Australia’s offshore processing policy in the High Court

Australia’s highest court will begin considering on Wednesday whether the policy of sending asylum seekers to the tiny South Pacific nation of Nauru for long-term detention is in breach of the constitution, a major challenge to the controversial policy.

The woman and her 10-month-old baby were recently transferred from Nauru to Australia for medical treatment, and face imminent return.

The plaintiff’s lawyers will argue there is no law that gives the federal government power to fund offshore detention centre arrangements.

“There remain important and untested constitutional questions about the power of the Australian Government to pay and to control the detention of innocent people in other countries”, says Daniel Webb.

The High Court’s ruling could also have legal implications for the other offshore detention centre on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.

And this week the doors of Nauru’s processing centre were flung open, allowing those within to move freely with the added promise to process all 600 outstanding asylum-seeker claims within a week.

Abyan and another Somali refugee, Namja (not her real name) whose claims for protection were found valid say they were raped on Nauru where they are being resettled under Australia’s harsh border protection laws.

“The start of detention-free processing is a landmark day for Nauru and represents an even more compassionate programme, which was always the intention of our government”, Nauru Justice Minister David Adeang said in a statement.

Turnbull previously expressed concern over the “very alarming” allegations and said that Australia is working close with Nauru to safeguard its refugees.

Abyan’s Sydney based lawyer George Newhouse has written to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton pleading for Abyan to be allowed to come to Australia for a termination and post sexual assault care.

An independent United Nations investigator postponed an official visit to Australia last month, citing a lack of government cooperation and “unacceptable” legal restrictions.