No protection for asylum seeker children alone in Malaysia
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen's confirmation on the ABC's Lateline program that children will not be spared from being sent to Malaysia under the asylum seeker swap is deeply disturbing, Amnesty International has said.
“Australia will be sending children into an extremely vulnerable situation – especially girls,” said Amnesty International Australia's refugee spokesman Dr Graham Thom.
“On top of the well-documented human rights abuses faced by all asylum seekers in Malaysia, unaccompanied women and girls face extraordinary levels of sexual violence and sexual harassment.”
There are currently 17 children on Christmas Island who have arrived since the deal was announced. Girls are among nine unaccompanied minors.
“With no family to protect them and no legal rights under Malaysian law, refugee women and girls will be at the mercy of gangs and officials who target them knowing they have nowhere to turn,” Graham Thom said.
Comments
Andrew J S | Posted on 15 June 2011, 02:34PM | Report comment
Anne, I also beleive Australia is responsible for the Asylum Seekers, but that being the case its up to Austrlalia to decide how to deal with that responsibility, and not the asylum seeker to dictate to Austrlalia what to do.
You make an assumption that Austrlalia is knowilngly sending people to a country where their human rights will be breached, where as our Prime Minister who is acting on behalf of Australia says she has assurances this will not be the case.
I disagree with the swap deal, and also think the prime ministers’ assurances don’t count for much, however concede the prime minister of Australia has the right to deal with Austrlaia responsibilities.
If Australia had human rights laws, the Prime ministers decision could be legally challenged, Is there any other legal mechanism that can challenge her flawed decision?
Jack | Posted on 15 June 2011, 01:46PM | Report comment
GET OVER IT ANDREW!d
Your making no SENSE! (sence) haha
Anne | Posted on 15 June 2011, 01:45PM | Report comment
TO ANDREW:
Australia IS responsible for the asylum seekers and the reason why they do not have the right to send them to malaysia is because Australia is conscious of the fact that those asylum seekers are being sent to a country where their human rights will be breached, and this will have a particularly harsh effect on children.
YOU SAID: they do not get to enjoy Austrlaia but as they were not here to begin with how has there situation really changed?
I SAY: THEY LOSE EVERYTHING, asylum seekers are not going to RISK their precious lives to come to Australia on a shabby boat unless they are escaping from something worse. It’s either they die along the way, or get sent to malaysia ( either killed or injured severely), or KEPT IN AUSTRALIA where they are safe, detention centres to asylum seekers is heaven in juxtaposition to wherever they came from.
ALSO: you spelt sence wrong, it’s sense
oh and also in the following sentence ‘yes they do not get to enjoy Austrlaia but as they were not here to begin with how has there situation really changed? ’ - its their not there.
Andrew J S | Posted on 14 June 2011, 05:27PM | Report comment
Mohra, I do not understand your argument, Do you think Austrlalia owns the responsibility of looking after the asylum seeking children proposed to be sent to Malaysia or not? If it is Austrlalias responsibility, it is up to Australia what action it takes as the one ‘responsible’. I don’t understand how a country can be held accountable and yet stripped of any ability to make decisions - it doesn’t make sence.
The flawed swap deal, which i do not personally agree with, aims to return asylum seekers who arrive by boat back to a country they most likely transited through - yes they do not get to enjoy Austrlaia but as they were not here to begin with how has there situation really changed?
Mohra A | Posted on 11 June 2011, 01:28AM | Report comment
I agree with Marilyn Shepherd, we do not have ownership over these people.
These children do not deserve to be thrown into an even more foreign country where they will have no law protection and where their human rights will be abused severly.
Richard Lutz | Posted on 6 June 2011, 03:44AM | Report comment
Andrew (4 June 2011, 08:49PM) is right that excluding unaccompanied children from the Malaysian people swap deal would result in boat loads of such children, but only if they were treated the same as asylum seekers arriving prior to the deal.
Julia Gillard could have stopped the boats months ago if she had said these 10 words: “asylum seekers arriving by boat will never gain permanent residency”, but she is such a weak, amoral creature (a vain career politician who only cares about the acquisition/maintenance of power) that she cannot provide certainty on any issue.
She could not reopen Nauru and reintroduce TPVs after the Christmas Island disaster despite their proven effectiveness in stopping the boats because she would “lose face”, illustrating the monstrous nature of Julia “old people don’t vote Labor” Gillard. Her half-baked people swap scheme is, like the BER she ran, a monumental stuff up.
Some say the people swap deal will result in more refugees being given asylum than would otherwise be the case, when in fact Australia only allows in a limited number of refugees each year, so if thousands of refugees came from Malaysia as a result of the people swap then thousands fewer refugees would come from other countries.
Treating any group of people like cattle who can be traded is deeply offensive, all the more so when children are involved and the trafficking is organised by their guardian, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, who has a legal and ethical duty to protect children under his care (not the refugees in Malaysia).
I’m thinking about helping organize a rally, but this proposal is so deeply flawed and universally despised that it is almost inconceivable that it will see the light of day, and will slowly sink without trace just like Gillard’s East Timor solution. Good riddance. Let’s hope the ALP takes Nick Xenophon’s advice and reopens Nauru soon, even if this means they have to dump Julia Gillard (better Rudd than Red!).
Marilyn Shepherd | Posted on 5 June 2011, 04:53PM | Report comment
For god’s sake, we don’t get to send anyone to Malaysia, we don’t own them.
As for deporting kids, Bowen is their bloody guardian and should be charged with child abuse just like Ruddock.
Joanne Park | Posted on 5 June 2011, 03:22PM | Report comment
The Governments Malaysian solution is not one to consider at all. It is harsh and cruel. They think it will deter asylum seekers, but is that a real solution, to deter those seeking safety? Will they just then consider travelling elsewhere? Do they actually have other options to travel elsewhere? I think asylum seekers the world over is a global problem, and so then needs a global solution. I think all countries that are in an economic position to help refugees should in some way help, wether financially or help with safe resettlement. I think Australians forget or do not realise Australia receives only a very small proportion of the worlds refugees . The govt. also underestimates the hospitality and help many Australian organisations and individuals are willing to give with accommodating genuine refugees till they are fully resettled.
Andrew J S | Posted on 4 June 2011, 09:49PM | Report comment
Miesko, Micheal pretty much understood the point, excluding children from the swap deal would have the effect encouraging people smugglers to place children separated from their parents on boats, with the illusion that family reunion will help them after they arrive. it could create more unaccompanied minors than exist today - a terrible outcome especially given the dangerous voyage they also would take.
I am not a fan of the flawed Malaysia swap deal however if it were to specifically exclude children it would be even worse. The swap deal does however mean more people would be saved than otherwise would have been given more people are being taken than are been sent to the dangerous conditions in Malaysia. if it were not for the human trafficking element, they might have been on a winner
Michael Wild | Posted on 3 June 2011, 09:03PM | Report comment
Andrew can now doubt speak for himself but his point seems fairly clear. If adults asylum seekers are automatically returned unaccompanied children can stay there is a risk that desperate and foolish people will put their kids on the boats hoping they will stay in Australia. No doubt the people smugglers will do use this as a selling point.
As an Amnesty member I largely agree with Mietszko. I expect he (like me) would rather save $100 millions releasing asylum seekers into to community pending working out if they really are refugees. (Up to now they usually are). Mietzo’s and Andrew’s comments show that often no easy answers in public policy and every option has unwanted side effects. I certainly don’t like to see substantial boats packed with asylum seekers arrive in this disorderly way and would not like to see the numbers expand. I make no apology for that statement. On the other hand I am not prepared to see these usually entirely innocent people detained and damaged by years of uncertain detention. If Malaysia’s record was adequate I’d not mind but I cannot tolerate innocent, vulnerable people being sent to even worse conditions than Australian detention. Ultimately you have to choose the best or least worst solution. In my book a solution that mistreating utterly innocent, traumatized and vulnerable people is unacceptable no matter how convenient.
Mieszko | Posted on 3 June 2011, 01:10PM | Report comment
By the way Andrew, I would like to hear your elaboration on the point that children will be ‘more at risk’ if exluded from the deal.
Take the instance where a number of 15-16 year old Thai girls are going to be sent to a crowded Malaysian detention centre as part of this deal (which is obviously NOT an ideal situation in terms of risks). Even if they are accepted as part of a resettlement program - until they are resettle (undetermined amount of time) they cannot work, they cannot go to school, they will have no legal status or protection… often refugees are exploited through illegal work and extortion.
Could you please go into more detail on your point?
Mieszko | Posted on 3 June 2011, 12:46PM | Report comment
I think it is profoundly obvious Amnesty is against it. Personally, I am also strongly against it too. Potentially a ‘regional processing’ model might work; but certainly not in the current conditions being outlined.
- Unaccompanied minors will be sent to Malaysia.
- The asylum seekers will be classed as ‘illegal immigrants’. They will have no legal rights or status.
- Asylum seekers will not be able to work, or send their children to school.
- Malaysia refuses to agree to any ‘human rights standards’ as part of the deal, and removed all reference from the agreement.
So we’re preparing to send vulnerable asylum seekers to a country where they where they may be tortured, they have no legal protection, they can be further exploited, they cannot work or send their children to school and their rights basically dont exist. What a FANTASTIC and humane solution.
Andrew J S | Posted on 3 June 2011, 12:40PM | Report comment
Unaccompanied minors are already at greater risk as refugees wherever they are now, the swap deal is to apply to those who have not already made it to Australia so it doesn’t change the outcome of any current unaccompanied minor.
If the swap deal specifically excluded unaccompanied minors, a likely outcome would be an increase in unaccompanied minors trying to arrive by boat. This would be a terrible outcome as in effect it would encourage family separation and risk the lives of more minors. why would anyone want to encourage a policy that does that? You either are for the swap deal with no exclusions or you are against it. Changing it to exclude minors increases the risk for minors.