Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

Malaysia solution is not there yet


Malaysia no solutionNext week Parliament reconvenes for a fortnight, and meanwhile the boats keep coming. Minister Chris Bowen will be armed with a report from the expert panel which has been travelling the country hearing from a broad cross section of the Australian community.

Even John Menadue, a strong refugee advocate and previous secretary for the Department of Immigration, thinks it is time to give the Malaysia solution a go. I remain opposed, favouring onshore processing only. If Parliament's preconditions for offshore processing are to be relaxed, the Malaysia solution will need to be improved and it will need to be augmented with a Nauru-type solution.

All Australian political parties say they remain committed to the key obligations of the Refugee Convention. Since 2001, the Parliament has provided governments with additional latitude in discharging these obligations. Instead of processing claims in Australia and providing residence for successful applicants who have arrived in Australia or on our Indian Ocean possessions, Parliament has authorised government to engage in offshore processing in the hope that some of the successful applicants will be resettled in countries other than Australia.

This first happened with Nauru in 2001. The Howard-Ruddock package of measures did deter people from getting in leaky boats and heading for Australia. However most successful applicants taken to Nauru ended up here or New Zealand. Having relaxed the policy, the Labor Government has seen a need to tighten things again.

One of the 2001 measures (s.198A Migration Act) allowed the Minister for Immigration to declare that another country could be used for offshore processing. The Minister was required to declare that the specified country:

  1. provides access, for persons seeking asylum, to effective procedures for assessing their need for protection;
  2. provides protection for persons seeking asylum, pending determination of their refugee status;
  3. provides protection to persons who are given refugee status, pending their voluntary repatriation to their country of origin or resettlement in another country; and
  4. meets relevant human rights standards in providing that protection.

Rightly convinced that Nauru would no longer work as a deterrent, Bowen declared Malaysia to be a suitable offshore processing country. This time, Australia would not retain responsibility for accommodating and processing the asylum seekers, and successful claimants would not be guaranteed resettlement in Australia or New Zealand. Rather, the persons taken to Malaysia would be placed at the end of a queue 100,000 long.

Eventually they might be processed. Eventually they might find a country prepared to accept them as refugees. Then again, they might not. And why would you pay a people smuggler $20,000 for such an uncertain outcome?

Nauru was offshore processing; Malaysia would be offshore dumping, with no guarantee of humane accommodation (including health care and child education), transparent, timely processing and prompt resettlement.

A year ago the High Court stymied the Gillard government's attempt to institute the Malaysia solution. The Court performed a routine judicial task, interpreting s.198A Migration Act, and determining that Bowen did not have the legal power to declare Malaysia a suitable offshore processing country.

Many lawyers, myself included, thought the High Court would not want to travel far down the path of scrutinising the protections provided by foreign governments to asylum seekers. But the court had no trouble in finding that the issue was one of mixed law and fact. The court would always be happy to look at the law, though it might defer to government when assessing facts.

The court needed first to determine if the Malaysia solution provided a legal framework for protection. If so, there would then be a need to determine whether in fact such protection was provided. Without some legal framework, there could in fact be no guaranteed protection. With a legal framework, there would be a need to ensure that it was in fact workable, and not just a sham.

Four of the High Court judges compared Nauru in 2001 and Malaysia in 2011 and said, 'The arrangements made with Nauru were very different from those that are now in issue. Not least is that so because Australia, not Nauru as the receiving country, was to provide or secure the provision of the assessment and other steps that had to be taken, as well as the maintenance in the meantime of those who claimed to be seeking protection. Thus it was Australia, not the receiving country, that was to provide the access and protections in question.'

Last September, Erika Feller, Australia's most senior person in UNHCR in Geneva said the Malaysia deal was workable provided certain preconditions were fulfilled. She told ABC Radio that the deal 'was predicated on very, very careful pre-transfer arrangements, so that particular vulnerabilities of individuals who might be subject to the deal were assessed prior to transfer and that proper arrangements were made for those who shouldn't be transferred because of their vulnerabilities'. Unaccompanied children come to mind.

In June 2012, she told The Age, 'We said we could work with it and we stand by that — subject to certain things happening, and they haven't yet happened.' She said that UNHCR would require a detailed explanation of 'pre-transfer arrangements' before it would be satisfied with the arrangement. Almost a year on, nothing has changed. We are still awaiting an answer about the kids. Until an answer is provided, no one in good conscience could give Malaysia the tick. If you send unaccompanied minors to Malaysia, the arrangement is immoral; if you keep them in Australia, it is unworkable, because the next boat will be full of kids.

Feller says UNHCR wants more detail on the resettlement prospects of those sent to Malaysia and proved to be refugees: 'There is no point in having an arrangement predicated on refugee status determination which has no solutions at the end of it.' Vulnerable people like unaccompanied children, if removed from Australia before determination of their claims, should be processed in a place where Australia maintains supervision and responsibility. That could be Nauru. Others should be taken to Malaysia only if they are to be guaranteed transparent processing and prompt resettlement.

Regardless of legal niceties about which countries are signatories to the Refugee Convention or the Bali process, our Parliament should not authorise government to remove asylum seekers offshore unless the removal arrangement guarantees processing rather than dumping. Parliament remains the custodian of our obligations under the Refugee Convention. 

Frank BrennanFr Frank Brennan SJ is professor of law at the Public Policy Institute, Australian Catholic University and adjunct professor at the College of Law and the National Centre for Indigenous Studies, Australian National University. He will appear next week as part of Eureka Street's A Discerning Conversation With Kevin Rudd, held to celebrate the magazine's 21st birthday.


Topic tags: Frank Brennan, Malaysia solution, refugees, asylum seekers, Chris Bowen, John Howard, Philip Ruddock



submit a comment

Existing comments

Malaysia could, of course, be part of a REGIONAL PROGRAM (can we pls stop calling it a "solution"?), just as Malaysia was in the post-VN war era. But what we need are 2 or 3 safe havens throughout SE Asia (including one in AUS) where ppl can go and have their asylum claims assessed promptly by UNHCR reps AND the commitment of many nations (esp those in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" and ISAF) to take meaningful numbers of refugees. AUS took nearly 140,000 between 78-83; the US some 800,000. The proposal for a unilateral response is ill-conceived and doomed to failure! Sending ppl who still choose to come by boat back anywhere is inhumane and a breach of our international promises. We were leaders in adopting such an approach 40 years ago and benefited massively as a community as a result. We should not be any more paranoid or mean-spirited now!

Terry Laidler | 10 August 2012  


Let's face it: advocates of the 'Malaysian Solution' are hoping that Malaysia's inhumane treatment of refugees will act as a deterrent to asylum seekers.

Jill Kitson | 10 August 2012  

There seems to be some assumption here that we just take the asylum seekers in as they come. The solution has to be to somehow deal with the smugglers in Indonesia and stop the boats leaving. Surely, if our relations with our neighbours are wholesome and healthy, this can be achieved. It is akin at this point, to closing the door after the horse has bolted. In all of this debate, hearts should be bleeding for those seeking asylum who have no means to get to Indonesia - the many millions who are in refugee camps in Africa, Uganda and many other places. The poor who are totally forgotten in all of this argument. The problem of refugees is a problem for the world - and it is far more complex than the boats arriving and depositing refugee after refugee on Christmas Island.

Perhaps we should just give Christmas Island to the Indonesians and see what happens then - although I feel for those Australian citizens on the island. They must feel they are being taken over day after day after day.

As I said, the complexity of the problem should not be underestimated just for political point scoring.

Jack | 10 August 2012  

I totally agree with your article Frank. The Government is unaccountably afraid of the voters' reactions to theur adopting a humane effective solution.

Tony Santospirito | 10 August 2012  

As David Manne points the refugee convention does not have an on/off button.

The entire so-called debate is a shame on all of us.

Marilyn | 10 August 2012  

Jack it has nothing to do with what happens in Indonesia, Indonesia is not our country.

Marilyn | 11 August 2012  

It will never be there, until and unless Australians remind themselves that once upon a time we were slent witnesses to actions that resulted into evil consequenses. what the government is doing or fail to do will bring grave consequences to these asylum seekers. The number of refugees will only increase in time. That is the reality and we as a people need to accept that this island continent will be a destination.

Jan | 12 August 2012  

As I expected they wrote a stupid political report instead of a report on the law.

Marilyn | 13 August 2012  

The policies and actions of the present government and the former Howard government in respect of refugees who are seeking asylum in Australia are rascist and inhumane. I believe that once a boat and refugee people enters Australian ocean territory, which I think is 200km from the coast, the Australian government is obligated to provide temporary accommodation and support for these people for a period of time until their refugee status is confirmed. It is inhumane to accommodate these refugees in 'prisons' which are located in either the Australian desert or in Malaysia or in Nauru. I believe these refugees should be accommodated in a large city which has the capacity to provide good quality housing, dietary requirements, health and education services for these refugees. I also think that the present refugee policies are probably costing the Australian taxpayer more money than the alternative program.

Mark Doyle | 15 August 2012  

Similar Articles

Why I'm still a Catholic

  • Geraldine Doogue
  • 03 August 2012

I've come to believe that the world beyond the institutional Church is kinder, gentler, full of more conscientious ethics, values and care for others; that the secular world in which lay people live is more functional and more ready to conscience-examine than the institutional Church. Why then am I still a Catholic?


Confidentiality in the confessional and psychiatrist's rooms

  • Andrew Hamilton
  • 02 August 2012

The news that Aurora accused James Holmes had sought psychiatric help may broaden the Australian discussion of the secrecy of confession. The exemption of certain privileged conversations from the duty of disclosure may be justified on the grounds of the public good.