Graphic: Vincent Vergara Source: news.com.au
FOR the final instalment of our Care Factor series - recapping the stories and issues you cared about most in 2011 - we look at the Federal Government's ill-fated "Malaysia Solution".
Below is all you need to know about the policy debacle.
Make sure you also check out our earlier Care Factor specials covering the hot button topics of live exports, same-sex marriage and even what happened to that bizarre planking craze.
Why did the Government try the Malaysia transfer agreement?
Australia currently accepts 13,750 refugees as part of our annual humanitarian intake and there has been increasing political pressure to cut back on the number of asylum seekers heading here on leaky boats.
Under the plan, in return for Australia accepting 4000 more UN-recognised refugees over the next four years, we would send 800 asylum seekers to be processed in a regional centre in Malaysia.
The key message this will deliver to people smugglers and those seeking to make the dangerous sea voyage to Australia is: do not get on that boat.Under this arrangement, if you arrive in Australian waters and are taken to Malaysia you will go to the back of the queue.
- A joint statement from the Prime Minister and Minister for Immigration
The deal was announced on May 7 and signed on July 25 of this year under the Regional Cooperation Framework.
For full details of the transfer agreement, go here
A spokesman from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) told news.com.au they had provided advice during the agreement process and would consult on any future proposals.
“Whatever options are considered, fundamental protection safeguards must be clearly reflected in any formal arrangements and be implemented, effectively, in practice," the spokesman said.
What was the reaction to the deal?
Most government MPs backed the move, but several Labor figures spoke out against it - including Party elder statesman John Faulkner.
The Opposition supported the reopening of offshore processing in Nauru instead.
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie described the deal as an “abomination”. He told Parliament Labor’s approach to asylum seekers had been a significant consideration when deciding who to support after the last election.
“Let us not start trading asylum seekers with a country that often treats such people as criminals, forcibly returns them to danger, routinely relies on the lash of the cane and even resorts to the death penalty," Mr Wilkie said.
Public opinion was divided.
Some were against it because of concerns about the social and economic impact of taking on so many more refugees. But while Australia resettles more refugees per capita than most other countries, the levels are low when compared to our historical intake.
In the seven years after 1947, Australia accepted more than 170,000 refugees. In the early 1980s the refugee intake of up to 22,000 annually was the highest level in three decades – a figure that has not been surpassed since.
There were also strong arguments against the swap because of Malaysia's documented abuses of human rights and the fact that the country is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.
Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) head Paul Power told news.com.au: “Malaysia and Thailand are the last countries within the near region that Australia should develop a relationship of this type with.
“The Malaysia Solution may have brought short term decline in the number of boats coming to Australia, but the big question people are asking is ‘what was going to happen after the 800 [places] are filled?’”
The end of the deal
Just as the first group of asylum seekers was set to leave for Malaysia on August 8, refugee lawyer David Manne won an injunction in the High Court to stop the swap.
''Malaysia has a long standing record of very serious mistreatment of asylum seekers and refugees including ... beatings, whippings, canings and even deportation,” he said.
He cited the number of unaccompanied minors that were to be included in the 800 as of particular concern.
Then on August 31, in a move that shocked - and embarrassed - the Government, the High Court struck down the agreement.
The ruling prevented sending asylum seekers to Malaysia but meant we would still have to accept the 4000 refugees.
The summary of their findings can be read here
Julia Gillard said: “His honour, Mr Justice French, considered comparable legal questions when he was a judge of the Federal Court and made different decisions to the one that the High Court made.”
The decision also meant that while offshore processing was still technically legal, it became almost impossible in practice.
Under the ruling, asylum seekers can only be sent to a third country for processing if that country has near identical human rights standards to us - basically New Zealand or nowhere.
The Government then attempted to change the Migration Act to allow the Immigration Minister the discretion to send asylum seekers to any third country.
But this met staunch opposition from MPs who were concerned it would strip back our obligations to the Refugee Convention, and diminish human rights protections.
The Government was defeated and left scrambling without a fallback plan.
"I've seen the Opposition saying: 'Well, what's Plan B?'” Mr Bowen said at the time.
“Well Plan A is what counts."
What happens next?
While the politics was being debated, men, women, and children were still risking their lives to reach our shores.
Last week a boat sunk off Indonesia, killing as many as 200 asylum seekers.
RCOA’s Paul Power says the real way to break the people smuggler “business model” is to dump the politics and improve regional standards of refugee protection.
“What we’ve seen over the past decade is all sorts of interception, policing, anti-people smuggling measures in place, and they have a limited impact for a period of time,” Mr Power said.
“But over time the sheer pressure of people desperate to find what they see as a basic level of protection, those measures lose their effectiveness.”
This month Immigration Minister Chris Bowen proposed increasing Australia’s humanitarian intake to 20,000 on the condition that offshore processing returned.
Labor backed this at the national conference - the first time the party had explicitly supported offshore processing as policy.
But in a dramatic turn around the federal government announced this afternoon it will work with Nauru to re-establish offshore processing.
No comments:
Post a Comment