According to Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR), human rights in Australia have never been under greater threat.

“The protection of human rights is now at a very low point in Australian history,” said ALHR President Benedict Coyne. “Tumultuous world events have led to a surge in the number of people seeking asylum, unprecedented escalated national security measures, including unparalleled surveillance, and an alarming normalisation of hate speech.”

Australia generally has a good international reputation for upholding human rights. Indeed, Australia’s high standards of education and health, strong democratic institutions, and successful multicultural society make it the envy of many citizens globally who are deprived of their basic human rights.

The most pressing human rights abuses, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, political dictatorships, torture, and extra-judicial execution tend to occur beyond Australia’s borders – the full suite of these abuses are evident within the Syrian crisis. However, the ability of Australia to solve or to contribute to solving, such grave violations abroad is naturally limited. What we can do, unilaterally, is improve our own domestic protection of human rights.

With eyes towards a seat on the UN Human Rights Council for the 2018-2020 term, Australia’s bid should begin at home. Two areas stand out when considering Australia’s human rights record. Firstly, human rights violations persist in relation to their Indigenous population. There is an appalling gap between living standards of Indigenous people in Australia and their non-Indigenous counterparts across all indexes, such as life expectancy, infant mortality, health, education, and employment. More blatant violations of Indigenous rights have also occurred, for example, the “special measures” intervention in the Northern Territory.

The second area and the primary consideration here are the asylum seeker and refugee policy. Asylum seekers and refugees continue to provoke debate worldwide, as increasing amounts of people flee war-ravaged areas, and the issue gets tied up with national border security and domestic economic concerns. Refugee policy, again, hit headlines in both Australia and the US last week as President Trump reportedly fell out with Prime Minister Turnbull over a deal made with the Obama administration. The deal would see the acceptance into the US of around 1,250 refugees currently in detention centres in Nauru and Manus Island, as part of Australia’s hard-line border protection policy, in exchange for refugees from Central America.

The President wrote on Twitter: “Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!”

Herein lies the first problem: Necessarily, immigration is a significant aspect of federal government policy, and no one is denying the government’s responsibility to maintain national security. The importance of this duty is heightened with the seemingly ever-present threat of terrorist-related activity, and the frighteningly new DIY, lone-wolf style modus operandi, such as employed in Nice and Berlin. Countries the world over are struggling to strike the right balance between security and sustainability, and a humane policy, which meets international obligations.

However, what must stop is the over-politicization of refugees and refugee policy. Contrary to Trump’s musings, asylum seekers and refugees are not illegal immigrants. Under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek asylum. Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) prohibits states from imposing penalties on refugees who enter without valid travel documents – that is, if they enter the country unlawfully but have come directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened.

The Refugee Council of Australia explains by analogy: “Permitting asylum seekers to entry a country without travel documents is similar to allowing ambulance drivers to exceed the speed limit in an emergency – the action may ordinarily be illegal but, in order to protect lives at risk, an exception is made.” According to the Dept. Immigration and Border Protection statistics on visa applications by asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru, around 90 percent of the claimants are determined to be valid refugees.

Similarly, asylum seekers are not “queue jumpers.” This distorts the reality of refugee resettlement in Australia, which does not have an orderly queue. There are multiple avenues and the process is highly discretionary. Although the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has a programme for refugee resettlement based on urgency, it is a voluntary scheme, cannot meet demand, and ultimately ought to be viewed as complementary, rather than a substitute for asylum seeker protection under the Refugee Convention.

Labels such as ‘illegal’ and ‘queue jumpers’ are not only incorrect, but they dehumanize asylum seekers and their traumatic experiences. This characterization has not occurred by accident, however. Media and policy agendas have intersected with public opinion to contribute to the ongoing exclusion of asylum seekers. Labels like “boat people,” “illegal immigrants,” queue jumpers,” and “economic migrants” have emerged and have been normalized in this process. As a consequence, reorienting public attitudes to be more sympathetic towards the refugee plight requires a significant shift in political rhetoric and media reporting on the issue.

Refugee policy hit new levels of political sensitivity following the Tampa Affair in 2001, after which, then Prime Minister John Howard, amended the Migration Act and declared: “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” The media representation of the event delegitimized the rights of asylum seekers who arrived by boat, by evoking fears of cultural difference.

However, with the success of the ‘Pacific Solution’ in stopping maritime arrivals, the government increasingly struggled to justify the inhumanity involved. The election of Kevin Rudd in 2007 saw border policies relaxed, but after more than 9,000 asylum seekers reached Australia by boat in 2009-2010, the issue returned to mainstream political discourse. The new Liberal government of 2013 then completed the merry-go-round by reinstalling tough, Howard-esque border policies.

Once again, with the success of stopping the boats and detaining asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru, the critiques have mounted. Controversy ensued last year over Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) President Gillian Triggs’ criticism of the governments border protection policies, and their detrimental psychological effects on refugee detainees, which included children. Ironically, it was the AHRC that was accused of politicizing refugees, as Cabinet Minister Christopher Pyne told Triggs to “stay out of politics and stick with human rights.”

There is an inherent tension between the sustainability of a humane policy, which accords with international law and the legitimacy of a unilateral deterrence regime involving offshore processing. Despite this, the continued use of refugees as political fodder and an opportunity for point-scoring is unacceptable. The lives and dignity of these people are at stake. The lack of public empathy is astonishing, certainly, Australia would not accept its own citizens being arbitrarily detained in centres that Amnesty International has described as an “open-air prison.” Yet, perhaps, it should be unsurprising, given the way the issue has been repeatedly portrayed as a matter of “us” vs “them.”

In many ways, this dichotomous, dig-in-your-heels style of ideological confrontation between political adversaries is symptomatic of wider problems with the current political environment. However, with fundamental human rights continuing to be violated and ignored, a shift in the discussion that sidelines sheer partisanship and looks to negotiate and compromise is required. The sensible thing to do is work towards the middle, and involve other regional countries in a genuinely multilateral engagement to the refugee crisis.

De-politicizing the issue is the first step. Perhaps then, what can follow is a workable bi-partisan discussion and solution involving regional partners. If Australia is to take an honest seat on the UN Human Rights Council in 2018 and project human rights on the world stage with any legitimacy, it needs a greater home record.