Australia-Malaysia asylum seeker transfer agreement

Parliament house flag post

Australia-Malaysia asylum seeker transfer agreement

Posted 27/07/2011 by Harriet Spinks


 On 25 July 2011 the Governments of Australia and Malaysia signed an agreement concerning the transfer and resettlement of asylum seekers and refugees between the two countries.

The agreement was first announced on 7 May 2011 when Prime Minister Julia Gillard released a Joint Statement with the Prime Minister of Malaysia stating that the two countries would enter into a bilateral arrangement concerning the transfer of asylum seekers and refugees. The signing of the final agreement follows months of negotiations between the two countries, also involving the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), both of which will be involved in the operation of the arrangement.
Under the agreement, Malaysia will accept the transfer of up to 800 asylum seekers from Australia. In return, Australia will resettle 4000 recognised refugees from Malaysia over four years. The agreement will apply to asylum seekers who have travelled, or been intercepted by Australian authorities while attempting to travel, irregularly to Australia by sea after the date of signing. Notably, the agreement provides for a significant level of discretion by both Governments in determining who will be subject to transfer. People to be transferred will be those who ‘the Government of Australia determines should be transferred’ following a pre-transfer assessment to ensure fitness and suitability for transfer, and for whom ‘the Government of Malaysia provides consent and approval for the transfer’.

The deal provides that transferees will not be detained, but will be held in transit accommodation for up to 45 days for initial processing, following which they will be released into the community. They will receive support from the UNHCR and the IOM, but will not be given preferential treatment in the processing of asylum claims. For those found not to be refugees, Australia will assist Malaysia in returns to the country of origin or a third country.

The agreement has been reached under the Regional Cooperation Framework which was agreed to by participants of the Bali Process Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime in March 2011.

The arrangement is being fully funded by Australia, and the costs have been budgeted for in the 2011–12 Budget. The total cost is estimated at $292 million over four years, comprising $216 million to cover the increase in the humanitarian program and $76 million to cover the operational costs of transferring people from Australia to Malaysia.

The stated aim of the agreement is to 'break the people smugglers’ business model' by denying them a product to sell. The Government claims the agreement will send a message that getting on a boat to Australia is not worth the risk, as people will simply find themselves transferred to Malaysia with no possibility of resettlement in Australia. Indeed, the Immigration Minister has linked the announcement of the Joint Statement in May to a ‘dramatic reduction in the number of boat arrivals’.

Since the 7 May announcement over 500 people have arrived in Australia unauthorised by boat. The Government had repeatedly stated that these people would not be processed in Australia, but would be held in detention pending removal to a third country. However, it has been clear since the May 7 announcement that the agreement would apply only to those who arrived in Australia after signing of the agreement. This meant that the post-7 May arrivals were being held in limbo with no certainty about when or where they would be processed. This question has now been answered, with the Prime Minister’s press release stating that these people will now be processed in Australia – a major shift from the previously stated position that they would be transferred to a third country.

Since its announcement the agreement has attracted criticism from several quarters, including the Opposition, the Greens, and refugee and human rights advocates. The primary criticism has concerned human rights standards and the treatment refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia, which is not a signatory to the Refugees Convention.

In its country operation profile for Malaysia UNHCR states that asylum seekers and refugees are ‘vulnerable to arrest for immigration offences and may be subject to detention, prosecution, whipping and deportation’. In June 2010 Amnesty International released a report chronicling human rights abuses suffered by refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia, including the lack of work rights, and threat of possible arrest, caning, detention and deportation.

The Australian Greens have been particularly vocal in their criticism of the proposed agreement, stating that they do not believe the human rights of transferees will be protected. The Opposition has also expressed concern at the human rights implications of the agreement. It also argues that the deal is an admission by the Government that its border protection policies have failed, and that it will do little to deter boat arrivals.

The Government has argued that asylum seekers who are transferred under the arrangement will be treated in accordance with human rights standards, have their asylum claims properly considered, and those in need of protection will not be refouled. The Government has also repeatedly pointed out that UNHCR will be involved in the operations of the arrangement, pointing to this as evidence that human rights standards will be respected. However, the UNHCR is not a signatory to the agreement, and while it will work with both Governments to ensure the rights of transferees are protected, its stated preference is for asylum seekers arriving in Australia to be processed in Australia.

The detail of the agreement offers some assurance that the rights of asylum seekers will be protected. In particular, those transferred under the arrangement will be given work rights, and limited access to health care and education. Of particular significance is the fact that transferees will be lawfully present in Malaysia, and therefore, theoretically, not subject to the threats faced by asylum seekers whom Malaysia considers to be ‘illegal’. Whether this proves to be the case in practice remains to be seen.

Reactions to the agreement have not all been negative. Some commentators have cautiously welcomed it, suggesting that it could be beneficial for both Australia and asylum seekers in the region. John Menadue, a former Secretary of the Immigration Department, argues that it could help strengthen refugee protection in the region, pointing to the fact that Malaysia played a significant role in the processing of Indochinese refugees in the 1970s and 1980s.

Now that the detail of the agreement is finally known some criticisms, such as those concerning the lack of work rights, may recede. However, until transfers of asylum seekers begin and the arrangement can be scrutinised in operation, there is no way of knowing either whether the deal will ensure asylum seekers’ rights are protected, or if it will prove to be the death knell for the people smuggling trade the Government is clearly hoping for.


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

refugees asylum immigration Parliament climate change elections social security health financing Australian Defence Force women taxation welfare policy Australian foreign policy welfare reform sport Medicare employment illicit drugs gambling higher education disability Middle East Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency Australian Bureau of Statistics health reform emissions trading industrial relations united states statistics private health insurance Carbon Pricing Mechanism United Nations school education indigenous Australians aid steroids WADA federal budget politics labour force Australian Federal Police transport detention criminal law ASADA Afghanistan governance poker machines income management people trafficking Fair Work Act 43rd Parliament Australian Public Service International Women's Day Australian Crime Commission Papua New Guinea parliamentary procedure National Disability Insurance Scheme children's health food OECD debt defence capability federal election 2013 Australian Electoral Commission aged care environment election results Senate pensions law enforcement UK Parliament pharmaceutical benefits scheme planning skilled migration multiculturalism people smuggling doping child protection HECS Higher Education Loan Program paid parental leave High Court international relations corruption federal state relations Asia Australia in the Asian Century dental health New Zealand ALP political parties constitution public service reform forced labour aviation coal seam gas crime customs social media ADRV Census Newstart Parenting Payment health employee employer Federal Court foreign debt gross debt net debt European Union domestic violence Constitutional reform food labelling carbon tax banking terrorist groups United Kingdom leadership public policy terrorism welfare Australian Security Intelligence Organisation intelligence community Drugs research and development voting mental health health system human rights Northern Territory Emergency Response science Electoral reform regional unemployment productivity accountability military history Indigenous Indonesia Pacific Islands speaker superannuation middle class welfare welfare systems question time animal health Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry trade unions integrity same sex relationships foreign bribery Australian Secret Intelligence Service firearms export liquefied natural gas local government referendum children Australian economy mining forestry Tasmania financial sector Canada United Nations Security Council climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expertise Senators and Members family assistance by-election US economy housing affordability ASIO new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC reserved seats regulation Parliamentary remuneration Population Hung Parliament federal budget 2011-12 paternalism public health slavery Trafficking in Persons Report homelessness school chaplains ministries water federal election 2010 Medicare Locals primary care regional students Youth Allowance entitlements salary sea farers violence against women Special Rapporteur transparency money laundering early childhood education asylum seekers national security bulk billing China disability employment World Trade Organization Australia renewable energy language education Italy roads international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies standard of proof arts health risks World Health Organisation disciplinary tribunals railways infant mortality honorary citizen suspension of standing and sessional orders live exports contracts workplace policies peace keeping disorderly conduct same-sex marriage Parliament House retirement Rent Assistance constitutional recognition of local government anti-dumping national heritage NHMRC nutrition GDP world heritage submarines Somalia defence budget First speech election timetable sitting days prime ministers standing orders public housing cancer gene patents genetic testing carbon markets universities Ireland public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission vocational education and training limitation period Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping leave loading political engagement Korean peninsula counselling pests suicide social policy alcohol computer games plebiscites therapeutic goods Therapeutic Goods Administration federalism federation preselection Iran sanctions baby bonus early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin citizen engagement policymaking biosecurity hendra environmental law COAG Ministerial Councils nuclear Work Choices republic hospitals qantas ANZUS Norway President Barack Obama Presidential visits advertising electricity energy maritime floods ADHD stimulant medication 44th Parliament 2015 e-voting internet voting nsw state elections Indigenous health procurement citizenship Defence ACT Norfolk Island External Territories High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title Indigenous education ABS Trade Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum ACT Assembly Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 sexual abuse online grooming sexual assault of minors social services EU fishing asylum refugees immigration political finance donations Antarctica Diplomacy Disability Support Pension by-elections state and territories China soft power education Fiji India fuel Scottish referendum Members of Parliament Middle East; national security; terrorism Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy innovation Bills NATO workers anti-corruption fraud bribery corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform standards copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry Governor-General Animal law; food health policy employment law bullying Economics efficiency foreign aid human rights; Racial Discrimination Act smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Work Health and Safety Asia; Japan; international relations youth Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine political financing US politics Australia Greens Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce terrorist financing Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling Stronger futures rural and regional political parties preselection presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act Australian Greens

Show all
Show less
Back to top