Just when you thought the Abbott government's approach to asylum seekers couldn't fall any lower beneath the standards of decency and law, we're confronted with new outrages. The possible handing over of Tamil refugees to the Sri Lankan navy, the military of the country they are seeking to escape, is truly terrible. Now the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, has announced that there is to be a new "national interest" test, to be decided only by him, that will deny permanent protection visas to almost all refugees who arrive by boat, as a way of circumventing the high court and the senate.



According to unconfirmed reports, all we can rely upon in the current Morrisonian era of obfuscation, our government has authorised the "enhanced" screening of asylum seekers by teleconference at sea. Asylum seekers, reportedly being transferred onto Australian customs vessels, are being asked four basic questions to determine their name, country of origin, where they came from, and why they left.

It is simply not possible that claims for protection could be adequately assessed through such a cursory process, and this means that genuine refugees could be returned to Sri Lanka. We should be greatly concerned if this is their fate.

In the aftermath of protracted civil conflict in Sri Lanka, serious and persistent human rights concerns remain. Even Stephen Harper, the conservative prime minister of Canada with whom Tony Abbott has such a cosy relationship, boycotted last year’s Chogm, held in Sri Lanka, due to the lack of accountability for alleged war crimes and evidence of ongoing human rights abuses.

There is a cardinal principle of international law known as non-refoulement, which states that refugees cannot not be returned to places where their lives or freedoms might be under threat.

In 2012 the European Court of Human Rights held that Italy had violated the European Convention on Human Rights, by forcibly returning a group of African asylum seekers by sea to Libya. The court held that Italy could not circumvent its responsibilities by seeking to characterise the event as a rescue operation on the high seas.



It therefore seems likely that if the reports of the government’s actions in the Indian Ocean are correct, Australia is in flagrant violation of its international legal obligations. The Human Rights Law Centre in Melbourne this week sent an urgent request to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN special rapporteur on torture to intervene.

These events add to the growing concern in this country about the inhumane and degrading treatment of asylum seekers, both in Australia and offshore, that has resulted in the violent death and self-immolation of individuals, and widespread damage to the mental health of children and adults. All of this raises serious questions about ministerial responsibility, accountability and conduct.

Scott Morrison appears to revel in his self-styled role as a person prepared to do the cruel and secretive work of Operation Sovereign Borders. He acts to deliver political advantage for his party, while many consider him to be neglecting his ministerial role in ensuring Australia complies with its international obligations.

He is happy to shout and to gloat in the parliament about "stopping the boats" in a manner that many Australians find sickening. Yet the continued refusal by the minister to disclose details – or even general information – concerning asylum seeker boats displays a complete lack of adherence to the requirement for transparency and accountability in government.

Why is it that brass plaques can be unveiled but not the truth about the humanitarian crisis on the high seas? On what basis has the minister given direction to Australian customs vessels that contravene Australia’s international obligations? Under what power is the minister authorised to return refugees to the military of a nation from whose persecution those people have applied to be protected, and in fact must be protected, by Australia?

In what universe does the minister believe he has untrammeled power to ignore due process and the rule of law, and grant himself the sole right to decide the fate of thousands of human beings?

The Abbott government’s tendency to conduct itself as a power above democratic scrutiny, above judicial restraint, in contravention of Australia’s international obligations, and against its own stated commitments, is wantonly destructive of good government and, importantly, of public faith in good government.

The Australian community will have a chance to vent their anger and frustration with this government at the next election. Unfortunately, for many asylum seekers it is a matter of life and death right now.