该 gāi 主张 zhǔ zhāng 的 de 核心 hé xīn 事实 shì shí 要素 yào sù 基本 jī běn 准确 zhǔn què 。 。
The core factual elements of this claim are largely accurate.
2013 2013 年末 nián mò 至 zhì 2014 2014 年 nián 期间 qī jiān , , 时任 shí rèn 移民 yí mín 部长 bù zhǎng 的 de 斯科特 sī kē tè · · 莫里森 mò lǐ sēn 实施 shí shī 了 le 阻止 zǔ zhǐ 乘船 chéng chuán 抵达 dǐ dá 的 de 寻求 xún qiú 庇护 bì hù 者 zhě 获得 huò dé 永久 yǒng jiǔ 保护 bǎo hù 签证 qiān zhèng 的 de 政策 zhèng cè , , 尽管 jǐn guǎn 部门 bù mén 内部 nèi bù 提出 tí chū 了 le 建议 jiàn yì 并 bìng 面临 miàn lín 法律 fǎ lǜ 挑战 tiǎo zhàn 。 。
As Immigration Minister in late 2013 and 2014, Scott Morrison implemented policies that prevented asylum seekers who arrived by boat from obtaining permanent protection visas, despite departmental advice and legal challenges.
Cabinet documents obtained by the ABC in 2018 reveal that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection advised Morrison that up to 700 asylum seekers "must" be granted permanent protection under existing legislation [1].
Morrison employed a rarely used provision in the Migration Act (section 411(3)b) to issue "conclusive certificates" blocking permanent protection without explanation and forbidding any review of the decision on grounds of "national interest" [2].
These certificates were issued to refugees who had passed all security and character checks, with no national security concerns about their claims [2].
In October 2014, the High Court ruled against the government's attempt to cap protection visas at 2,773 and force all asylum seekers onto temporary protection [2][3].
Regarding the UN Human Rights Council specifically, the claim appears to conflate the UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) and broader UN human rights mechanisms with the specific "UN Human Rights Council." While the UNHCR and various UN human rights bodies did criticize Australia's asylum policies during this period, there does not appear to be a specific determination by the UN Human Rights Council that the visa policy was "illegal." However, UN human rights officials did criticize Australia's policies as leading to "a chain of human rights violations" [4].
The claim omits several critical pieces of context:
**Policy Context:** The Coalition's approach was part of a broader "stop the boats" policy framework that also included Operation Sovereign Borders, turn-backs, and offshore detention.
The government explicitly campaigned on and was elected with a mandate to implement these tougher border protection policies [5].
**Legal Complexity:** The situation involved complex interactions between the Migration Act, High Court decisions, and international obligations.
The government was attempting to maintain temporary protection (TPVs) despite legal challenges, rather than simply ignoring all legal advice [2][3].
**The National Interest Argument:** The government maintained that preventing permanent settlement was in Australia's national interest to deter people smuggling and dangerous boat journeys [2].
**Administrative Appeals Tribunal:** The claim doesn't mention that the initial order to tribunals to hear cases in a particular order (which Morrison continued) was actually sent by former Labor immigration minister Brendan O'Connor months earlier [1].
The Guardian's reporting on this issue cites official documents, legal proceedings, and includes government responses, suggesting factual accuracy in its reporting [2].
The ABC's 2018 reporting on the cabinet documents provides authoritative primary source evidence from government records obtained under normal archival release processes [1].
The Conversation article by legal academics from ANU and UNSW provides expert legal analysis of the policy changes [3], while the UNSW Law Journal article offers scholarly legal critique [5].
However, the original mdavis.xyz claim source (Labor-aligned) presents the claim with strong negative framing that emphasizes illegality while downplaying the government's stated policy rationale and the broader context of border protection policy debates.
Labor governments implemented several hardline refugee policies that provide important comparative context:
**Kevin Rudd's 2013 PNG Solution:** In July 2013, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that no refugee who arrived by boat would ever be settled in Australia - they would instead be sent to Papua New Guinea for processing and resettlement [6].
Labor Labor 政府 zhèng fǔ 实施 shí shī 的 de 强硬 qiáng yìng 难民 nàn mín 政策 zhèng cè 提供 tí gōng 了 le 重要 zhòng yào 的 de 比较 bǐ jiào 背景 bèi jǐng : :
This policy has been described as "the most draconian in Australian immigration history" and came after Labor reinstated offshore processing on Nauru in 2012 [6].
**Labor's Offshore Detention:** The Rudd and Gillard governments reopened the Nauru detention center in 2012 (after closing it in 2008) and established the Manus Island facility, implementing offshore processing and detention that continues to be criticized by human rights organizations [6][7].
**Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs):** While Labor abolished John Howard's TPV policy in 2008, the 2013 PNG solution effectively created a more extreme form of temporary protection - permanent exclusion from Australia rather than temporary protection visas [7].
**Brendan O'Connor's Tribunal Order:** As noted above, the initial order to tribunals to process cases in a particular order was actually implemented by the previous Labor government [1].
**Scale and Severity Comparison:**
- Coalition: Denied permanent visas but allowed temporary protection with possibility of eventual permanent settlement
- Labor (2013): Declared no boat arrivals would ever be settled in Australia - a more absolute position
Drew criticism from UN human rights bodies [4]
However, the government's position included several arguments not captured in the original claim:
**Deterrence Justification:** The government argued that providing permanent protection to boat arrivals would undermine the deterrent effect of their border protection policies and encourage more dangerous boat journeys, potentially leading to more deaths at sea [5].
**Comparative Context:** When compared to Labor's PNG solution announced in 2013, the Coalition's approach - while restrictive - was arguably less absolute than Labor's declaration that no boat arrivals would ever settle in Australia [6][7].
**Parliamentary Process:** The government attempted to legislate their position through the Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill, rather than simply acting extra-legally [3].
**International Law Complexity:** Australia's international obligations under the Refugee Convention do not technically require permanent settlement - they require non-refoulement (not returning refugees to persecution).
The legal debate centered on interpretations of the Migration Act rather than clear-cut violations of international law [3][5].
**Key context:** This was not unique to the Coalition - both major Australian parties have implemented increasingly restrictive asylum policies when in government, with Labor's 2013 PNG solution representing arguably the most restrictive approach of all [6][7].
Cabinet documents show Morrison actively sought ways to prevent permanent visa grants [1]
However, the claim overstates the "illegality" finding and conflates different UN bodies.
然而 rán ér , , 该 gāi 主张 zhǔ zhāng 夸大 kuā dà 了 le " " 违法 wéi fǎ " " 的 de 认定 rèn dìng , , 并 bìng 混淆 hùn xiáo 了 le 不同 bù tóng 的 de 联合国 lián hé guó 机构 jī gòu 。 。
There was no specific UN Human Rights Council determination that the policy was "illegal" - rather, various UN human rights mechanisms expressed concerns and criticisms.
Furthermore, the claim presents this as uniquely problematic Coalition behavior when Labor governments implemented comparably restrictive - and in the case of the 2013 PNG solution, arguably more absolute - policies.
Cabinet documents show Morrison actively sought ways to prevent permanent visa grants [1]
However, the claim overstates the "illegality" finding and conflates different UN bodies.
然而 rán ér , , 该 gāi 主张 zhǔ zhāng 夸大 kuā dà 了 le " " 违法 wéi fǎ " " 的 de 认定 rèn dìng , , 并 bìng 混淆 hùn xiáo 了 le 不同 bù tóng 的 de 联合国 lián hé guó 机构 jī gòu 。 。
There was no specific UN Human Rights Council determination that the policy was "illegal" - rather, various UN human rights mechanisms expressed concerns and criticisms.
Furthermore, the claim presents this as uniquely problematic Coalition behavior when Labor governments implemented comparably restrictive - and in the case of the 2013 PNG solution, arguably more absolute - policies.