The United Nations High Commission for Refugees says it is broadly satisfied with the agreement reached by the Australian and Malaysian governments on the resettlement of asylum seekers.
The Gillard Government will transfer 800 asylum seekers who arrive to Australia by boat, in exchange for settling 4,000 refugees who have had their claims processed in Malaysia.
Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, and the Opposition has accused the Government of hypocrisy after it refused to re-open the Nauru centre on the grounds the Pacific nation had not signed the convention.
But UNHCR regional representative, Richard Towle, says Malaysia has agreed to abide by key parts of the convention.
"We need to look at the details of how people will be treated and the various rights and entitlements and conditions for them when they go back there," he said.
"But most of the world's refugees are today living in countries that haven't signed the Refugee Convention so the fact that you haven't signed the convention doesn't mean that you're not treated properly.
"Having said that, it is important to identify the core protection safeguards that we would like to see in any return arrangement."
Despite his support of the plan, Mr Towle has reacted cautiously to the Government's suggestion that it will be relying heavily on the UN body to monitor the implementation of the agreement.
He says the UNHCR wants guarantees asylum seekers will not be returned the countries they flee from.
"The core [requirement] which I think everybody agrees on and that's what we call the principle of non-refoulement, that's non-expulsion of asylum seekers and refugees out of the country to face persecution," he said.
"We would want to see that and I think we are seeing that as a commitment from both governments."
But Mr Towle says the scheme has the potential to improve the way the region manages refugee flows.
"I think it's very important that this agreement is appropriately monitored and is seen to deliver not only outcomes for governments in terms of dealing with human smuggling and trafficking movements but also is seen to deliver improved protection for people in the region," he said
"I think in that sense it has the potential to... make a significant practical contribution to what we're trying to achieve in the region.
"And if it's a good experience other countries can look at it and say 'yes, that's a positive way of managing these issues. Perhaps we want to embark on similar or other initiatives under a regional cooperation framework'."
He says there are significant differences between the current deal and the Howard government's Pacific solution.
"This is an agreement, it's a bilateral agreement that has been negotiated within a broader regional cooperation framework with the involvement of UNHCR and the involvement of IOM (International Organisation for Migration) and we hope the involvement of other important actors as well, including non-governmental organisations," he said.
"So it is an agreement between countries that are actively involved with refugee issues and both commonly face a refugee displacement problem."
Mr Towle says the Howard government's push to house asylum seekers in countries without a refugee problem was about shifting responsibility.
"Australia was obviously looking at ways to divest itself of some of the responsibilities of dealing with refugees," he said.
"The countries that were negotiated, Nauru and PNG at that time, did not have a refugee issue of their own and largely became places were Australia was able to manage its own protection responsibilities under the convention.
"So it was not a regional burden-sharing arrangement at all. It was much more of a responsibility-shifting arrangement. And that's why we think they are not only philosophically but also in the way they were implemented they're quite different types of arrangements."
Earlier, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the plan is a "panicked, desperate thought bubble" that has not been properly thought through.
And the Greens have described the proposal as "appalling", saying it would lead to vulnerable people being dumped in a country with a poor human rights record.
No comments:
Post a Comment