An Australian proposal to reopen an immigration detention centre on a remote Papua New Guinea Island was approved by Papua New Guinea’s cabinet on Thursday. The centre will be run and paid for by the Australian government.
The announcement comes amidst a legal row over an Australian refugee swap deal with Malaysia, also known as the “Malaysian Solution” which would see Australia send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia in return for 4,000 processed refugees over the next four years.
The controversial agreement hit a roadblock earlier this week when Australia’s High Court stopped authorities from deporting the first a boat-load of asylum seekers until a full hearing could be held. A lawyer representing the asylum seekers said the court had found there was a “serious question” over whether the government had the power to expel those seeking safe haven in Australia, including children, to Malaysia.
Critics, including Amnesty International have argued that refugees are often mistreated in Malaysia, which has not signed the UN Refugee Convention.
Court suspends Australia-Malaysia Refugee swap [AFP, 8 August 2011]
An Australian asylum camp in Papua New Guinea was part of the so-called “Pacific Solution” until 2008 many Australians supported the policy, but rights groups condemned it and accused Australia of failing to meet its obligations under refugee conventions and the camp was closed following the election of PM Kevin Rudd. Both PNG and the island nation of Nauru, which also housed asylum seekers, received millions of dollars in aid as part of the deal.
Report: Papua New Guinea agrees to reopen Australia asylum camp [BBC News, 11 Aug 2011]
Australian Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said the re-opening of the centre would not replace, but “complement” the government’s Malaysian refugee swap. Australia’s High Court will hear the challenge to the Malaysia deal on 22 August.
The two latest policies by the Australian government follow an increase in the number of people arriving by boat in recent months, prompting public calls for a tougher response.
Australia’s government seems to be at a loss as to how to tackle the issue of asylum seekers. While its Malaysian proposal received ridicule from opposition leaders, it has become a hot topic among commentators at home and abroad.
Some such as Dr. John Stuyfbergen, an academic at Australia’s La Trobe University, say that people have rushed to condemn the “Malaysian Solution” too quickly, emphasising that the refugee situation is “a practical problem that needs a pragmatic solution”.
Stuyfbergen critiques coverage of the plan, cautioning that “terms such as “people trading” and deporting “little kiddies to Malaysia” slant the debate and the results before we even know whether the “Malaysian solution” is, in the end, correct in the fair treatment of the transferred refugees and effective in crushing the people smugglers’ syndicates”
Dr. Stuyfbergen argues that the main aim of the Malaysian Solution, to stop people smugglers from transporting vulnerable asylum seekers to Australian shores has been lost in the political debate surrounding the issue.
Analysis: Let’s give the Malaysia solution a chance to work [Sydney Morning Herald, 12 Aug 2011]
Nick Bryant, the BBC’s Sydney correspondant, has a view I more readily support, which is that the “Malaysian Solution” is an ill-thought out plan by policy makers, who somehow failed to notice crucial weaknesses before it was adopted by the government.
Firstly, the proposal did not have the backing of the UN’s refugee agency, prompting questions of human rights violations.
Secondly, when it emerged that unaccompanied children would be included in the swap deal, the government faced more accusations of callousness and cruelty.
Finally, the parallel idea of posting on youtube videos of asylum seekers arriving and subsequently being sent away was accused of adding salt to a wound by using vulnerable people as props to deter people abroad.
Analysis: Australia fails to find an asylum solution [BBC, 9 August 2011]
The issue of asylum seekers in Australia is not a simple one, but what is clear from these latest events, is that any future plan should involve deeper thinking and greater consensus building than that which has been attempted so far.
rightswriter 