבים pic.twitter.com/5lkbxYeufb

— ינון מגל (@YinonMagal) December 7, 2023

I'm coming to occupy Gaza,

and beat Hezbolla.

I stick by one mitzvah,

to wipe off the seed of Amalek.

To wipe off the seed of Amalek.

{chorus}

I left home behind me,

won't come back until victory.

We know our slogan,

there are no uninvolved civilians.

There are no uninvolved civilians.

{chorus}

[Translation, Middle East Monitor, Instagram, 7 December 2023]

The entire hearing of 11 January can be viewed at:

https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3 and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2vQ7suQWGg.

Today's public hearing, again beginning at 8pm Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time, will see Israel put its rebuttal argument to the full Court.

This day's hearing can be viewed at:

https://webtv.un.org/en/schedule/2024-01-12.

NOTE:

Pleadings, oral arguments and documents in South Africa v. Israel will not be published until the conclusion of the case.

Tweets of the Week

Israel-Hamas war live: UN security council to vote on ‘humanitarian pause’; France expresses ‘serious concern’ over al-Shifa operation https://t.co/Qnp9II7l4j

— no_filter_Yamba (@no_filter_Yamba) November 15, 2023

"There is no way to physically transport them... when some people did try to leave the facility they were bombed."

We call for the protection of medical staff, patients and displaced civilians sheltered inside the hospital. We are extremely worried for their lives. #Gaza pic.twitter.com/v1UqfLHk9p

— Doctors Without Borders / Médecins Sans Frontières (@MSF_canada) November 15, 2023

"We can't move them out it's too dangerous... our problem is protecting the people of #Gaza from what's being visited upon them" - UN Relief Chief, Martin Griffiths for @UNGeneva⤵️ pic.twitter.com/nRt1RBYQba

— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) November 15, 2023

“I am deeply disturbed by the horrible situation & dramatic loss of life in several hospitals in Gaza.” –@antonioguterres calls for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, in the name of humanity."https://t.co/hT01L9zPxx

— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) November 15, 2023

 

Reports of military incursion into Al-Shifa hospital are deeply concerning.

We’ve lost touch again with health personnel at the hospital.

We’re extremely worried for their and their patients’ safety.

— Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) November 15, 2023

UN expert Francesca Albanese: Under international law 'Israel “cannot claim the right of self-defence against a threat that emanates from the territory it occupies – from a territory that is kept under belligerent occupation”'https://t.co/Do380DNvbM

— no_filter_Yamba (@no_filter_Yamba) November 15, 2023

Francesca Albanese: "Israel has the sacrosanct right and duty to protect itself, its territory, its citizens. Although it tends to confuse a lot its own territory with the territory that it is trying to annex under occupation"...

— Greg Jericho (@GrogsGamut) November 14, 2023

Landmark High Court ruling delivered on 8 November 2023 in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023]

NZYQ is an undocumented stateless person whose age cannot be established, who entered Australian territorial waters by boat in 2012 seeking asylum.

The Minister for Immigration at that time was Labor MP Chris Bowen. During the subsequent years to date the following members of the government of the day have held that office: Labor MPs Brendan O'Connor & Tony Burke; Liberal MPs Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton, David Coleman, Alan Tudge (acting) & Alex Hawke; with the current incumbent being Labor MP Andrew Giles.

Since June 2017 NZTQ has been seeking resolution of his matter in the Australian lower courts and finally in the High Court of Australia in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023] HCATrans 153 before the full Court.

Human Rights Law Centre, media release, 8 November 2023:

Indefinite immigration detention unlawful: High Court rules

The High Court has today ruled that it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the Australian Government to detain people indefinitely in immigration detention.

Nearly 20 years ago, the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of indefinite immigration detention in the case of Al-Kateb v Godwin. Today, a majority of judges of the Court overruled that decision. 

In this landmark legal challenge, brought by a person referred to by the pseudonym NZYQ, it was argued that Al-Kateb was wrongly decided, and that it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the Australian Government to continue to detain a person where there is no real prospect that they could be removed from Australia. 

Subsequent to the 2004 decision, attempts to overturn it failed. As a result, the Australian Government has routinely detained people for prolonged periods of time – some for over a decade. 

Today, the average period of time for which the Australian Government holds people in immigration detention is 708 days. There are 124 people in detention today whom the Government has detained for over five years. Many of those people are stateless or owed protection by Australia, meaning that they cannot be returned to their countries of origin as a matter of international law. 

The Human Rights Law Centre and UNSW’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law appeared as amici curiae – friends of the court – to successfully argue that detention is unlawful for any person the Government is unlikely to remove in the foreseeable future.  

Quotes attributable to Sanmati Verma, Acting Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Centre:

“Indefinite detention ends today. The High Court has overturned a two-decades-old authority that allowed the Government to lock people up in immigration detention potentially for the rest of their lives. Today, the High Court held that the Government can no longer detain people if there is no real prospect that it will become practicable to remove them from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future. Detention in these circumstances is unconstitutional.

“This has life-changing consequences for people who have been detained for years without knowing when, or even if, they will ever be released.

“The government must respect the constitutional limits of detention and act immediately to free people who have been indefinitely detained.”

Quotes attributable to Professor Jane McAdam AO, Director of UNSW’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law:

“Indefinite detention has always been arbitrary and unlawful under international law. We welcome the High Court’s decision today, which will mean that Australia can no longer detain people for years on end. For decades, Australia’s approach to detention has been completely out of step with that of other democratic countries. As a result of this significant decision, this will now have to change.

“This is an important and long-awaited victory for human rights.”

Excerpt from NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023] HCATrans 154 (8 November 2023), 8 November 2023:

AT 4.17 PM SHORT ADJOURNMENT

UPON RESUMING AT 4.33 PM:

GAGELER CJ: The order I am about to pronounce is the order of the Court with which at least a majority agrees. The Court will publish its reasons for the order in due course. The order is:

The questions stated for the opinion of the Full Court in the further amended special case filed on 31 October 2023 be answered as follows:

Question 1: On their proper construction, did sections 189(1) and 196(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) authorise the detention of the plaintiff as at 30 May 2023?

Answer: Yes, subject to section 3A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Question 2: If so, are those provisions beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth insofar as they applied to the plaintiff as at 30 May 2023?

Answer: Yes.

Question 3: On their proper construction, do sections 189(1) and 196(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) authorise the current detention of the plaintiff?

Answer: Yes, subject to section 3A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Question 4: If so, are those provisions beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth insofar as they currently apply to the plaintiff?

Answer: Yes.

Question 5: What, if any, relief should be granted to the plaintiff?

Answer: The following orders should be made:

It is declared that, by reason of there having been and continuing to be no real prospect of the removal of the plaintiff from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future:

(a) the plaintiff’s detention was unlawful as at 30 May 2023; and

(b) the plaintiff’s continued detention is unlawful and has been since 30 May 2023.

A writ of habeas corpus issue requiring the defendants to release the plaintiff forthwith. [my yellow highlighting]

Question 6: Who should pay the costs of the further amended special case?

Answer: The defendants.

The Court will now adjourn until 9.30 am tomorrow for the pronouncement of orders and otherwise until 10.00 am.

AT 4.36 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

The Dept. of Home Affairs has reportedly stated that there are 92 detainees who were in a similar position to the Rohingya man, NZYQ.

State of the Global Natural Environment 2021: fighting to hold nations, governments, industries accountable for the catastrophic environmental harm they cause

American Society of International Law, 2 July 2021:

A group of legal experts, in a collaborative effort to confront environmental destruction, have proposed an amendment to the ICC Rome Statute that would add the crime of ‘ecocide’ to the Court’s jurisdiction. The proposal defines ‘ecocide’ as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.” As reported by JURIST, the legal experts believe that the policies and precedents that are currently in place to address similar issues are “inadequate.” While the ICC maintains a history of delivering sentencing and legal precedents in war crimes cases, this amendment could alter the concept of accountability and extend it to the pressing issue of human contributions to climate change. If an ICC member state issues a recommendation for the proposal of the amendment to go forward, a vote will be taken on whether to execute the amendment. To succeed, two-thirds of the total vote are required. [my yellow highlighting]

STOP ECOCIDE FOUNDATION, Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide, COMMENTARY AND CORE TEXT, June 2021, excerpts:

It is widely recognised that humanity stands at a crossroads. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the emission of greenhouse gases and the destruction of ecosystems at current rates will have catastrophic consequences for our common environment. Along with political, diplomatic and economic initiatives, international law has a role to play in transforming our relationship with the natural world, shifting that relationship from one of harm to one of harmony.

Despite significant progress, the inadequacies of current global environmental governance are widely acknowledged. National and international laws are in place to contribute to the protection of the natural systems upon which our well-being depends, yet it is apparent that such laws are inadequate and more is needed.

It is against this background that in late 2020 the Stop Ecocide Foundation convened an Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide (‘Panel’). It comprises twelve lawyers from around the world, with a balance of backgrounds, and expertise in criminal, environmental and climate law. They have worked together for six months, charged with preparing a practical and effective definition of the crime of ‘ecocide’. The Panel was assisted by outside experts and a public consultation that brought together hundreds of ideas from legal, economic, political, youth, faith and indigenous perspectives from around the globe.

Between January and June 2021 the Panel convened for five remote sessions. Panel sub-groups were tasked with specific research and drafting tasks. A consensus on a core text of a definition of ecocide as an international crime was reached in June 2021.

It is the hope of the Panel that the proposed definition might serve as the basis of consideration for an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Statute addresses crimes that are deemed to be of international interest and relevance, and the time has come to extend the protections for serious environmental harm, already recognised to be a matter of international concern.

The inclusion of ecocide in the Rome Statute would add a new crime to international criminal law. This would be the first to be adopted since 1945. It would build on the existing crime of severe damage to the environment during armed conflict, whilst reflecting the fact that today, most severe environmental damage occurs during times of peace, a situation that currently falls outside the jurisdiction of the ICC. This definition of ecocide offers the States Parties to the Rome Statute the opportunity to meet current challenges.

Proceeding to agree a crime of ecocide could contribute to a change of consciousness, in support of a new direction, one that enhances the protection of the environment and supports a more collaborative and effective legal framework for our common future on a shared planet. It offers a new and practical legal tool.

The work has been inspired by earlier efforts, in 1945, to forge definitions of new international crimes, including ‘genocide’ and ‘crimes against humanity’. Ecocide draws from both terms, in form and substance.

Taken with these two crimes, and with war crimes and the crime of aggression, we hope that ecocide might take its place as the fifth international crime…..

II. Proposed Amendments to the Rome Statute

To add ecocide as a new crime to the Rome Statute, the Panel recommends the following amendments. We note that consequential amendments may also be required for other provisions of the Rome Statute, such as Article 9, and to the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and the Elements of Crimes.

A. Addition of a preambular paragraph 2 bis

Concerned that the environment is daily threatened by severe destruction and deterioration, gravely endangering natural and human systems worldwide,

B. Addition to Article 5(1)

(e) The crime of ecocide.

C. Addition of Article 8 ter

Article 8 ter

Ecocide

1. For the purpose of this Statute, “ecocide” means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

a. “Wanton” means with reckless disregard for damage which would be clearly excessive in relation to the social and economic benefits anticipated;

b. “Severe” means damage which involves very serious adverse changes, disruption or harm to any element of the environment, including grave impacts on human life or natural, cultural or economic resources;

c. “Widespread” means damage which extends beyond a limited geographic area, crosses state boundaries, or is suffered by an entire ecosystem or species or a large number of human beings;

d. “Long-term” means damage which is irreversible or which cannot be redressed through natural recovery within a reasonable period of time; 

e. “Environment” means the earth, its biosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, as well as outer space.

NOTE: This was signed by all twelve members of the Independent Expert Panel.

The Morrison Government is puckering its lips to blow on a dog whistle or two?

Ever since Scott Morrison - as then Australian Minister for Immigration and Border Protection - imposed a complete media blackout on asylum seekers arriving by sea, voters have never been quite sure how to take the Liberal-Nationals boast that they had “stopped the boats".

Every so often an inconvenient highly visible landing on our shores revealed that the boats had never stopped coming.

Now faced with increasing pressure to close Manus and Nauru as offshore detention sites, Prime Minister Morrison and his political cronies have to once again hype up the threat of ravening hoardes of undocumented immigrants by drawing out attention back to those boats.

The Australian, 24 October 2018, p.6:

....Operation Sovereign Borders has prevented more than 3300 asylum-seekers coming to Australia by turning back 33 boats and successfully disrupting ­nearly 80 people-smuggling ventures in the past five years.

The Australian can reveal that since September 2013, at least 2525 people have been stopped from boarding boats to Australia because of co-operation with neighbouring countries which has led to the disruption of 78 people-smuggling operations.

In addition, 33 boats trying to ferry just over 800 asylum-­seekers to Australia were stopped on the high seas or turned back.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton yesterday told parliament that advice from the Operation Sovereign Borders agency heads was that the “threat of people-smuggling has certainly not gone away”....

According to the Refugee Council of Australia on 3 August 2018 there were:

3,127 people have been sent to Nauru or PNG as part of offshore processing arrangements

An estimated 1,534 people are still on Nauru or PNG as of 29 July 2018, and as of 30 June 2018 219 are still in Nauru Regional Processing Centre

947 people have left ‘voluntarily’, including through resettlement, as of 29 July 2018, and since September 2012 to May 2018  646 people have left Manus and 165 from Nauru ‘voluntarily’ to their country of origin, and 20 people were forcibly removed from Manus

494 people have been transferred to Australia for medical treatment, and 460 of them were still in Australia as of 21 May 2018 (based on official information that 294 people had left for the US as of 30 April 2018 and reports of another 121 people resettling in the US since then)

7 people had left for Cambodia, as of 30 April 2018

372 people have been accepted by the US (including those who have left), and 121 have been refused by the US, as of 21 May 2018

By far the largest number of those refused are from Iran (70), although 15 Iranians have been accepted

There are 170 families on Nauru, including 99 families which have 158 minors, as of 26 February 2018

There are at least 100 children who have been born to people subject to offshore processing, as of 23 October 2017

There are nine nuclear family units split between Australia and offshore processing, as of 23 October 2017

There are 583 recognised refugees left in PNG, and 821 recognised refugees on Nauru, as of 21 May 2018.

Australia also holds people in onshore immigration detention and as of 31 July 2018:

Numbers of people in held detention: 1,345 with key sites being Villawood (502), Christmas Island (173), and Yongah Hill (262) 

Average length of detention: 446 days, with 267 people having spent more than 730 days in detention

Numbers of people held in detention because they came seeking asylum by boat: 315

Number of children: in detention facilities including ‘Alternative Places of Detention’: 5, in Nauru Regional Processing Centre: 12, in community detention: 176, and in the community on a bridging visa E: 2,835

Number of people in community detention: 386, from Iran (221), stateless (46) or from Sri Lanka (36), with 245 people having spent more than 730 days in community detention

Key nationalities of people in detention: New Zealand (174), Vietnam (104), Sri Lanka (89), and Iran (103).

To date there are reportedly 200 asylum seeker children and their parents in legal limbo in Australia with no clear path to either Australian citizenship or the full protection under international law, because although government sources are allegedly saying to the media that these children will never be returned to Manus or Nauru there are no guarantees in place.

As of 29 October 2018 50 children remain on Nauru.

The Turnbull Government’s anti-democratic slide has been noted by UN

Human Rights Law Centre, 1 March 2018:

The Turnbull Government’s anti-democratic slide has been criticised at the United Nations Human Rights Council tonight, with the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders delivering a major report on Australian democracy.

In an at times scathing report, the Special Rapporteur told the Human Rights Council that:

* he is “astonished” to observe “mounting evidence of regressive measures” being pursued by the Government;

* he was “astounded to observe frequent public vilification by senior public officials” of charities, community groups and democratic institutions who hold the Government to account “in what appears to be an attempt to discredit, intimidate and discourage them from their legitimate work”; and

* that there is an “increasing discrepancy and incoherence” between the Turnbull  Government’s statements on the world stage and its actions at home.

Dr Aruna Sathanapally, a Director of Legal Advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, said it was deeply disappointing that the pressure being placed on Australia’s democratic institutions and freedoms had reached this point.

“The Special Rapporteur’s report is careful, but unflinching, in his scrutiny of our democracy in recent years. The picture is one of sustained pressure on the people and institutions that hold our government accountable here, in Australia.”

“To get a seat on the UN Human Rights Council the Turnbull Government promised the world to “promote good governance and stronger democratic institutions” and “protect freedom of expression”.  But scrutiny and criticism of government are vital to a healthy democracy, even if governments find it inconvenient or annoying” said Dr Sathanapally.

“Right now, our government is pushing for new laws that would make it much harder for community groups, charities, academics if they want to speak publicly about government policies, let alone criticise government.  The Prime Minister is doing so even though these laws may well be struck down as unconstitutional on the grounds of the freedom of political communication,” said Dr Sathanapally.

“At the same time, the government is proposing sweeping new laws to keep government information secret, and punish whistle-blowers, that have been widely recognised as going too far in a democratic country. The government must move quickly to withdraw or fix these Bills if it is genuinely committed to democracy, and being accountable to the people,” said Dr Sathanapally.

Daniel Webb, a Director of Legal Advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, who is in Geneva for the Council session, will deliver a statement to the Council in response to the Special Rapporteur's report. Mr Webb will advise the Council that the regressive and undemocratic trend was continuing and urge the Turnbull Government to accept the UN’s recommendations in full.

Mr Webb said that the report showed that the Turnbull Government needed to dramatically improve its own human rights performance if it wanted to have strong influence on the Council, especially on democratic freedoms and its treatment of refugees and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

“Victims of cruelty and injustice all over the world desperately need Governments like ours to be part of the UN’s principled spine, not to gnaw away at the foundations of human rights with hollow words and unprincipled actions,” said Mr Webb.

“But while our Government can blow its own trumpet on the world stage all it likes, its credibility and moral authority on human rights will be limited until it stops violating them,” said Mr Webb.

The Special Rapporteur’s full report can be downloaded here.

The growing cost of Australian Government policy concerning asylum seekers

Its asylum seeker policy is costing Australia more than a loss of international reputation......

Financial Review, 5 January 2018:

Maintaining Australia's hardline immigration and border policies cost taxpayers more than $4 billion last financial year, including nearly $1.6 billion on compliance and detention.

Treasury figures provided to a Senate estimates committee showed in 2017, the largest spending component for immigration and border protection activities was onshore compliance and detention, followed by $1.083 billion for the management of irregular boat arrivals and $1.059 billion on border enforcement……

a near $5 billion price tag for five years of Australia's offshore immigration detention program, including the total operational and infrastructure costs for Australia's detention facilities on Nauru and Papua New Guinea's Manus Island, peaking in 2015-16.

A professed 'Christian' man named in at least one human rights complaint to the International Criminal Court vows to defend Christianity in 2018

The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 December 2017:

Scott Morrison says he will fight back against discrimination and mockery of Christians and other religious groups in 2018, in comments that position him as one of the leading religious conservatives in the Turnbull government. 

Mr Morrison also promised to play a leading role next year in the debate about enshrining further "protections" for religious freedom in law, which will be informed by a review currently being led by former Attorney-General Philip Ruddock.

For overseas readers who may not know this man, he is enthusiastic Hill Song Church devotee, Liberal MP for Cook, former Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, former Minister for Social Security and current Australian Treasurer Scott John Morrison.

On his ministerial watch alleged human rights abuses occurred in overseas detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru. These incidents included deaths of asylum seekers such as that of Reza Berati.

Alleged abuses continue to be reported to this day.

In a 2016 communique to the International Criminal Court, Scott Morrison, along with Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, John Howard, Peter Dutton, Tony Burke, Brendan O’Connor, Chris Bowen, Chris Evans, Kevin Andrews, Amanda Vanstone, Phillip Ruddock, Baron Waqa and Rimbink Pato, was named as administrating authority having responsibility in relation to the offence of unlawful confinement.

Five Australian Prime Ministers & Nine Immigration Ministers Named In Communique To The International Criminal Court in 2016

“Perpetrators – Individual responsibility

40. On the basis of the brief factual outline provided above, there are a number of persons who have, or would have had whilst elected, knowledge of the relevant facts outlined in the elements detailed below, and played a considerable role in the implementation and enforcement of the Immigration Policies. Further, these people have, or would have had whilst elected, the requisite intent to cause a particular consequence or were aware that the consequence would occur in the ordinary course of events (for example, that the implementation and enforcement of the Immigration Policies would result in Immigration Detention, or deportation and Immigration Detention, of boat people).” [In The Matter Of A Prosecution Of The Australian Government In Relation To Indefinite Detention And Forcible Removal Of Asylum Seekers (2016), p.]

In a communique to the International Criminal Court, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, John Howard, Peter Dutton, Scott Morrison, Tony Burke, Brendan O’Connor, Chris Bowen, Chris Evans, Kevin Andrews, Amanda Vanstone, Phillip Ruddock, Baron Waqa and Rimbink Pato were all named as administrating authorities in relation to the offence of unlawful confinement.

COMMUNIQUÉ TO THE PROSECUTOR AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (2016) by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/366816793/COMMUNIQUE-TO-THE-PROSECUTOR-AT-THE-INTERNATIONAL-CRIMINAL-COURT-2016

Human Rights Law Centre & OECD Watch lodge international complaint over Australia's failure to investigate abuses by Manus Island contractor

Human Rights Law Centre, 27 November 2017:

Australian companies need to be held to account for human rights abuses they commit overseas, but Australia’s complaints system is woefully inadequate and in desperate need of reform.

The Human Rights Law Centre and OECD Watch have today requested the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to investigate the Australian Government’s handling of a complaint against its former security contractor G4S in relation to alleged abuse of refugees on Manus Island.

Keren Adams, Director of Legal Advocacy at the HRLC, said Australia’s OECD National Contact Point, managed by Treasury, has a history of rejecting complaints against companies on spurious grounds.

“When accountability mechanisms fail, injustices flourish. The National Contact Point is a toothless tiger that rarely investigates and has never made a finding against a company. It needs a total overhaul,” said Ms Adams.

The OECD appeal centres around an earlier complaint brought in 2014 against G4S for its role in the violence on Manus in which Reza Berati was killed and 77 other men were injured. A G4S security guard was one of two men subsequently convicted of the murder.

The Australian National Contact Point declined to investigate the complaint, stating that it was not its role to comment on Australian government policy. It also concluded that G4S had limited ability to influence the safety and security of the men in detention, given control of the facility was the responsibility of PNG.

“The handling of the G4S complaint was appalling. We are talking about an incident in which a company’s employees are known to have beaten a man in their care to death and attacked others with crowbars and machetes. For the National Contact Point to have found the matter didn’t even warrant investigating raises serious questions about its credibility,” said Ms Adams.

The appeal challenges these findings as a direct breach of Australia’s international responsibilities under the OECD’s Guidelines. It is the first time a country’s handling of a complaint of this kind has been appealed to the OECD.

Ms Adams said she hoped the OECD would compel Australia to lift its game in its handling of future complaints.

“We are asking the OECD Investment Committee to find that the National Contact Point failed in its obligation to operate accessibly and without bias. Even more importantly though we are asking them to make recommendations as to how Australia can improve this complaints body going forwards,” said Ms Adams.

The appeal coincides with the start of the United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights in Geneva, where experts from around the world will gather to discuss how governments can better address human rights abuses by business.

Download the HRLC's original complaint here: OECD Guidelines-specific instance-G4S

The depths to which xenophobia and bigotry has reduced Australia

Australia began to ignore its obligations under international law in 1992 and its determination to turn back asylum seeker boats and reduce the number of refugees accepted into this country grew apace until this is the situation in November 2017.

The New York Times, 18 November 2017:

Veteran United Nations officials said this month they had never seen a wealthy democracy go to such extremes to punish asylum seekers and push them away.

Papua New Guinea officials and local leaders, enraged at how the camp’s closure was handled, have demanded to know why Australia is not doing more to help the men.

HuffPost, 18 November 2017:

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Australia's main medical association called on Saturday for the government to allow independent doctors and other health experts to help more than 400 asylum seekers languishing inside a recently closed detention center in Papua New Guinea.

The asylum seekers have shut themselves inside the Australian-run Manus Island Centre for the past 18 days, defying attempts by Australia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) to close it in a standoff the United Nations describes as a "looming humanitarian crisis".

Australia has shut access to the center, and staff, including doctors, have left, leaving the men without sufficient food, clean water, power or medical care.

Members of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) voted unanimously on Saturday to call on the government to grant access to the center so doctors could assess the men's health, wellbeing and living conditions.

"The AMA has made many representations on this matter, both publicly and in private but, with a worsening and more dangerous situation emerging on Manus, the federal council strongly believes that urgent action and answers are needed," AMA President Michael Gannon said.

The Australian, 17 November 2017:

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has warned New Zealand it may damage its relationship with the government if it chooses to take Manus Island refugees without the approval of Australia.

Mr Dutton said New Zealand and Papua New Guinea “would have to think through” the impact it would have on their relationship with Australia if they made a unilateral agreement to resettle refugees from the offshore detention centre.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has put pressure on the Turnbull government to accept its offer to resettle 150 refugees from Manus Island. The PNG Supreme Court ruled last week the asylum-seekers and refugees were probably the responsibility of PNG, opening the door for an agreement to resettle refugees without permission from Australia.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 November 2017:

As the Manus Island detention centre stand-off entered its fifth day, Mr Turnbull held talks with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in Sydney, where she formally extended to Mr Turnbull the offer to take in 150 people. "The offer is very genuine and remains on the table," she said.

But Mr Turnbull said Australia remained focused on the US refugee resettlement deal, which has so far resulted in 54 people being resettled. The US deal covers up to 1250 people but US President Donald Trump dislikes it and vetting is taking a long time.

"In the wake of that deal obviously we can consider other ones," Mr Turnbull said. "We thank New Zealand for making an offer – we are not taking it up at this time."

New Zealand first made its offer to Julia Gillard's government in 2013 but it has been rejected by both Labor and the Coalition. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has now called on Mr Turnbull to accept it, saying it is similar to the US deal.

Sky News, 4 November 2017:

The United Nations human rights office has called on Australia to restore food, water and health services to about 600 interned refugees and asylum seekers in Papua New Guinea, which Canberra cut off three days ago.

The detainees in the Manus Island Centre have defied attempts by the governments of Australia and PNG to close the camp, saying they fear violent reprisals from the local community if they are moved to other 'transit centres'.

'We call on the Australian government ... who interned the men in the first place to immediately provide protection, food, water and other basic services,' UN rights spokesman Rupert Colville told a news briefing on Friday.

Australia has an obligation to do so under international human rights law and the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, he said.

There was no immediate comment from Australia or its representatives in Geneva. Its government has said the camp had been ruled illegal by PNG authorities and it had committed to supply other sites for 12 months.

Colville joined the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in warning of an 'unfolding humanitarian emergency' in the centre where asylum seekers began digging wells on Thursday to try to find water as their food supplies dwindled.

The remote Manus Island centre has been a key part of Australia's disputed immigration policy under which it refuses to allow asylum seekers arriving by boat to reach its shores, detaining them instead in PNG and Nauru in the South Pacific.

'We repeat our overall concerns about Australian offshore processing centres which are unsustainable, inhumane and contradictory to its human rights obligations,' Colville said.

Around 500 of the men have still not had their asylum claims processed, he said.