# data[].attributes.body
After 20 years of occupation from the US and her allies (including Australia), Afghanistan has had all foreign forces leave. This has created a potential humanitarian crisis with many thousands of Afghanis wanting to leave the country as they fear being persecuted by the incoming Taliban regime. Australian PM, Scott Morrison, has stated that 3000 Afghanis will be allowed to resettle here. Some Australians believe we should do more.

# data[].attributes.headline
BTN Overview - good background information

# data[].attributes.subject
BTN Overview - good background information

# data[].attributes.body
Could use for note-taking practice...formulate questions to answer as a class and then have students listen for relevant info. Model questions/note-taking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many of us it's hard to imagine what life has been like for people in Afghanistan. We've seen images of chaos on the streets and at airports, as people desperately try to leave the country. For some Aussie families, it's particularly sad to watch. MAHEEN AMANI: I'm like sorry for them, it's just sad.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do you agree with the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees in Australian detention centres? Summary Information

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you agree with the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees in Australian detention centres? Summary Information

# data[].attributes.body
The rights of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers are protected by international law, regardless of how and why they arrive in a country. They have the same rights as everyone else, plus special or specific protections including:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 14), which states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (and its 1967 Protocol), which protects refugees from being returned to countries where they risk being persecuted

(Amnesty International)

This means it is not a criminal offence for an individual to seek asylum under Australian law.

# data[].attributes.headline
The life of children in Australian detention centres.

# data[].attributes.subject
The life of children in Australian detention centres.

# data[].attributes.body
"In the detention environment – especially with current policies of offshore processing, indefinite detention and non-settlement of boat arrivals – parents are extremely fearful about their future and realistically have little hope for a positive outcome. They’re unable to create a positive, safe, encouraging, caring and child-focused space."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Deprivation and trauma and early childhood can affect the developing brain. Australian Human Rights Commission

Many refugees and asylum seekers, including children, have experienced conflict, family separation and significant human rights violations, including torture, physical and sexual violence in their countries of origin and transit.

These experiences increase the risk of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, which is exacerbated by the uncertainty and harsh conditions of detention. Stressors accumulate to cause mental distress; the more stress we add, the more we compound the problem.

Immigration detention can have life-long impacts on children's mental and physical health. The Australian Human Rights Commission report, The Forgotten Children: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, released last week, found one-third of children in immigration detention centres have a mental health disorder that requires psychiatric support.

If these children are supported and protected from further stress, they are more likely to improve their mental well-being and achieve their potential.

Chronic stress

When the brain is chronically exposed to stress, it produces hormones that make it more reactive: the "fight response". People are more likely to be nervous, to respond without thinking and to be frightened a lot of the time. In this fight mode, it's difficult to concentrate, plan for the future and sleep.

Children exposed to these cumulative stressors for long periods of time become less able to learn, more difficult to settle and console, and are unable to enjoy the fun and games of childhood.

Australian Human Rights Commission

Chronic stress response in childhood, especially early childhood, also sets up biologic reactions that predispose children to chronic diseases such as high blood pressure, obesity and heart disease.

The mechanisms by which stressors in early childhood contribute to poor adult health aren't fully understood, but are likely to be linked to the chronic production of stress hormones, stress-related activation of genes, patterns of brain connections and learnt behaviours to cope with high levels of stress.

Impacts on the developing brain

Children respond differently at different ages, and also differ in temperament and genetics. A combination of these factors determines how a child will respond to environmental exposures and whether certain genes will be turned on in response to stress.

There is good evidence that critical windows of opportunity for development can be lost if the child experiences deprivation or trauma during early childhood.

If a child's impaired vision is not corrected within the first few years of life, that child may lose sight in the affected eye as the brain suppresses the distorted image. Similarly, if a child is hearing-impaired and not encouraged to communicate verbally or provided with hearing aids, it may be impossible to develop spoken language even with hearing aids provided later in life.

This occurs in more subtle ways with all aspects of a young child's development. Missing sensitive periods for laying down brain architecture can have lasting impacts that cannot be reversed.

The typical impact of chronic early stress and deprivation in young children include:

language delays

emotional regulation difficulties leading to excessive tantrums

regressive behaviour disorders such as bed-wetting

self-stimulation such as headbanging

sad and anxious behaviours such as fear of separation from loved ones

crying a lot

nail-biting

difficulty eating or sleeping.

Australian Human Rights Commission

Adolescence is another highly sensitive period. Unaccompanied children, who are mostly in their teenage years, are particularly vulnerable as they do not have a parent, guardian or relative to care for them and buffer the harshness of their environment.

Many detained adolescents experienced the death of family members, persecution, conflict, forced military recruitment and physical and/or sexual violence. These experiences occur during the critical adolescent developmental period, placing them at risk of long-term mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, learning difficulties and depression.

On the other hand, children can be very resilient and some can fully recover from extreme circumstances.

Buffering the harshness

Young children are completely dependent on others for their basic care, which should include play, recreation, stimulation, affection, as well as food and shelter. If a parent or carer is unable to meet the child's needs, this presents a stress for that child.

In the detention environment - especially with current policies of offshore processing, indefinite detention and non-settlement of boat arrivals - parents are extremely fearful about their future and realistically have little hope for a positive outcome. They're unable to create a positive, safe, encouraging, caring and child-focused space.

Australian Human Rights Commission

However skilled they are as parents, they're unable to shield their children from the physical and emotional environment.

They're also aware that, in seeking asylum to protect their children, they have unintentionally brought their children into a potentially damaging situation. This further undermines their confidence as parents, adding to their despair.

Families may be separated across the detention system, with one parent in one detention centre while another is sent elsewhere. This can be terrifying for children who have lost loved ones and are highly sensitised to separation.

On a practical level, parents are frequently unable to provide basic care for their children, or do "ordinary things" such as cooking for them, eating a meal as a family, reading to them or playing with them. In a restricted and monotonous environment, family life erodes and dependency is fostered.

Treating refugee children

Children who spend time in immigration detention centres are often plagued by nightmares, anxiety, depression, poor concentration and may suffer from PTSD for many years after the experience. This manifests in the way they cope with school, their social life, relationships, trust and their capacity for enjoyment.

My colleague and I spent a week providing medical care to children on Christmas Island. Speaking to these children, we noted many of the above symptoms. Most cried as they told us their stories and described their loss of hope. Those unable to speak drew harrowing images of life in detention.

Unfortunately there are no magic cures for such symptoms, though skilled mental health services can help.

Building trust

The provision of high-quality and accessible services can help children realise the world can be a safe and trustworthy place. This includes health-care, support in learning English, safe and pleasant housing and education delivered by teachers who understand what the child has experienced and the extent of their educational disadvantage in prior interrupted schooling.

Supportive and welcoming communities reassure children that they will not be harmed and they need not fear that being "naughty" will send them back to detention. This settles the child's stress response and gradually enables them to reclaim their childhood.

Children have rights to health, education, play and participation in decisions affecting their lives, as well as rights to protection from physical and mental violence, injury, abuse, neglect and maltreatment. Keeping children seeking asylum in detention contravenes these rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Detained children risk life-long physical and mental harm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many refugees and asylum seekers, including children, have experienced conflict, family separation and significant human rights violations, including torture, physical and sexual violence in their countries of origin and transit. These experiences increase the risk of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, which is exacerbated by the uncertainty and harsh conditions of detention.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should refugees who arrive by boat continue to be refused settlement in Australia? For example, the Biloela family. Summary Information.

# data[].attributes.subject
Should refugees who arrive by boat continue to be refused settlement in Australia? For example, the Biloela family. Summary Information.

# data[].attributes.body
After living peacefully in the regional Queensland town of Biloela for almost four years, in 2018 Sri Lankan couple Nades and Priya Murugappan and their daughters, then aged three, and nine months, were woken at dawn by Border Force and told to quickly gather a few possessions.

The family were taken to an immigration detention centre following the expiration of Priya's bridging visa. Nades' bid for asylum had already been rejected.

The family has now been in detention for more than 1000 days, and legal processes continue after the High Court last week rejected a bid to hear an appeal on the visa case of younger daughter, Tharnicaa, now four. (The Age)

# data[].attributes.headline
Biloela - the Queensland town that is fighting for the family

# data[].attributes.subject
Biloela - the Queensland town that is fighting for the family

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the Murugappan family were removed from their home at dawn, locals in conservative Biloela were gutted. Then the rural Queensland community learnt to crowdfund, hashtag and take to the world stage - all in the name of bringing their friends home to Bilo.

The town of Biloela, and (insert) the Murugappan family: "They didn't have to take them away. They could've left them here while they worked through the process. It was so aggressive. How did the government think it would go down?" Credit:Paul Harris

In the street where Bronwyn Dendle lives, there's a sign - it's more of a mini billboard - which sits outside a neighbour's house. It's made of heavy reddish-brown wood, and on it is chiselled one word: Hicksville. The Macquarie Dictionary defines "hick" as provincial or unsophisticated. Biloela, which lies six-and-a-half hours' drive north-west of Brisbane, is provincial and unsophisticated, and here you will find some hicks, some rednecks, the sign Hicksville, plans for a seven-metre-high sulphur-crested cockatoo, and a group of women who have executed one of the country's most audacious media campaigns in recent history.

Pronounced Bil-oh-wheel-ah, the town is home to a close-knit community of 5758 people, which makes it smaller than most Sydney or Melbourne suburbs. It is not a place you'll find yourself by accident and that's because it's a place that must be found. Biloela itself is well-kept and plain; not unattractive, just plain. It's also Christian and conservative, bookended on the drive in and out by signs that list the town's 10 places of worship, and which say: "The Churches of Biloela welcome you". Among them are St Joseph's Catholic church, St Gabriel's Anglican church and the Church of the Nazarene.

At the last federal election, Biloela helped vote in the Coalition, although one in five people, including Bronwyn Dendle's dad, supported One Nation. Lately, Dendle says her dad's hardline view on immigration has softened. That's largely because of a Sri Lankan family who used to live here, the Murugappans, and the stand his daughter and others in town have taken to bring them back. "Dad's a Pauline Hanson voter, and for three years, he's been like, 'They shouldn't be in my country!' " says Dendle, a 46-year-old social worker and mother of five, who has brown shoulder-length hair. "But just over the last little bit, he's been quite supportive, which has been an interesting shift."

In Biloela, most people work at the coal mine, the power station or the abattoir. On nearby farms, cattle are bred, and sorghum, wheat, chickpeas and mung beans are grown. Families here earn about $100,000 a year, but there's not a lot to spend your money on in Bilo, as the locals call it. The town takes its name from the Gangulu mob's word for the sulphur-crested cockatoo. However, don't even bother trying to find any real ones here; you'd have more luck doing a Where's Wally puzzle. Instead, you'll find cockatoos painted on the town's electricity poles and signs such as the one that sits outside the half-empty Biloela Shoppingworld.

Along Bilo's main street there's a Woolworths, a BWS, a Mitre 10, a store simply named Pet Stuff, another called Farm Stuff, a butcher, bakery, a primary and high school, a Chinese restaurant, and the Bowlo, which only serves meals on a Friday night. If you veer off the main drag onto side streets there are more businesses servicing and selling farm machinery and mining equipment, a few pubs and cafes, and a Thai restaurant so popular it's full every night. "People living here are not chasing a glamorous lifestyle," says Marie Austin. A 51-year-old former Anglicare worker and grandmother, she's lived in and around Bilo for nearly 30 years with her husband Jeff, who works at the power station. "There's not a lot here, there's no hustle and bustle, there's no beach and no cinema. We're a long way from any major centre but we're happy to be here."

As Austin says, not much happens in this usually quiet and unassertive town. But that changed the day the federal government's Border Force agents arrived and, in a heavy-handed, covert-like operation, removed the Murugappans.

What Bilo did next surprised the whole country.

Nades Murugappan and his wife Priya are from Sri Lanka, although nobody who lives on that tear-drop-shaped island identifies as Sri Lankan. There are only Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, and Priya and Nades are Tamils. For three decades, Sri Lankan government forces, which represented the majority Sinhalese population, fought against the separatist Tamil Tigers guerrillas. The civil war tore communities apart; more than 100,000 would die and another million, mostly from the Tamil minority, were displaced internally and around the globe.

The war ended in 2009 when the Sri Lankan army finally defeated the Tigers, also known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, in a brutal battle. By then Priya was living in India, having fled Sri Lanka in 2001, after the death of her partner. "Priya's fiancé and four men from their village were burnt in the town centre in front of everyone," says 33-year-old social worker Angela Fredericks, a Bilo resident and close friend of the family. "The family ended up having to escape. I know Priya's dad was injured. There were sexual assaults that happened."

Nades, who had been forcibly conscripted by the Tigers, would escape and live in the Middle East between 2004 and 2010. The Tigers have a long record of violent coercion, including recruiting children. Unable to get a visa that would allow him to stay in the region permanently, Nades returned to Sri Lanka a number of times but found it unsafe.

He and Priya were among the many who decided to pay people smugglers to come to Australia illegally by boat. They arrived here separately, not knowing each other; Nades in 2012 and Priya in 2013. As their applications for asylum were assessed, they were allowed to live in Sydney, where they were taken in by the local Tamil community. "It was quite unheard of in the community to not be married at their age," says Fredericks.

The Tamils quickly played matchmaker with Nades and Priya, who were both then 38. In September 2014, the couple married in a Hindu ceremony that would last several days. Priya wore an orange sari with a garland of flowers, and later a more detailed sari of silver and blue, with matching jewellery; Nades wore a traditional white dhoti, laced with a gold trim. Both were smiling as if they'd won the lottery. They would marry again in a civil ceremony at the Biloela courthouse two months later.

The couple had moved to Bilo while Nades was looking for employment, and not long after arriving he took a job at Teys Australia's abattoir, where employees haul carcasses, butcher, bone and pack meat. It's physically demanding and most locals won't do the work, especially when there are better wages and easier jobs to be had at the surrounding coal mines. At last count there were 22 different nationalities working at Teys, one of the town's biggest employers with 540 staff, many of whom earn about $50,000 a year.

In addition to working at Teys, Nades volunteered at Vinnies, while Priya built a circle of friends attending a craft group at the Baptist church. The couple quickly fitted in, and decided to try immediately for children, given Priya's age. "She always thought she was going to be too old to have children by the time she met Nades," says Bronwyn Dendle. "When she was pregnant with Kopika, she was so excited and felt so blessed. It was pretty special for them." Their daughters Kopika and Tharnicaa were born in 2015 and 2017 respectively, and Priya took them to playgroup at St Gabriel's Anglican church.

In Bilo, Nades and Priya were on bridging visas, waiting to hear if their claims to stay in Australia would be successful. Neither Kopika nor Tharnicaa was entitled to Australian citizenship, which isn't granted to children born to asylum seekers who arrive by boat, who are considered "illegal maritime arrivals". Nevertheless, it didn't stop the then home affairs minister Peter Dutton from labelling the children "anchor babies".

Nades' application for asylum had been rejected by the government on September 6, 2012. However, his appeals through the courts, which would uphold the decision, wouldn't conclude until 2015. Meanwhile, his visa rolled over as they waited to hear about Priya's case. Her asylum bid was rejected on May 9, 2017, then it too would be appealed in the courts.

On March 4, 2018, Priya's bridging visa, which she had applied to renew, expired. It seems the first the couple knew of this was with the surprise arrival of Border Force officers the following day at dawn. The agents pulled up outside a low-set, butter-coloured weatherboard house on Rainbow Street, which the Murugappans rented.

The family was given enough time to pack a few things. Priya grabbed some clothes, a few toys, her wedding saris, jewellery and their wedding album. Priya and Kopika were crying and Nades was tense, as the family was split between two vehicles and driven out of Bilo before most of the town woke up.

They were taken to Gladstone, a little over an hour away, where they would board a plane for Melbourne. Priya and Nades say they were separated again on the flight, including from their screaming children. Kopika was by now almost three, Tharnicaa nine months. In Melbourne the family was put into the Broadmeadows immigration detention centre.

The day the Murugappans were taken the temperature in Bilo hit 32 degrees, even though it was the beginning of autumn. The family left behind their friends, a job and most of their belongings. Their beds were still warm from where they'd slept. A few hours after Border Force came to Rainbow Street, other families began arriving outside Nades and Priya's house, which sat opposite St Joseph's primary school. It was Monday and parents were dropping their kids off to the school, where Nades and Priya had hoped to educate their girls. The Catholic church next door was where Priya could often be seen lighting candles and praying.

In small towns, it's often said that everyone knows everyone else's business. It's true. When Nades didn't turn up for work that day, and Priya missed a physio appointment, calls were made and questions asked.

By lunchtime, word had spread across Bilo that something odd had gone down at the Murugappans' home. When the town learnt of Border Force's covert-like operation, there was disbelief, then outrage. "It was shocking and dramatic and to think it happened in our town!" says Marie Austin.

Border Force's operation was something you might see in America but not in Australia, not in Queensland, and definitely not in Bilo. "The poor buggers were just pinched out of town," says Mayor Nev Ferrier, a broad-shouldered man with a weathered face and friendly, lopsided smile. He believes someone in Canberra was "a bit overzealous" and that it will cost the federal government at next year's election. Rae Martin, a local aged-care worker, has already made up her mind: "I won't be voting for them."

Bilo sits in the federal seat of Flynn, an electorate so vast that Tasmania would almost fit into it twice. Flynn is up for grabs next year because its sitting member, the Coalition's Ken O'Dowd, a Liberal, is retiring. It took until June this year for O'Dowd and several of his fellow backbenchers, Trent Zimmerman, Katie Allen and Jason Falinski, to speak out publicly in support of the Murugappans. Barnaby Joyce, also sniffing the shift in public sentiment, launched another attack on his own government, declaring the family would have been treated differently had their girls been called "Jane and Sally". By then, the family had spent more than three years in detention, first in Melbourne and later on Christmas Island, while legal battles were fought to allow them to stay. The backbenchers' support came as the public backlash over the government's handling of the case reached boiling point when Tharnicaa became very ill.

Rosemary Munroe, who moved to Bilo in her twenties and has lived there 50 years, dismisses O'Dowd as "rather a non-event". An elegant woman with silver-tinged hair, Munroe is a former real estate agent who's disgusted at how the government handled the family's case. "They were quietly and calmly living their life here, then they were picked up like major criminals," she says, shaking her head. "They didn't have to take them away. They could've left them here while they worked through the process. It was so aggressive. How did the government think it would go down?"

Ninety-year-old Shirley Matheson used to live next door to the Murugappans. "They were good, pleasant neighbours. The little girl used to wave to me and I would say hello to the mother. They were living next to me for some time, then they shifted from here up to Rainbow Street into a nice little house." Matheson remembers Priya's cooking. "Oh the curries! Some of the smells that came from there were lovely."

It's a shame, she says, what happened. "They just burst into the house one morning, those people," she says, referring to Border Force, pulling her navy cardigan a little tighter over her pink and blue floral shirt.

Brownyn Dendle, the social worker and Murugappans' friend, had been writing regularly to then immigration minister Peter Dutton, asking him to grant special dispensation for the family to stay. The Migration Act gives the minister power to intervene and grant a visa for any reason they choose. Dendle outlined how the family had become part of the community. The day they were taken, she broke down in her office at Biloela Hospital. "There was a part of me that went: 'Why is the whole town not rioting?' Then it was a kind of hopelessness, you know, a feeling of what's the point of anything? It was terrible. I asked myself: How do we just let this go?"

Bilo didn't let it go. Like Darryl Kerrigan in The Castle, the town decided to fight. As for the government, well, it could get stuffed. Bronwyn Dendle, Marie Austin and Angela Fredericks would help form a core group of 15 women who would anchor the town's fight. They knew of each other and were friendly, but not close. They started a petition and a media campaign to lobby the government to return the Murugappans to Bilo. Very quickly that campaign became bigger than any of them, or the town, could imagine. It would be clever, sophisticated and relentless, grabbing national and international attention, even though none of the women had media training or public relations experience. All they had was a passion to get their friends back, and anger at how the government had acted.

Marie Austin, who has a soft, rosy complexion, was one of the first to step into the media spotlight. She and another friend from Bilo visited the Murugappans in detention in Melbourne in May 2018. Then she stepped outside her comfort zone, and appeared in the audience of the ABC's Q+A current affairs program, which was broadcasting from the city. "I've never really stopped to think about what it's like for asylum seekers, never," says Austin. "Then getting to know this family - it does open your eyes to the bigger picture of what goes on."

Austin admits she felt out of her depth walking into the ABC studio. "I didn't even know what Q+A was," she says, a little embarrassed, sitting at her kitchen table. "I remember thinking, 'Oh, this isn't the sort of show I thought it was going to be. I thought it was going to be a serious show.' " She soon realised the show hadn't started and it was just the person the ABC employs to warm the audience up. "However scary that was for me to do that, and put myself out there, I had to do it. We had to speak up for our friends who needed us."

The media campaign started with a petition, which initially got 98,745 signatures, then interviews grew with the launch of a Facebook page and Twitter account. Some in the group had never heard of a hashtag, but their simple message to get the family "Home to Bilo" soon became a hashtag with cut-through. "We were so naïve," says Dendle, sitting on a loveseat swing in her backyard, clutching a cup of tea. "We just wanted to make enough noise to say, 'This isn't right, and someone needs to just reverse this decision and bring them home.' It always blows my mind when I think where this whole thing is now to how it actually started. We never thought that three years down the track, we'd still be doing interviews with CNN or The Washington Post." Those media outlets, along with the BBC and The New York Times, all considered the story big enough to report to their overseas audiences.

"We just wanted to say, 'This isn't right, and someone needs to reverse this decision and bring them home.' "

The women learnt how to crowdfund. Across seven rounds, they raised almost $500,000, which has gone towards the campaign and the family's legal costs, allowing them to hire Melbourne immigration lawyer Carina Ford. The Bilo campaign drew the attention of Change.org, too, which started advising the group. One of the crowdfunding rounds paid for 22 billboards to appear in Coalition electorates in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, including in Peter Dutton's Queensland seat of Dickson. They featured giant photos of the family, and messages imploring the government to let them return to the small town from which they were taken. One directly addressed PM Scott Morrison, also the father of two daughters: "Please, Prime Minister, you can bring these girls home to Biloela #hometobilo."

"Home to Bilo" was a phrase repeated by Angela Fredericks, Bronwyn Dendle and Marie Austin whenever they gave media interviews, so much so that it soon became a political earworm just like those other three words: Stop the Boats.

In May 2018, the group presented their petition to Peter Dutton's office in Brisbane. When he was replaced as immigration minister by David Coleman, the women took the petition to his office in Sydney. By the time they took it to Parliament House, Canberra in September 2019, it had more than 500,000 signatures. The group encouraged people to email their MPs, with more than 12,000 people doing so. Through social media, the women inspired vigils and protests across the country, from small towns to big cities.

All age groups, from grandmothers to children, turned out to hold placards saying "Home to Bilo", often featuring pictures of Kopika and Tharnicaa, or drawings of cockatoos.

In August 2019, the Bilo group heard that the Murugappans were once again about to be deported to Sri Lanka. They swung into action, putting a call-out on social media to anyone in Melbourne to go to the airport to protest. Several dozen responded. "People who didn't know them were just getting in their cars and jumping on trains, and going out the airport. Someone was doing a live feed of the plane taking off," recalls Dendle. A legal injunction, secured by the Murugappans' lawyers, forced the plane to make an unscheduled landing in Darwin, where the family was removed. "The legal team just did their thing, got an injunction, and there was a touchdown in Darwin. It was unbelievable. When they make a blockbuster movie of this, that will be the really exciting part that people get behind and start cheering about in their lounge rooms."

On August 30, the Murugappans were sent to another detention centre, this time on Christmas Island, a three-hour flight from Perth. Here they languished for almost two years away from the public eye, as the legal battle ground on and the women of Bilo kept up their campaign. "I've been involved in cases that have received some publicity before, but nothing like this," says Carina Ford, who has specialised in immigration law for nearly two decades. She's been surprised that support for the family has been across generations, as it's usually younger people who get behind such causes. "It's coming from right across Australia. The group behind it, and their dedication to this cause, is amazing. They are amazing."

Bilo mayor Nev Ferrier agrees. "There are heaps of people behind 'em here. I've had a lot of phone calls. Everything that's been done has been done by those women." He says it's put a town that most Australians had never heard of before on the map. "What it's done for Biloela in the eyes of the rest of Australia ..." He pauses. "It's affected other people and cities."

The story blew up again this June when it was revealed in the Senate that the cost of keeping the family in detention on Christmas Island was $6.7 million. Ferrier says that kind of money could get Bilo and the surrounding towns he's responsible for a much-needed upgrade to their wastewater and sewage systems.

That same month, the story grew worse for the government, which started looking like Wile E. Coyote shielding himself with a little umbrella against a great falling boulder. Tharnicaa, who was about to turn four and had spent every birthday in detention, became seriously ill on Christmas Island. Untreated pneumonia had infected her bloodstream, leading to sepsis. The government flew Tharnicaa and Priya to Perth, where they were rushed to hospital. Nades and Kopika would follow a week later on a private jet chartered by the government, even though Virgin flights were available.

Calls to let the family return to Bilo grew louder across Australia, by now including members of the government backbench. People such as Bronwyn Dendle's dad, who'd been against the family resettling, were changing their minds. It had gone on long enough. The nation had had a gutful.

In the middle of the unholy tug of war between the government and this small Queensland town has been the question of whether it is safe for the Murugappans to go back to Sri Lanka.

A 2019 report by Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) found Sri Lanka's Tamil minority faced only a "moderate risk" of societal discrimination now that the war was over, and that the risk of torture was low for all Sri Lankans. These findings have been challenged by refugee groups, non-government organisations and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

The DFAT report's authors weren't able to verify any allegations of torture in Sri Lanka since 2016, although they acknowledged that the International Truth and Justice Project had documented 76 alleged cases of torture between 2015 and 2017 involving individuals suspected of Tamil Tiger involvement.

The federal government's reasons for returning many Tamil asylum seekers to Sri Lanka have been supported by the DFAT report. It sees the risk of persecution as low now that the civil war has ended, which is why making an exception for the Murugappans has been difficult. "Australia does not return individuals to situations where they face persecution or a real risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary deprivation of life or the application of the death penalty," the Home Affairs department said in a statement. It wouldn't comment on the Murugappans case but confirmed that in the past decade, 3004 Sri Lankans have been returned or removed from Australia. A request for an interview with Immigration Minister Alex Hawke was declined.

In 2015, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a report, which found evidence that both Sri Lanka's security forces and the Tamil Tigers were responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It also said that reprisals, from extrajudicial killings, abductions, unlawful arrests, sexual violence and torture to arbitrary detention, continued after the war ended. In January this year, the OHCHR released another report on Sri Lanka, which declared the government had made no effort to bring to account those responsible for war crimes, and warned that conflict could again break out. It said: "The High Commissioner is deeply concerned by the trends emerging over the past year, which represent clear early warning signs of a deteriorating human rights situation and a significantly heightened risk of future violations."

If the deep divisions within Sri Lanka are ever to be healed, the OHCHR believes it could take generations, as well as a truth-telling and reconciliation commission like the one in South Africa after the end of apartheid.

The details of Priya's and Nades' hometowns, the trauma they experienced in Sri Lanka, and accounts of their boat journeys, have only been disclosed in detail to the courts and to successive immigration ministers. "What Priya experienced on that boat over - no one talks about it, but it's horrendous," says Bronwyn Dendle.

Nades', Priya's and Kopika's applications for protection have all been rejected and their appeals through the Federal Circuit Court, Federal Court, Full Federal Court and request for special leave to appeal to the High Court, have failed. In August 2019, when the government attempted to deport the family for a second time, an injunction was granted as it was successfully argued that Tharnicaa had not had her refugee status assessed. On August 12 this year, the family's attempt to appeal to the High Court for Tharnicaa's case was rejected. The family's only hope of remaining in Australia now rests with Immigration Minister Hawke. He can use his powers to grant permission for the family to stay if he deems it's in the "public interest".

Biloela is a welcoming town. People come to work at the mine, the power station and the meatworks, often staying for only a few years. It's a transient place where friendships form quickly. Anyone who decides to make it their home permanently is embraced. People who live here value those who work hard, says 51-year-old Jeff Austin, Marie's husband. "Part of our culture is having a go. 'Have a go, mate!' And that's the thing you want to get behind and build up."

Austin supports strong border protection measures except when $6.7 million is spent on locking up one family, which he says was a "bad use of our taxes". When it comes to the Murugappans, he believes they deserve a fair go. "To my mind they're the ideal immigrants. They were here working hard and paying tax. They were fitting in with our culture. They weren't like some who come here and bring their problems or rort the system, who you'd be happy to send back."

Austin's dressed in a navy work shirt, shorts and work boots, and talks in a gruff voice that has a cut-the-crap edge to it, but belies a softer side. He and Marie both volunteer at English language conversation classes for migrants at the Baptist church. "There's no point whingeing that they don't speak our language if you're given the opportunity to help teach them."

"To my mind they're the ideal immigrants. They were here working hard and paying tax. They were fitting in."

Bilo was built on migrants. The Queensland government created the town in 1924, giving away parcels of farming land with conditions that the land be cleared and put to use or would be taken back. It drew large groups from overseas, many of them Russians; after World War II, Italians and Greeks would move here, too. Sid Semple's grandparents fled the Russian Revolution and ended up in Bilo. "They were given land, 500 to 600 acres. They cleared all the scrub and grew cotton for quite a few years. Then when cotton went downwards, they got into dairy and supplied cream to the butter factory," says Semple. "They didn't speak much English."

The coal mine opened in Bilo in the '40s, followed by the meatworks a decade later, then the power station, which drew in more migrants. In recent years, the migrants arriving in this town have been mostly from Asia.

Nhi Tran, or Rita Twomey, as she's known, arrived in Bilo as a teenager not speaking a word of English, much like Sid Semple's grandparents. She came from Vietnam's Binh Duong province, just north of Ho Chi Minh City. Her mum had married an Australian and moved to Bilo; Nhi followed after her visa was approved, albeit thinking she was going to Brisbane.

"I was 15, an age when you want to be out with friends. But I can't speak English. I can't make friends," says Nhi, now 27. "After that first year, I was saying to myself, 'I've got to learn English, I've got to speak, otherwise I'm going to be going nowhere.' "

She took an assortment of jobs, from sweeping the floor of an industrial shed to one at the meatworks, then waitressing at the Thai restaurant. As her English improved, so did the work. She later ran the power station's cafeteria before opening her own cafe and marrying a local. With a staff of six, Rita's Blue Cafe is the town's most popular lunch and coffee stop. "People in Bilo care about you and it's a good place," says Nhi, who's petite, with a number of tattoos, and has a high ponytail. "When you live in the countryside, everyone knows you."

After Tharnicaa was transferred to a Perth hospital, images went around the world of a sick little girl with big expressive eyes, her weary-faced mother by her side. On her hospital bed rested a stuffed toy cockatoo. It prompted commentators such as former LNP staffer Niki Savva, who had worked for Peter Costello (and is now a columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age), to call upon Scott Morrison to show compassion, saying the country knew this one case wouldn't restart the boats.

The Prime Minister's and Immigration Minister Alex Hawke's position weakened in the face of public opprobrium, and the family was allowed to stay in Perth on bridging visas, except Tharnicaa, who was subject to community detention, which prevented them from leaving the city and going back to Bilo.

Allowing the family to stay there and not returning them to Christmas Island was welcomed by their lawyer Carina Ford. Still, she struggles with how the government, and in particular Morrison and Hawke, who have talked about their Christian beliefs, allow minors to be locked up for so long. Ford has a strong Catholic faith. "Why is it okay to lock up two children, who have had no choice in the matter? How does that reconcile with your faith? It clearly does with some people and that's where I sit differently."

Ford notes the family's confinement on Christmas Island happened when many Australians were grappling with lockdowns caused by the pandemic, perhaps underlining just what refugees go through. "It's given people an understanding of, 'Hang on, this is actually quite hard.' "

The Biloela community's fight to get the Murugappans back, led by a group of devoted women, may have drawn global attention to their story, but did it also make it harder for the government to change tack? "I've seen them dig their heels in when we have no coverage on cases," says Ford. "So it's difficult to know."

Bronwyn Dendle has heard the argument that their campaign might have hurt the chance of the government quietly changing its mind. She doesn't buy it, saying she and others had been writing to the Immigration Minister for two years before Border Force took the family. "We tried quietly, and they were taken anyway. We had no option but to let the people know what happened to our friends."

Jeff Austin believes the Coalition has painted itself into a corner. "If they send them back and something happens to them, I can't see it being good for the government." Marie Austin says pride shouldn't be the reason for the government not to change its position.

Angela Fredericks is convinced that once the public got to see and know Priya, Nades, Kopika and Tharnicaa, it changed the narrative about them. They were no longer just illegal boat people but also a hardworking dad, a devoted mother, and two little girls. "Everyone can see themselves in Priya and Nades. Whether people are Liberals, Labor, Greens or One Nation, everyone values family and everyone values hard workers," she says. "We're an old-fashioned community in Biloela that still has those values. What we're actually fighting for are Australia's values, too, and it took this for the rest of the nation to remember that."

To read more from Good Weekend magazine, visit our page at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and Brisbane Times.
The best of Good Weekend delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. Sign up here.

Anne Hyland is an award-winning writer and a senior correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. She was previously deputy editor of Good Weekend and has worked for The AFR and as a foreign correspondent. Email Anne at ahyland@smh.com.au

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'We had to speak up for our friends': the little town that roared for a desperate family

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the Murugappan family were removed from their home at dawn, locals in conservative Biloela were gutted. Then the rural Queensland community learnt to crowdfund, hashtag and take to the world stage - all in the name of bringing their friends home to Bilo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The father and daughter of the Tamil family at the centre of a national outcry over their detention on Christmas Island have landed in Perth to be reunited with the rest of their family.

Dad Kopika and eldest daughter Nades have been staying in Christmas Island detention, apart from mum Priya and younger daughter Tharnicaa for nine long days after the latter pair were flown to Perth so Tharnicaa could receive emergency medical care.

Immigration Minister Alex Hawke said the family of four will be permitted to live in Perth in a community detention placement while Tharnicaa continues to be treated in the city's children's hospital.

"In making this decision I am conscious of the compassionate factors of having children in detention for prolonged periods of time versus ongoing litigation matters, matters before the courts, matters before me as minister that will take some time for us to resolve," Mr Hawke said in a press conference this afternoon.

"In doing so this will ensure that the children in the family have access to services in the community, health support, schools and other forms of support from the government and the Australian people while the final matters are being resolved."

Mr Hawke said details of the Tamil Sri Lankan family's case is still under investigation and that the government does not want to see the people-smuggling trade resume.

"They have been found at several junctures by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, by the Federal Court, the Circuit Court, and the full Federal Court in the High Court not to be owed protection by Australia," he said.

"Their immigration status has not changed and therefore on balance I have made a decision, a compassionate decision to keep the family in the Australian community while they take further matters up with the government."

In a statement that accompanied the photos of dad and daughter boarding the plane, campaigning group Home To Bilo, which advocates for the family to return to their former home town of Biloela in Queensland, welcomed the impending reunion.

"At this stage it is unclear when Kopika and Nades will be reunited with Tharni and Priya," the group said.

Lawyer for the family, Carina Ford, spoke just before the Immigration Minister and said Mr Hawke is still able to use his ministerial discretion.

"We would still be of the view, though, that the minister can use his power at any time. He does not need to wait until the court proceedings are finished. They are dealing with a completely separate issue," she said.

Ms Ford said the family is relieved to be reunited and to be out of Christmas Island detention.

"They would add, though, that the support they have had from the Christmas Island community has been wonderful, and they're also aware that there is this situation now that Kopica is going to have to resettle into another school.

"That's why, again, it would have been more ideal had they been sent to Bilo. But, stating that, they're looking forward to some freedom."

Priya and Nades Murugappan and their two daughters Tharnicaa and Kopika have been living in immigration detention on Christmas Island since 2019, after they were removed from their home in Biloela by Border Force officers in 2018.

Kopika and Tharnicaa were both born in Australia. Sri Lankan Tamils are considered by many to be a persecuted minority in the country.

Activists who are campaigning to return the family to Biloela, said the Immigration Minister's announcement was a welcome move.

Angela Fredericks, organiser of the group Home to Bilo, said it was for Mr Hawke and the Department of Home Affairs, not the courts, to determine the family's future in Australia.

"The Minister's power to grant visas is completely independent from the decisions of any court," Ms Fredericks said in a statement.

"We cannot say what - or who - is preventing Minister Hawke from bringing this family home to Bilo. But it is not this court matter."

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said she welcomed the Federal Government's decision.

"The family of four will be allowed to settle in Perth.

"It's a long way from Biloela where their friends and neighbours have campaigned for many years for their freedom."

Mr Hawke told 2GB radio this morning that while he did not want to see children in detention, the Federal Government would likely oppose the family permanently settling in Australia.

"Nobody wants to see children in detention ... but the government's position on border protection has not changed. Anyone who arrives in Australia illegally by boat will not be resettled permanently," Mr Hawke said.

Tharnicaa is the youngest member of the family and last week was flown from Christmas Island to Perth for medical treatment.

She was diagnosed with sepsis after almost two weeks of feeling unwell, but campaigners say she developed pneumonia.

Earlier, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg told Today the family would be reunited in Australia.

"They were pretty confronting images, as you say, of the young family and of course what we are seeking to do here with this announcement from the minister is to bring the family together," Mr Frydenberg said.

A growing group of Coalition backbenchers had been calling for an end to the saga, while others remain steadfast in the belief that granting the Murugappans residency will set a dangerous precedent.

Mr Hawke said he would consider "at a future date" whether to allow family members to apply for temporary protection, for which they had previously been rejected.

In Parliament this afternoon, Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese asked Acting Prime Minister Michael McCormack why the family were not allowed to go home to Biloela.

"These matters in relation to immigration are never easy," Mr McCormack replied.

"They are difficult. They are complicated.

"The Minister for Immigration has made a statement this morning to ensure that the support and that the health outcomes for the family will be there in Perth for them.

"We will continue to support the family."

CONTACT US

NSW records 830 new local coronavirus cases, three deaths

Sydney shoppers rush to Bunnings before stores close to the public

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biloela dad, daughter reunited with family in Perth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The father and daughter of the Tamil family at the centre of a national outcry over their detention on Christmas Island have landed in Perth to be reunited with the rest of their family.

# data[].attributes.headline
PM Morrison - only those who come the "right way" welcome

# data[].attributes.subject
PM Morrison - only those who come the "right way" welcome

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses the Prime Minister's position on Afghan asylum seekers - what impact do his statements have for the Biloela family?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scott Morrison has said Afghans in Australia on temporary protection visas who came by boat will not be given permanent residence.

These people had not come "the right way", Morrison told a news conference on Wednesday.

"I want to be very clear about that. I want to send a very clear message to people smugglers in the region that nothing's changed.

"I will not give you a product to sell and take advantage of people's misery. My government won't do it. We never have and we never will."

Government sources say there are more than 4500 Afghans in Australia on temporary protection visas, almost all of whom arrived by boat.

Although Morrison is adamant they will not get permanent residency, the government is making it clear there will be no attempt to return them to Afghanistan as things stand.

Opposition leader Anthony Albanese is among those who have called for them to be granted permanent residence.

The government announced on Wednesday an initial 3,000 humanitarian places would be allocated to Afghan nationals within Australia's 13,750 annual program which runs over a financial year.

Immigration Minister Alex Hawke said the government would give Afghan nationals "first priority" within the offshore humanitarian program. The priorities would be family members of Australians, and those facing persecution including women and girls, the Hazara, and other vulnerable groups.

Some 8,500 Afghans have been resettled in Australia since 2013 under the humanitarian program.

Hawke said the government anticipated the initial allocation would increase further over the course of the year.

Morrison stressed: "We will only be resettling people through our official humanitarian program going through official channels.

"We will not be allowing people to enter Australia illegally, even at this time.

"Our policy has not changed. We will be supporting Afghans who have legitimate claims through our official and legitimate processes. We will not be providing that pathway to those who would seek to come any other way. That is a very important message. The government's policy has not changed, will not change."

As the government scrambles to evacuate people who assisted Australian forces in Afghanistan, Australia's first evacuation flight from Kabul took only 26 people. Morrison said they included Australian citizens, Afghan nationals with visas, and one foreign official who had been working with an international agency.

The Afghans being brought to Australia in the evacuation are not included in the 3000.

Morrison emphasised the difficulty of assessing those Afghans seeking to come to Australia on the grounds of having helped Australian forces.

"They may have worked for us four years ago or five years ago. And we knew where they were then.

"And we may not have heard from them for a very long time. And we don't know what they've been doing in that intervening period in what has been a very unstable situation.

"So it isn't just a matter of people coming along and presenting, you know, a payslip from the Australian government saying, 'I used to work for you'. I wish it were that simple."

The Refugee Council of Australia said in a statement: "Permanent protection is needed for the 4300 Afghans on temporary protection visas, recognising that members of this group are unlikely to be able to return in safety for many years to come and need the assurance that they can continue to live in Australia without the constant fear of forced return."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No permanent settlement for Afghans who did not come 'the right way': Morrison

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scott Morrison has said Afghans in Australia on temporary protection visas who came by boat will not be given permanent residence. These people had not come "the right way", Morrison told a news conference on Wednesday. "I want to be very clear about that.

# data[].attributes.headline
Australian assistance to Afghan asylum seekers

# data[].attributes.subject
Australian assistance to Afghan asylum seekers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Posted , updated

After 20 years, the Taliban are back in power.(
AFP: Javed Tanveer
)

What do you want to know about the situation in Afghanistan since the Taliban's takeover?

Three experts - ABC's international affairs analyst Stan Grant, Afghan-Australian lawyer Mariam Veiszadeh and ABC journalist Tracey Shelton - spent this afternoon answering your questions in our live blog.

You can catch up on the full Q&A below.

Live updates

Thanks for joining today's Q&A

We've got to wrap it up there. Thank you so much to everyone who sent in their questions. We've received more than 400, so unfortunately couldn't get to them all today, but we appreciate the time you took to send them in. I'll hand it over to our experts for their final thoughts:
Stan Grant:

This is a tough time. It is sad to see what is happening in Afghanistan and I fear for the local people. We can hope that it stabilises and that there is an opportunity to build a more secure future that all Afghans can share in. Thank you for your thoughtful and caring questions. I hope the answers have been some help. We have a smart audience and it is always a great privilege to be able to have this sort of direct dialogue with you.

Mariam Veiszadeh:

Thanks so much for having and for the love and support the broader Australian community has been showing our communities. As I mentioned, I've partnered with Australia for UNHCR ( you can donate here).

Tracey Shelton:

Thanks so much for your thoughtful questions everyone. I know that so many questions remain, and it will take time for the answers to unfold. For the people of Afghanistan, it is a harrowing wait. In the coming days, I'll be following developments as details of the new government emerge. I'll be taking a close look at what the Taliban's promise to preserve women's rights "within the frameworks of Islam" means, and why experts are urging foreign governments to engage with the Taliban.

Last question: where does it end?

I'm afraid this will have to be our last question for today, our panelists have been very generous with their time and have other commitments to get to.

Here's Stan Grant:

This is it. It played a long game to regain power. It has outlasted the US and allies and now defeated the Afghan army. It wants to restore the emirate. Beyond that it has also traditionally supported Islamist movements like Al Qaeda and now reportedly Islamic State who may find a haven in the country.

Are there similarities between what's happening now and the Vietnam War?

Different. The circumstances of the war were different. America was directly attacked on 9/11. That said the US had played a long deadly game of supporting mujahideen rebel groups in the fight against the Soviets in the 1980s. It was allied to Pakistan which used funds to help bolster the Taliban. In some ways Vietnam and Afghanistan are connected - they are both examples of successful insurgency. It also means America will face some soul-searching and potentially crisis of confidence just as it stares down its big rival China. As Vietnam resonated beyond the war itself so will Afghanistan.

There have certainly been a lot of comparisons with some of the photos coming out of Kabul in the last few days.

A US Chinook helicopter flies over the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan on August 15. (AP)

Vietnamese evacuees filing into an Air America helicopter from the top of a building near US Embassy in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City) on April 29, 1975. (Getty)

Show more posts

Posted , updated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After 20 years, the Taliban have once again seized power in Afghanistan. Our experts have been answering your questions on who's funding the Taliban, what they want, and what their regime will mean for the women and girls of Afghanistan. Catch up on the Q&A.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tim Costello calls for Australia to increase humanitarian cap for Afghan refugees | The World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's Australia's Position on Protecting Afghan Refugees? | Q+A

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An Afghan woman who fled the Taliban takeover of her country more than 20 years ago and made Australia her home fears today's violence in her homeland is worse.

Farkhondeh Akbari left Afghanistan in 1998 as a child with her family when the Taliban seized power. She lived in refugee camps before coming to Australia on a humanitarian visa.

Ms Akbari, a postgraduate student at the Australian National University in Canberra, told nine.com.au the Taliban are feeling increasingly confident of regaining power after the withdrawal of US and other international troops.

"They are feeling emboldened and they have a sense of victory. They are feeling like 'we have beaten a superpower ,'" Ms Akbari said.

But she fears the new freedoms gained by Afghans over the past 20 years after the Taliban were removed from power by US and international forces in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks will make today's conflict more bloody.

Ms Akbari, a member of the minority Hazari group, said many Afghans will forcibly resist the return of Taliban rule.

"More Afghan people have been exposed to the world, more people went abroad to get vaccinated, they are used to holding people to account.

"Women have found a voice now and there is some sort of democracy and freedom experienced by the people. So we have changed as people and as a generation."

Despite the pullout of international forces and setbacks by the Afghan army, Ms Akbari said ordinary people were standing up to the Taliban.

"I think that's something that we are afraid of - that it will take [the conflict] to another level, because people will resist stronger or harder and they will face more violence because of it," she said.

That has been highlighted by civilian militias taking up arms against the Taliban as well as groups raised by regional warlords.

Ms Akbari, who studied the Taliban peace talks for her PhD, says the militant group is unwilling to compromise with the Afghan government it is fighting.

"The Taliban are not compromising on anything because they already got what they wanted from the US; a timetable for withdrawal and international legitimacy," she said.

"They only come to the negotiating table when they have gained the upper hand."

Ms Akbari's goal was to ultimately return to Afghanistan and use her expertise to improve her homeland.

But recent Taliban violence against the Hazari people and other minority groups has made it unsafe.

"People like me may not be welcome ... but the struggle for human rights, freedom, will continue."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Afghan woman who fled Taliban for Australia warns on growing violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Afghan woman who fled the Taliban takeover of her country more than 20 years ago and made Australia her home fears today's violence in her homeland is worse. Farkhondeh Akbari left Afghanistan in 1998 as a child with her family when the Taliban seized power.

# data[].attributes.body
Need to find Craig Foster statements and rerecord from 3.55s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Host: Ellen Fanning Panel: Craig Foster, Professor Ngiare Brown, Peter Bol and Clare Armstrong Guest: Barat Ali Batoor

# data[].attributes.headline
Experiences of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Australia

# data[].attributes.subject
Experiences of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Australia

# data[].attributes.body
This short video clip provides personal recounts of individuals in Australian detention centres and how they were treated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refugee experiences upon arriving in Australia

# data[].attributes.body
A number of children who arrive to Australia seeking asylum do so with at least one parent or a guardian, however, there are others who are totally unaccompanied.

We know from research conducted and the recount of personal stories about life in Australian detention centres, children (as well as adults) are exposed to further trauma as well as the limited provisions of basic needs and services such as medical, food and education.
There has been strong debate about children in detention and whether they should be removed and placed with another family not in detention.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did our treatment of refugees come to this?

# data[].attributes.subject
How did our treatment of refugees come to this?

# data[].attributes.body
The writers of this article describe the treatment of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in detention centres under Australian law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OPINION-How did our treatment of refugees come to this

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Outback Queensland opens arms to Afghan refugees and urges government to relocate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scott Morrison has said Afghans in Australia on temporary protection visas who came by boat will not be given permanent residence.

These people had not come "the right way", Morrison told a news conference on Wednesday.

"I want to be very clear about that. I want to send a very clear message to people smugglers in the region that nothing's changed.

"I will not give you a product to sell and take advantage of people's misery. My government won't do it. We never have and we never will."

Government sources say there are more than 4500 Afghans in Australia on temporary protection visas, almost all of whom arrived by boat.

Although Morrison is adamant they will not get permanent residency, the government is making it clear there will be no attempt to return them to Afghanistan as things stand.

Opposition leader Anthony Albanese is among those who have called for them to be granted permanent residence.

The government announced on Wednesday an initial 3,000 humanitarian places would be allocated to Afghan nationals within Australia's 13,750 annual program which runs over a financial year.

Immigration Minister Alex Hawke said the government would give Afghan nationals "first priority" within the offshore humanitarian program. The priorities would be family members of Australians, and those facing persecution including women and girls, the Hazara, and other vulnerable groups.

Some 8,500 Afghans have been resettled in Australia since 2013 under the humanitarian program.

Hawke said the government anticipated the initial allocation would increase further over the course of the year.

Morrison stressed: "We will only be resettling people through our official humanitarian program going through official channels.

"We will not be allowing people to enter Australia illegally, even at this time.

"Our policy has not changed. We will be supporting Afghans who have legitimate claims through our official and legitimate processes. We will not be providing that pathway to those who would seek to come any other way. That is a very important message. The government's policy has not changed, will not change."

As the government scrambles to evacuate people who assisted Australian forces in Afghanistan, Australia's first evacuation flight from Kabul took only 26 people. Morrison said they included Australian citizens, Afghan nationals with visas, and one foreign official who had been working with an international agency.

The Afghans being brought to Australia in the evacuation are not included in the 3000.

Morrison emphasised the difficulty of assessing those Afghans seeking to come to Australia on the grounds of having helped Australian forces.

"They may have worked for us four years ago or five years ago. And we knew where they were then.

"And we may not have heard from them for a very long time. And we don't know what they've been doing in that intervening period in what has been a very unstable situation.

"So it isn't just a matter of people coming along and presenting, you know, a payslip from the Australian government saying, 'I used to work for you'. I wish it were that simple."

The Refugee Council of Australia said in a statement: "Permanent protection is needed for the 4300 Afghans on temporary protection visas, recognising that members of this group are unlikely to be able to return in safety for many years to come and need the assurance that they can continue to live in Australia without the constant fear of forced return."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No permanent settlement for Afghans who did not come 'the right way': Morrison

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scott Morrison has said Afghans in Australia on temporary protection visas who came by boat will not be given permanent residence. These people had not come "the right way", Morrison told a news conference on Wednesday. "I want to be very clear about that.

# data[].attributes.headline
Living conditions for children in Australian detention centres.

# data[].attributes.subject
Living conditions for children in Australian detention centres.

# data[].attributes.body
The article highlights the long term effects to a child's brain and the impact on mental health for children kept in detention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sending children back to Nauru risks creating a generation of damaged

# data[].attributes.headline
The lack of human rights shown to people in Australian detention centres

# data[].attributes.subject
The lack of human rights shown to people in Australian detention centres

# data[].attributes.body
The articles describes how men, women and children are treated in detention and how it is worse that individuals detained in Australian prisons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he Australian Human Rights Commission's report on the use of force in immigration detention is the latest chapter in a now familiar story of excessively harsh, punitive and degrading conditions in Australian immigration detention centres.

Once again, we see a disregard for the rights and basic dignity of people who have sought our protection and committed no crime.

The report lays bare the unnecessary handcuffing of women, children, people in wheelchairs, people with mental illness and no history of violent behaviour, and other people needing medical care. It confirms what our clients have been telling us: that handcuffing has become a routine practice for transfers between centres and, alarmingly, for off-site medical appointments. This includes transfers for torture and trauma counselling, in private doctors' waiting rooms and at consultations where the very purpose of the appointment is to investigate issues such as wrist and arm injuries.

But the report goes much further than the overuse of handcuffs. It highlights demeaning breaches of privacy. It exposes violence inflicted by officers in the name of compliance when other options were available. It details the use of guards in balaclavas and heavy armour to move family groups, including babies and young children, from a family compound in a pre-dawn paramilitary-style operation.

* Sign up to receive the latest Australian opinion pieces every weekday

This takes place in the context of the prison-like conditions in which people are being held. In May the Australian Human Rights Commission reported that it was especially concerned about harsh, restrictive and prison-like conditions in high-security accommodation compounds, inaccurate risk assessments resulting in unwarranted restrictions, the routine use of restraints during escort and excessive restrictions on excursions, personal items and external visits.

Concerns have also been raised in recent weeks about the arbitrary use of transfers, often without warning, between immigration detention centres. This not only compounds the anxiety and insecurity already faced by people living in detention, but prevents people from developing supportive and protective relationships with service providers, advocates, other people in detention and in the community.

Our work at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre has also exposed the lack of access to medical care for people in our immigration detention centres. We have seen people with serious chronic diseases, such as hepatitis C, suffering without access to treatment that is freely available to prisoners and people in the community. We have seen recommendations by doctors for necessary medical treatment ignored.

One of our clients, Tomas*, had already read the commission's most recent report when we contacted him about it. It came as no surprise to him. Tomas is an asylum seeker who has been held in immigration detention for more than six years. He is forced to wear handcuffs every time he is moved between facilities.

Tomas is a survivor of severe torture and trauma. He has complex mental health needs. The detention environment is particularly triggering for him. His medical issues are well known to authorities and extensively documented. Throughout his time in detention, mental health professionals have repeatedly highlighted the damaging effect that handcuffing has on him, to no avail.

Opaque policies such as enhanced escort procedures and security risk assessment checks exist, but still we see vulnerable, sick and otherwise low-risk asylum seekers with no history of violence subjected to cruel and arbitrary practices.

It is welcome news that the Department of Home Affairs has amended some of its internal policies in the course of the commission's investigation. But we need to confront the truth at the heart of this. We have a system that causes deep and irreparable harm to people, many of whom have already suffered significant trauma.

We lock people up in onshore immigration detention for over 400 days on average (compare that to Canada - an average of one month). Unlike prisoners, immigration detainees don't know when they will be getting out. They can be held indefinitely. We know this is deeply damaging to physical and mental health.

In the coming months, the UN's torture prevention body, the subcommittee on prevention of torture, will be in Australia looking into all places of detention, including immigration detention. This visit comes at a crucial time, as Australia continues to consider how to implement our obligations under the optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

We should hope that all of this scrutiny will see improvements in the way we treat asylum seekers and others in immigration detention. But we must also recognise that harm is an inescapable part of our system of immigration detention. It is how we choose to treat people seeking asylum in our country.

* Not his real name

* Jonathon Hunyor is CEO of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia's immigration detention system is cruel and damaging by its very nature | Jonathon Hunyor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he Australian Human Rights Commission's report on the use of force in immigration detention is the latest chapter in a now familiar story of excessively harsh, punitive and degrading conditions in Australian immigration detention centres. Once again, we see a disregard for the rights and basic dignity of people who have sought our protection and committed no crime.

# data[].attributes.headline
Facts and figures about children in Australian detention centres

# data[].attributes.subject
Facts and figures about children in Australian detention centres

# data[].attributes.body
This report provides strong background information about children in detention like:

how many children have been in Australian detention

how long they stay in detention centres

where the detention centres are located

their impression of detention on arrival

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A last resort?

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention

What is immigration detention?

Since 1992, Australia's migration law has made it mandatory

for any person in Australia without a valid visa to be detained until

they are issued with a visa or removed from Australia. This law applies

equally to adults and children.

Some children are placed in immigration detention because

they enter Australia without a visa (unauthorised arrivals). Other children

are in immigration detention because they overstay or break the conditions

of their visa.

During the period of the Inquiry, the majority of children

in detention were unauthorised boat arrivals. Over this period, other

children made up no more than 5% of the total number of child detainees.

Most unauthorised arrivals seek refugee protection when they

arrive - in other words, they are asylum seekers. However, although almost

all children in detention are asylum seekers, not all child asylum seekers

are in detention. Children who come to Australia on a tourist visa or

student visa and then claim asylum after they arrive (authorised arrivals)

usually live in the community on a bridging visa while their refugee status

is being determined.

How many children have been in immigration detention?

A total of 976 children were in immigration detention in

1999-2000; 1,923 children in 2000-2001; 1,696 children in 2001-2002 and

703 children in 2002-2003. Most of these children arrived by boat.

The total number of unauthorised arrival children who

applied for refugee protection visas between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2003

was 2,184. These figures do not include children transferred to and detained

on Nauru and Manus Island (Papua New Guinea).

Sign outside Woomera indicating ACM and the Department,

June 2002

The highest number of children in detention at any

one time between 1 January 1999 and 1 January 2004 was 842 (on 1 September

2001). Of this number, 456 were at the Woomera detention centre.

When the Inquiry was announced in late November 2001,

there were over 700 children in immigration detention. By the time of

the Inquiry's public hearing with the Department a year later, the number

had reduced by 80% to 139. The number of children in detention has not

decreased at the same rate since that time.

There were still 111 children in immigration detention in

Australia on 26 December 2003.

Where have the children been held?

Children arriving in Australian territory (including Australian

territorial waters) without a visa were detained in any one of the following

detention facilities over the period of the Inquiry:

Baxter Immigration Detention Facility (opened July 2002)

Christmas Island Immigration Reception and Processing Centre
(opened November 2001, 'mothballed' March 2003, re-commissioned in July

2003)

Cocos (Keeling) Islands Immigration Reception Centre (opened
September 2001, closed March 2002)

Curtin Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (opened
September 1999, 'mothballed' September 2002)

Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre (opened 1966)

Perth Immigration Detention Centre (opened 1981)

Port Hedland Immigration Reception and Processing Centre
(opened 1991)

Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (opened
November 1999, 'mothballed' April 2003) or the Woomera Residential Housing

Project (opened August 2001, 'mothballed' December 2003)

Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (opened 1976).

Residential housing projects were opened in Port Hedland

and Port Augusta (near Baxter) after the period of the Inquiry.

Locations of detention centres in and around Australia

After September 2001, and the introduction of the 'Pacific

Solution', children who arrived on Christmas Island, the Ashmore Islands

or the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, or who were intercepted at sea by Australian

authorities, were transferred to detention facilities in Nauru or Manus

Island (Papua New Guinea).

Since late January 2002, most asylum seeker children travelling

without a parent or guardian (unaccompanied minors), were transferred

from immigration detention centres to 'alternative places of detention',

such as foster homes in the community.

The following table provides an overview of where children

were held in detention between July 1999 and July 2003. The figures show

that most children in detention were held in remote centres at Curtin,

Port Hedland and Woomera.

Note: A result of '0' means

no children were held at that time. A result of '-'

means that facility was not operating at that time.

How long have children been held in detention?

Since 1999, children have been detained for increasingly

longer periods of time. By the beginning of 2003, the average detention

period for a child in immigration detention was one year, three months

and 17 days. As at 26 December 2003, the average length of detention had

increased to one year, eight months and 11 days.

The longest a child has ever been in immigration detention

is five years, five months and 20 days. This child and his mother were

released from Port Hedland detention centre on 12 May 2000, after eventually

being assessed as refugees.

Length of detention of children: 1999-2003

How many children arrived in Australia without their parents?

Most children arriving in Australia without a visa come with

one or both parents. However, there are a significant number of children

who arrive unaccompanied. Until January 2002, when most unaccompanied

children were transferred to foster homes, unaccompanied children were

detained in the same manner as all other unauthorised arrivals.

At the start of 2000 there was a large rise in the number

of unaccompanied children detained in Australia. On 1 July 1999 there

were just two unaccompanied children, who had been detained for a short

time. Six months later, that figure had grown to 41.

By 1 July 2000 there were 49 unaccompanied children in detention,

37 of whom had been detained for longer than three months. By 1 July 2001,

a year later, there were 121 unaccompanied children in detention, 22 of

whom had been detained for over three months. Their number grew to 143

during that month. On 1 January 2002, there were only 40 unaccompanied

children in detention but 90% of them had been detained for more than

three months.

What is the background of the children in detention?

There were more boys than girls held in immigration

detention. However, the percentage of girls has increased since 1999.

Between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2003, 37% of asylum seeker children in

detention were girls. The majority of children in detention were under

12 years of age. The following table shows the age of children in immigration

detention as at 30 June for each year from 1999 to 2003.

Some infants (0-4 years) spent substantial portions of

their lives in immigration detention. On 30 June 2000 there were 164 infants

in detention. Five of them had spent more than 18 months in detention.

On 30 June 2001 there were 144 infants in detention. Two of these children

had spent more than two and a half years in detention - more than half

of their lives.

Where do children in detention come from?

Most of the children in detention over the Inquiry period

were from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the Palestinian Territories and Sri

Lanka.

How is a person's refugee status decided?

Once asylum seeker children and their families in detention

make an application for a protection visa, the Department begins an assessment

of their cases. Children who arrive with their family are generally included

in the application made by their parents and the claim for asylum is based

on the strength of the father's or mother's claim. Unaccompanied children,

because they are not part of a family unit, need to make an application

for asylum in their own right.

In determining whether a person is a refugee, the Department

uses the definition of a refugee as set out in the United Nations Refugee

Convention.

All applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis. If

the application is successful, the family and the child are granted a

temporary protection visa. If an application is refused, a review of the

decision can be sought from the Refugee Review Tribunal.

Applicants are also entitled to limited judicial review of

a visa decision. This process does not review the merits of a decision

but it ensures that certain standards have been followed during the determination

of an application.

How many children in immigration detention were found to be refugees?

Between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2003, 2,184 children arrived

in Australia without a valid visa and sought asylum (unauthorised arrivals)

- all these children were held in immigration detention while their refugee

status was being determined. More than 92% of these children were found

to be refugees and were granted a temporary protection visa. For some

nationalities the success rate was even higher (98% Iraqi; 95% Afghan).

Between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2003, 3,125 children

arrived in Australia with a valid visa and then sought asylum (authorised

arrivals) - these children were not held in immigration detention while

their refugee status was being determined. Only 25% of these children

were found to be refugees. The top three countries of origin for authorised

arrivals were Fiji, Indonesia and Sri Lanka.

Who operates the detention centres?

The Department is responsible for the operation of Australia's

immigration detention centres. However, since February 1998 and throughout

the period of the Inquiry, ACM - a private firm - was contracted by the

Department to deliver all services at the detention centres.

Immigration Detention Standards, developed by the Department,

set out the quality of services expected in the centres and the requirement

to take into consideration the individual needs of detainees. Department

officers at each immigration detention centre are expected to monitor

the performance of ACM against these standards.

What did children say about detention centres?

experienced fear ...

Unaccompanied Afghan boy found to

I think every Australian knows

Brisbane focus group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A last resort? - Summary Guide: The facts about immigration detention in Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since 1992, Australia's migration law has made it mandatory for any person in Australia without a valid visa to be detained until they are issued with a visa or removed from Australia. This law applies equally to adults and children.

# data[].attributes.body
This video clip outlines the impact that the living conditions have had on an individual who has been detained in a detention centre.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.

Iranian asylum seeker suing the Australian government for compensation

Payam Saadat is suing the federal government for mental injuries he alleges he suffered while in immigration detention. The trial is considered a test case. Rebecca Puddy reports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Iranian asylum seeker suing the Australian government for compensation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Payam Saadat is suing the federal government for mental injuries he alleges he suffered while in immigration detention. The trial is considered a test case. Rebecca Puddy reports.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should asylum seekers be processed at offshore detention centres?  Summary Information

# data[].attributes.subject
Should asylum seekers be processed at offshore detention centres?  Summary Information

# data[].attributes.body
Currently, individuals seeking asylum in Australia are transferred to offshore detention centres to live where they are processed to determine whether they are genuinely seeking asylum.  When they are placed in detention centres, Asylum Seekers are not free to leave or free to do what they want. They are locked up and treated like someone who has committed a crime or even worse.

Once they have gained refugee status, they are not necessarily ‘released’ from the detention centre to resettle. However, some are permitted to resettle on Christmas Island or Nauru, depending on the location of the detention centre.

# data[].attributes.headline
Asylum Seekers - useful background information

# data[].attributes.subject
Asylum Seekers - useful background information

# data[].attributes.body
This short video clip provides an overview about offshore processing and the reasons Asylum Seekers have left their homeland.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Christmas island. It's a tropical paradise and sounds like a pretty fun place to live.

But this Australian island isn't like any other other.

For one thing, it's a long way away. It's 2600ks from Perth, but only 450ks from Indonesia.

But the main reason it's different is that on this island, way way out to sea, is a huge detention centre holding over 2000 people from other countries.

And right now, it's pretty much full.

So why are all these people here?

To find out these answers, we first have to trace their journey back to their home countries.

Most have grown up amid violence, poverty, or war.

They fear for their lives because of their race or their religion.

And it's this fear that encourages them to pay huge amounts of money, climb aboard overcrowded, unsafe boats and set course for Christmas Island.

So why come to this tiny island?

The first reason is all location, location, location.

Despite being Australian soil, Christmas island is really close to Indonesia, meaning it's much easier to sail to in rickety boats.

The second reason is that once they make it here, these desperate people officially become 'Asylum seekers'.

The term means 'people looking for a safe place to live', and by coming here, they are applying to be allowed to stay in Australia for good.

But not everyone who asks can stay, so that's where the detention centre itself comes in.

Asylum seekers are held here while their stories are checked, because if they aren't genuinely in need of protection, they are usually sent back home again.

But if their stories check out, the successful asylum seekers are transferred to the mainland, where they become genuine refugees.

And that means they are allowed to stay here, for good!

The government only lets a certain number of people in, depending on how many they think we can support. That's around 14-thousand a year.

The huge majority of those people come by plane.

Only a few thousand come by boat, but the government is trying to stop people coming to the country this way, because it's dangerous and the people running the boats, called people smugglers, are breaking the law.

But rather than boat arrivals slowing, the last few years has seen a rise in boats heading this way.

Many of the asylum seekers are from the troubled countries of Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, so the government has now decided to stop processing their claims for asylum for a while.

They say the situation in their countries might not be as bad as it used to be, but not everyone agrees.

SAM PARI, AUSTRALIAN TAMIL CONGRESS: We need to understand that these people are fleeing very very legitimate fear of persecution

But the government is sending the message that people coming here by boat can't expect to be automatically assessed anymore.

But whether that will stop desperate people seeking a new home in Australia remains to be seen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This month the government decided to change how they treat some asylum seekers, and they've also re-opened two old detention centres. They're decisions that might not mean much to you at all, but for thousands of asylum seekers on Australian shores, it makes a huge difference.

# data[].attributes.body
Amnesty International argue that people seeking asylum should be treated fairly based on international humanitarian laws.
"The Australian Government has created a deliberate system of abuse for thousands of adults and children. Together we're demanding people seeking safety are treated humanely and fairly."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refugees and asylum seekers - Amnesty International Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everyone has a right to safety. We work to ensure the safety of millions of refugees and asylum seekers who have been forced to flee their homes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Australia's attitude towards Asylum Seekers and Refugees

# data[].attributes.subject
Australia's attitude towards Asylum Seekers and Refugees

# data[].attributes.body
The writer points out that for 7 years Australia's treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers is "cruel" and that it is time to end this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This Sunday marks the seventh anniversary of Australia's disastrous decision to resume its policy of transferring asylum seekers offshore. Since July 2013, Australia has forcibly transferred more than 3,000 asylum seekers who traveled there by boat to camps on Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

This experiment in human suffering as a deterrent has not worked. Seven years on, more than 370 people still choose to endure horrific hardship in Papua New Guinea and Nauru rather than return to conflict and persecution in their home countries. They languish in limbo, separated from families, futures uncertain. The United States has taken more than 700 people in a resettlement arrangement with Australia, and over the years the Australian government reluctantly transferred more than 1,200 asylum seekers and refugees back to Australia for medical treatment. Some of those in Australia live in uncertainty in the community on temporary bridging visas, but more than 200 are detained in centers or hotels.

Australia's Immigration Minister Alan Tudge recently said, "We'll keep them in the hotels in detention until they exercise one of those options," the "options" being to return to their home countries or to go back to Papua New Guinea or Nauru. He later added that: "They've had their medical treatment and now it is, under the legislation, right for them to return home." But where is "home"?

Tudge's comments show Australia's continued detention of these people is punitive and cruel. But it's unlawful too. Under international law, immigration detention is not a form of punishment, but rather an exceptional measure of last resort to carry out a legitimate aim. Migrants should be detained for the shortest time necessary, and only be lawfully deported if they have exhausted their remedies after full and fair asylum procedures.

This anniversary is a stark reminder that Australia has gone from being a country that once welcomed newcomers to a world leader in treating refugees with brazen cruelty. Seven years is time enough for Australians to see the harm of offshore processing and to call on the government to end it once and for all, and to finally let refugees settle in Australia and move on with their lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seven Years of Suffering for Australia's Asylum Seekers, Refugees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Sunday marks the seventh anniversary of Australia's disastrous decision to resume its policy of transferring asylum seekers offshore. Since July 2013, Australia has forcibly transferred more than 3,000 asylum seekers who traveled there by boat to camps on Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amnesty International makes a call to action.

# data[].attributes.subject
Amnesty International makes a call to action.

# data[].attributes.body
A call to action to end offshore detention and provide a safe place for Asylum Seekers and Refugees to live.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No matter where we come from or how we got here, everyone needs a safe place to call home.

But for nearly eight years, successive governments have enacted harmful policies against people seeking asylum, including the indefinite detention of those who arrived by boat after 19 July 2013.

Today, there are over 250 people held against their will in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Over 1000 women, men and children have been transferred to Australia for critical medical treatment and now live in 'transitory' visa limbo. Over 150 of those people are held in locked immigration detention centres known as APODs (alternative places of detention).

Countless Parliamentary and Departmental inquiries, UN investigations, reports by the Australian Human Rights Commission, and numerous whistleblowers, including the government's own doctors have repeatedly told us the same story of systematic abuse, violence and medical neglect of people held in detention facilities. Tragically, 13 people have lost their lives as a result of Australia's offshore detention regime.

After nearly eight years, it's time Scott Morrison and the Government commits to the resettlement of people seeking asylum and refugees in a safe and permanent home.

It's time for release from detention.

It's time for a permanent resettlement solution.
It's time for a home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
But for nearly eight years, successive governments have enacted harmful policies against people seeking asylum, including the indefinite detention of those who arrived by boat after 19 July 2013. Today, there are over 250 people held against their will in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.