This week many eyes and ears will be attuned to whether the legislation to revive the so-called Malaysian Solution will be passed by House of Representatives. It would seem that even if it is passed, it will not get through the Senate. Regardless, there is a significant argument for engaging with transit countries in our region that bear the burden of hosting far more asylum seekers than Australia does.
The UNHCR has always expressed that it would prefer that Australia process asylum seekers who arrive on our shores. But given Australia’s desire to negotiate with Malaysia for offshore processing, they were a key player in developing some unique protection standards for our region. Whether the agreement comes off or not, we have begun a very valuable discussion with Malaysia, and hopefully others in the region, about how Australia can play a lead role in supporting countries that host a vast number of asylum seekers compared to Australia.
For many, the idea of a “people swap” was the element that undid the Malaysian agreement and indeed the High Court ruled against the possibility based on current legislation. But let us not forget that it is unlikely Nauru or Manus Island could ever have been a place for processing if it had been challenged in the High Court at the time. After all, the High Court struck down Howard government legislation that the current government utilised to negotiate with Malaysia.
The key element in all of the politics of where asylum seekers should or shouldn’t be sent is their safety and appropriate care. This is why the call for onshore processing has become so prominent and it is an important ethical call. But we cannot stop at the borders of Australia.
Whether or not the Malaysian agreement can be implemented, the current government and the UNHCR in their negotiations with Malaysia created some innovative policies for durable solutions for a range of asylum seekers beyond the 800 that were proposed to be transferred. The agreement included the acceptance of 4000 recognised refugees into Australia, additional funding for the UNHCR to process and care for many of the 95,000 asylum seekers and initiated an understanding that Australia can play a role in our region that will expand protection for many who are seeking safety in our region.
All of which mirrors the momentous agreement to include protection mechanisms and bilateral agreements for a regional co-operation framework, into the agenda of the Bali process, in March this year.
Ultimately, Australia should not have to transfer anyone to another country for processing. We have the means and a comparably small population to deal with as opposed to other countries. But it’s naïve to think we can simply process people onshore without seriously considering how people move across our region to come to Australia and how we may support other countries to find durable solutions for asylum seekers who may wish to stay within a similar cultural context and close to their home country in case they can return.
If it comes to it, we may take away the “people swap” element of the Malaysian agreement but there remain some valuable aspects of the agreement that we should pursue, to not only support our neighbours who bear the greatest burden but to move towards a real solution in our region.
*Caz Coleman is a member of the Council for Immigration Services and Status Resolution, advising the federal minister for immigration. Opinions expressed are her own.
Sadly we will never know if the Malaysian and other genuine offshore solutions would have worked as a deterrent.
Since 2000 over 500 people we know about have drowned or are missing at sea. That’s 1 in every 40 asylum seekers coming by boat.
That’s a terrible statistic and only an unlikely agreement to drastically increase our 13,500 intake and take them all from Asian regional processing centres is going to help reduce those deaths in the absence of a deterrent.
To develop this thought further why can’t we try for a regional deal with Indonesia and Malaysia that would see us source most of our humanitarian intake (currently 14, 000 pa but we could increase it to say 20, 000).
That would mean we could take 5 – 6, 000+ pa from each country 10 – 12, 000 in total. Any boat arrivals could be returned up to the agreed total intake. The balance to 20000 could be the other reunion type uses and emergency numbers from say Bhutan or similar.
We could also expand the regional support for refugee including assitance with tightening visa requirements etc and criminalising people smuggling.
Alternatively we can reminisce about turning boats back or send them to an island home from where they will be magically sent to far away lands.
FROM 2001- 2009 Australia accepted a total of 452 refugees from Indonesia.
Last year we did something sensible and took 500.
If only this government had done this in 2007 when they came into office when there were only 2000 refugees in indonesia- ah well thats an IF ONLY.
It is time we recognised that with 90,000 refugees in Malaysia PLUS
and 650,000 in Thailand -thats OUR REGION- turning away 800 is unlikely to achieve anything but disgust from our near neighbours.
Locking up 6000 people has not proved to be a deterrent.
Time to transition them to community processing and use the 2Billion spent last year on making life bearable for the refugees in the region so they too dont despair and take to the boats.
It is not easy or uncomplicated but we havent even started and we should becasue we sit in a region of great instability and people movement.
Australians should get over the notion that you select refugees for resettlement like you select migrants and push off asylum seekers who make their own way across our borders and are subsequently confirmed to be refugees against the same UN criteria. Government has not clarified for the electorate that seeking asylum is legal and the perception that they are illegal persists – and not only in the western suburbs of Sydney. A refugee is a refugee, not a good refugee from a camp or bad one on a biat , coming by the back door ,coming through the front door. Migrants are selected “in the national interest”. Refugees are given a new life for humanitarian reasons.
Of course we should protect all who make it here , process their claims and strive much, much harder to deal with the causes of refugee outflows from warzones , and closer to their source. Pamela is right. It is only common sense to resettle many more UNHCR mandated refugees warehoused in Indonesia and Malaysia. Better still if it were from the country of first refuge where local integration is failing and persecuted people remain persecuted.
By enhancing the role of UNHCR, many asylum seekers will pursue that pathway, because it is safer, but only IF resettlement countries resettle people in a timely way.The figures Pamela gives say it all. A pathetic burden sharing by the wealthiest nation inn the region. Howard in effect created the market for the profiteering ferrymen with his well funded disrruption program… actually preventing asylum seekers from seeking asylum in a signatory country, as is their right. They can’t go home, so they linger in transit countries, waiting.
What is the rational behind selecting Burmese refugees for the additional 1000 for four years from the huge UNHCR pool in KL? Does this mean Immigration officials will not consider or will refuse UNHCR referrals of Iraqi, Tamil, Iranian, Hazara mandated refugees ? Why not throw a billion dollars at the Malaysian Government for a deal to integrate the Burmese, give them legal residence etc because some now have three generations living in Malaysia as the underclass.
We will have cause to regret not helping our neighbours.
@ FRED – I would turn your question around and ask you, why should we take “Iraqi, Tamil, Iranian, Hazara mandated refugees” ahead of the Burmese and any other nationalities who have waited for many years for resettlement from Malaysia? At the moment, it seems the only reason we take those from your list is because they have the money to get on a boat and come here, while the latter have nothing. I do not understand all this so called compassion for the “wealthy”. I understand that the law says we must take those who rock up on our shores, but the law is an ass! That effectively means we leave the poorest of the poor to rot in these camps forever.
Not fair!! And I will never support onshore processing for this very reason.
Time for a root and branch rewrite of the laws governing refugees so that everyone gets the same treatment. At the moment it is very much a case of “selective compassion”. And if I hear/see that dreadful Hanson-Young woman tell me once more about “poor,vulnerable, boat people”, I shall consider throwing a brick at the radio/TV!