Anyone following developments in international refugee protection will have been extremely alarmed to learn of an agreement signed on 19th July between Australia and Papua New Guinea that transfers all processing of Australian asylum applications to Papua New Guinea. Under this agreement, any unauthorised migrants arriving in Australia by boat will be sent to Papua New Guinea, some 2,500 kilometers away. Their asylum applications will then be processed in Papua New Guinea and those granted refugee status will be required to permanently settle in Papua New Guinea. Individuals whose applications are rejected will either be returned to their country of origin or held in a transit facility.
UNHCR has criticised this agreement on the basis of woefully inadequate protection standards and safeguards for asylum seekers and refugees in Papua New Guinea. They conclude that serious protection questions remain unanswered by the arrangement as it stands.
Serious concerns have also come to light in relation to the treatment of asylum seekers in one the existing Australian processing centre already operating in Papua New Guinea. A former worker has given an account of detainees being raped and abused in the full knowledge of staff. The Australia government, however remain undeterred and their Immigration Minister Tony Burke confirmed last week that despite credible allegations of mistreatment and abuse, the government will proceed with the transfer of asylum seekers to that facility in Papua New Guinea within weeks.
Australia’s decision to ignore its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention are extremely troubling. Already vulnerable individuals will be put at risk of potential further ill treatment in detention facilities in Papua New Guinea. There is clear evidence that the decision-making procedure itself will fall well short of international standards and this is likely to lead to yet more ill-treatment. Furthermore, any recognised refugees will be denied the opportunity of re-settling in the safety of Australia. The arrangements are in any event extremely impractical and inflexible. They only apply to those who arrive by boat. No arrangements are in place for the protection of the best interest of children and no consideration given to the implications for separated families. There are also no exemptions for particularly vulnerable categories of migrants such as children or pregnant woman.
It is clear that this radical move by the Australian government is purely motivated by political gain. This decision by Australia unreasonably shifts responsibilities to an extremely poor neighbour that has no record of adequately protecting such of a vulnerable minority. It also sets an abysmal example to other countries in relation to standards of international refugee protection. It is an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to international human rights obligations. As James Hathaway, an expert on international refugee law and professorial fellow at Melbourne University, points out, the agreement is without international precedent: “This plan is without question the most bizarre overreaction I have seen in more than 30 years of working on refugee law, It makes no sense. The only mandatory deportation to PNG is going to be so-called boat arrivals. Does the prime minister think that every refugee should arrive with a Qantas first class ticket in order to be real?”
Rebecca Keatinge
No comments:
Post a Comment