Human rights touted despite expected detention backlash

Australia knew it would face backlash when unveiling a human rights plan during its contentious asylum seeker crackdown.

When federal government lodged a second national action plan on human rights to the United Nations in 2005, then foreign minister Alexander Downer claimed it would allow Australia to continue creating and enforcing human rights standards.

Yet his government had passed a slew of anti-refugee laws a few years earlier, and 2004 cabinet records released by the National Archives of Australia on Wednesday show Mr Downer and attorney-general Philip Ruddock were prepared for criticism.

"The proposed (plan) enables the government to counter the perception ... that it is not sufficiently concerned about the protection and enjoyment of human rights," they wrote in the document.

"It is probable that (it) will be criticised by human rights organisations as failing to adequately address perceived human rights issues, such as the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, religious discrimination, Indigenous self-determination, or a proposed bill of rights."

The final framework tried to get ahead of backlash by claiming "every effort is made to ensure that people in detention are able to go about their daily life", and highlighting the communal nature of immigration detention that allows families to stay together.

It also insisted Australian law defined when detention must end, but noted the High Court in August 2004 decided indefinite immigration detention was legal in a precedent that stood for almost two decades.

Much of the refugee legislation came after the 2001 Tampa affair, when the coalition government led by John Howard refused to allow a Norwegian freight ship to enter Australian waters after rescuing 433 refugees off Christmas Island.

Under the laws, those who arrived by boat would no longer be allowed to enter and instead held in offshore detention centres or turned back.

The measures were highly divisive and the conditions endured by asylum seekers in detention led many to conduct hunger strikes and sew their lips shut in protest.

Regardless, another 2004 cabinet paper reported the laws had been "highly successful" with only three unauthorised boat arrivals recorded in the previous three years, compared to 9500 people who arrived unlawfully by sea between July 1999 and December 2001.

"My view was that Australians support a strong immigration program because it's good for Australia, and we also believed there should be room for a large humanitarian refugee program to look after people who genuinely need a home," Mr Howard told AAP in December.

"But ... people who try and come here in an unauthorised fashion will not be allowed to stay.

"They were very clear principles, and people in Australia agreed with them, and they voted for them."