AT WHAT COST?

At What Cost? – The Human, Economic and Strategic Cost of Australia’s Asylum Seeker Policies and the Alternatives
(x) Lack of transparency and access to remedies for rights violations
As discussed in part 3.2 above, both the Australian and Nauruan governments have adopted a range of laws
and policies which impede transparency in relation to the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees and other
measures which have a chilling effect upon freedom of speech of asylum seeker children and those who wish to
advocate on their behalf. 130
These measures may violate the rights of children in relation to freedom of expression and the right to receive and
impart information 131 and critically, make it very difficult for the children affected by these policies to make their
situation known to the Australian community and wider world.
These impediments to the free flow of information are particularly concerning when one considers that children
transferred to Nauru have no meaningful process by which they can complain about human rights violations
experienced by them or seek a remedy for such violations. 132
To date neither the Australian nor Nauruan governments have established any ongoing comprehensive or
independent mechanism which systematically identifies child rights violations or ensures that child asylum seekers
and refugees who suffer human rights violations while in Nauru have access to a remedy for such a violation. 133
In this regard, we note that Australia has not yet ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture
(OPCAT) or the CRC Optional Complaints Protocol. Ratification of OPCAT would subject Australian-run
detention centres to greater scrutiny and monitoring and ratification of the CRC Optional Complaints Protocol
would allow children who have experienced rights violations to bring complaints before the CRC Committee. 134
(xi) Other human rights violations
In addition to the harms identified above there is reason for serious concern that the system of offshore processing
established by Australia with Nauru violates a number of other core human rights principles including:
• the principle that the ‘best interests of the child’ should be a primary consideration in all decisions affecting
children 135
• that children are being transferred to a country where they face serious harm, contrary to the principal of
‘non-refoulment’ 136
• that the rights of separated and unaccompanied children are at risk 137
• that the system may inflict cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on children 138
• that children have faced and continue to face unreasonable restrictions on their freedom of movement, 139
and
• that children face interference with their right to privacy. 140
Status of refugees in Nauru
While a great deal of public attention has focused on the condition of children living within the RPC, the human
cost of the offshore processing system is also felt by children, and their families, who have been recognised as
refugees and who are living in the Nauruan community. 141 Save the Children estimates that there are currently
approximately 80 to 100 child refugees currently living in the Nauruan community, in addition to the 49 residing in
the RPC and the 90 to 100 children currently in Australia in connection with medical treatment (some of whom
are refugees and some of whom are asylum seekers still awaiting status determination). 142
Some recognised refugees have been moved into accommodation in the villages that comprise the broader
Nauruan community, while others remain within the geographically isolated RPC, including in tents, in the hope that
community housing might become available in the future. 143
29