It is being reported that the Australian government is close to finalising its controversial asylum deal with Malaysia. Under the original proposal — which may by now have been updated during negotiations between the two governments and UNHCR — 800 asylum seekers who have arrived in Australia by boat would be exchanged with 4000 of Malaysia’s already processed refugees.
The deal has been widely criticised, but the Australian government also deserves some credit. First, it is clearly taking seriously the increase in unauthorised boat arrivals in Australia over the past two years or so. There is a separate debate to be had about whether what are still relatively small numbers of boat arrivals really merit such a dramatic response, but clearly their political significance outweighs their numerical significance, and the government had to respond. It has responded within the law, and with the cover of UNHCR.
Second, the arrival of a further 4000 refugees would increase by about 50% Australia’s 2010 resettlement quota, taking it past Canada to be the second largest refugee resettlement country in the world. Third, it needs to be remembered that the Malaysia deal is one part of a more comprehensive policy response to unauthorised boat arrivals that also includes maintaining development assistance in conflict-affected countries, capacity-building in transit countries especially in South East Asia, and a raft of anti-smuggling measures.
None of this is to underestimate the criticisms: first, and most importantly, there are serious concerns about the prospects for the 800 asylum seekers who will be exchanged. Malaysia is not a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and thus not bound to respect principles such as non-refoulement that guards against refugees being returned home against their will. Human rights activists in Australia and Malaysia have expressed concerns about the detention of asylum seekers there, and the legal system for processing their claims. It is inconceivable that UNHCR has not insisted on some safeguards, for example regarding the exchange of children, and monitoring of those who do go to Malaysia.
Second, there is no guarantee that this policy will achieve its ultimate objective, which is to stop the boats arriving in Australia. For that to happen prospective asylum seekers need to know — and care — about the possibility that they may end up in Malaysia rather than Australia. And probably more importantly the smugglers who move them, who will certainly know about the policy, also need to care. If the policy has no direct impact on their businesses they are unlikely to.
Third, and this is important for a country such as Australia that trades on its international reputation for decency, the policy risks attracting serious negative international attention. Already some commentators have observed that Australia is swapping 800 mainly Muslims for 4000 mainly non-Muslims.
What this new deal is really about is trying to win back public confidence in the government’s ability to control its borders, without which the government cannot hope to introduce some of its more forward-looking and ambitious migration policies. But I have a feeling that the government may have underestimated the Australian public, whose distress at being associated with this deal may outweigh their concerns about unauthorised boat arrivals.
For sure Australians want the boats stopped, but probably not at the risk of human rights abuse in detention centres in Malaysia.
*This article was originally published on The Interpreter.
I have an awesome respect for Khalid Koser – and admire his work and research a great deal – but there are two considerable factual errors in his piece. He’s a great “expert” on the nature of “people smuggling”, but it’s obvious he’s not well briefed. I blame it on his location: Being a “Geneva Expert” doesn’t make you an insider in Australian national politics or policies per se.
1. “Second, the arrival of a further 4000 refugees would increase by about 50% Australia’s 2010 resettlement quota, taking it past Canada to be the second largest refugee resettlement country in the world.”
This error is probably the result of his assumption that Australia will resettle 4000 refugees PER YEAR. Instead, as announced by Bowen, we take in 4,000 over four years – that’s a thousand a year. In addition, Bowen has been adamant that the annual humanitarian intake quota will NOT be increased from the current number of 13,750.
2. “For sure Australians want the boats stopped, but probably not at the risk of human rights abuse in detention centres in Malaysia.”
Incorrect. The 800 we “export” to Malaysia (a sickening proposal, I think) are not “detained” as far as I know, once they arrive. The Australian government is still negotiating “work rights” for them, while they will be in the care of the International Organisation for Migration.
maybe this approach coupled with similar arrangements with other nations will kill two birds with one stone, dissuading people from attempting the dangerous journey and ultimately reducing waiting times in camps everywhere. I assume that is the idea.
The “Convention refugee” component of the Humanitarian Program will increase by 1000 to 7 000 visas a year for four years .. and then? Will Malaysia become a major source for resettlement of refugees whom Australia carefully selects from the large UNHCR pool of mandated refugees?
How many people did Australia settle from this KL caseload last financial year? Was it 300? and most of them with family connections in Australia? Will the Afghan, Iraqi, Iranian and Sri Lankan asylum seekers who crossed our borders to be traded with Malaysia have a snow flake’s chance in hell of resettlement in Australia or anywhere else? Maybe they can make up the 570 places NZ offers post earthquake, instead of their usual 700 pa.
A feature of our Humanitarian Program is a SELECTION process guided by our own criteria, somewhat related to migrant selection criteria and compassionate and compelling humanitarian considerations. It is, after all a Humanitarian Program , but in the “national interest”. Will the lucky Malaysian 1000 per annum be Rohingyan Muslims or Christain Chin and Karen? In nominating that they will be Burmese nationals, the Australian Government is discriminating against the already mandated Iranian, Afghan and Tamil etc refugees and the asylum seekers they are trading. Some of these too are Christian.
With an estimated 6 000 of the 12, 000 asylum seekers who have made it to Australia these past three years still in some form of immigration detention, the deterrence value of mandatory indefinite detention must be called into question. Asks ( Government never does) the former refugees who came by boat – was it 14 000 Iraqis, Hazara and Iranians in the last wave?- and you hear that in the absence of reasonable other options closer to home , the enormous life threatening risk has to be taken, the detention expected and survived in order to have a life, a future. As my friend says, we refugees know how to suffer. Anecdotal information says that more than 200 people have died at sea after departing Indonesia. Nothing much will stop a desperate man escaping sustatined, systemic persecution from seeking a safe country. You are right, asylum seekers will continue to head our way> There is little real prospect of Malaysia or Indonesia taking on the obligations under the UN Refugees Convention to protect and process asylum seekers . Why would they?
Do you think it would help if Australia and its wealthier friends negotiated with Malaysia to integrate and give residence and citizenship status to the tens of thousands of Burmese who cannot go home? Integration into the society where they are resident, some since 1989? Maybe the $ billions we now spend on “protecting our borders” from the “security threat” of less than 4 000 asylum seekers a year would make a difference , and the region would cope more humanely with the processing and resettlement of a few thousand UNHCR mandated refugees ? Are UNHCR operations in those transit countries not funded in large part by resettlement countries – the off shore processing we have had in place before we compromised Nauru ansd PNG and insulted E Timor?
Let us wait and see how the UNHCR accomodates the relocation of asylum seekers to a non signatory state. I continue to hold the view that people who legally claim asylum after crossing Australia’s borders are our responsibility to protect and process. Transportation of convicts from Mother England was a feature of the occupation and early immigrant settlement of this continent until the 1860s, but the forced transportation of non criminals who come to multicultural Australia ( with it’s proactive immigration program of ? 170 000 pa ) seeking protection from persecution, has no place in 2011.
Anecdotal information from refugees and sources in Indonesia say more than 2,000 asylum seekrs have lost their lives on the last leg of their refugee journey to Australia. Even this is no deterrent to the desperate.