Australians who voted for the Greens in the recent federal election believing that they were backing a party committed to the better treatment of asylum seekers and immigrants to Australia, will be feeling let down on learning of the terms of the new Labour Greens agreement.

After lengthy negotiations with the Australian Labour Party, the Greens have failed to achieve any of the concessions they were seeking in relation to Australia’s asylum seekers and offshore processing arrangements, yet have still signed on the dotted line under the guise of providing Australia with a stable Government alternative. 

Other than agreeing to a referendum on Indigenous Australians, the alliance between the Australian Labour Party and the Greens has resulted in little more than promises to establish various ‘committees’ to consider issues such as climate change, and the institution of changes to rules governing political donations which ultimately does not affect (nor help) anyone but the politicians themselves.  There was a disappointing silence regarding any matter pertaining to Australian immigration, asylum seekers, or offshore processing from both parties.

Both the Labour and Greens political parties insist they are not a formal ‘coalition’ and that this deal has been made only in the interests of offering Australians a stable Government. The Greens are not bound to vote alongside the Labour Party, but the concessions offered by Labour ensure that the Greens will not back any parliamentary vote of ‘no confidence’ in a Labour Government.

While the official election result is still being counted and debated, voters hoping to see the rights of Australian immigrants and asylum seekers enhanced, can take consolation from a case in the High Court this week involving two Sri Lankan asylum seekers detained on Christmas Island.

Their case has caused much debate about whether asylum seekers being processed offshore should be afforded the same legal rights they would have on Australian soil. Lawyers acting for the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship have argued that the provisions of the Migration Act make it clear that these same rights do not and should not apply to offshore asylum seekers. Comments from the bench of High Court judges however indicate that this position is not finding favour amongst the majority of the judges.

Although it will be some time before the High Court hands down its final decision, this case offers at least some evidence that the rights of asylum seekers and Australian immigrants are being given more attention and compassion, at least within Australia’s legal system, than is being shown within the Labour Greens agreement. Perhaps there is some hope yet that Australia may witness the demise of its current offshore asylum seeker scheme.