Stay Informed
Get email updates about new ACCR research and shareholder advocacy on specific topics of interest to you.
Sign UpAs 15 asylum seekers await deportation to Sri Lanka tonight, the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) is again calling on commercial airlines, including Qantas and Virgin Australia to rule out participation in involuntary transfer and forced removal activities on behalf of the Department of Home Affairs to manage their risk of being implicated in serious human rights abuses.
It is understood that the asylum seekers who are expected to be removed tonight have been living in the Australian community for over four years and are part of the so-called “legacy caseload”. This cohort has repeatedly been denied due process in making their asylum claims.
They have been refused legal support, interpreters, and have had to meet extreme and unrealistic deadlines or face automatic refusal of their claims.
The UNHCR has stated that changes to application deadlines for the “legacy caseload” cohort “create a significant risk that individuals’ claims for protection may not be adequately nor accurately considered, giving rise to the possibility of refugees being returned to persecution (refoulement) in violation of Australia’s international obligations …”
Brynn O’Brien, Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) said:
“The domestic mechanisms for assessing asylum claims in Australia are woefully inadequate and have been roundly criticised by international and domestic human rights bodies. To shield themselves from legal, financial and reputational risks, Qantas and Virgin should run a mile from any involvement in facilitating Australia’s refugee policies.
“Qantas has continued to take a ‘head in the sand’ approach by recommending that investors vote against a shareholder resolution regarding deportations to danger at its AGM in October. This will ring alarm bells for their investors.
“ACCR has already commenced briefings of Qantas’ investor base and there is significant concern that the company has failed to gauge the extent of the business risk associated with forced removals. If this position carries into the AGM, we expect that there will be a strong vote against the Qantas board’s recommendation.
“Companies should not trust the Australian government’s assurances that the human rights of asylum seekers have been upheld. More often than not, the opposite is true. Companies, not governments, are best placed to assess business risk. In this case, the risk is too great, and the return far, far too small.”
END