Iraq and the Regional Humanitarian Crisis - August 2007 - A CWS/NCCA Briefing Paper on the current situation released to coincide with the Assyrian Christian rally in Canberra on 7 August outside Parliament House to riase awareness of the persecution of Christians and other minorities indies Iraq.

ALP National Conference Outcomes - April 2007
Delegates at the ALP National Policy Conference in Sydney have voted to endorse a new ALP policy of granting work rights to asylum seekers in the community, effectively pledging to over-turn the current 45-day rule which has prevented asylum seekers from obtaining permission to work if they did not lodge their applications for protection within 45 days of arriving in Australia. A Just Australia and NCCA had actively lobbied ALP shadow cabinet members to have the policy including in the draft policy document and endorse it at the Conference and were pleased to see ALP delegates support the policy. More...

NAURU Processing of Asylum Seekers Oppossed

The Australian Government has recently decided to send 82 Sri Lankan asylum seekers to Nauru rather than process their refugee claims on the Australian mainland. The National Council of Churches in Australia (NCCA) and its humanitarian and development agency, Christian World Service (CWS) has opposed the use of Nauru and PNG’s Manus Island as refugee processing areas since the inception of the 'Pacific Solution' in 2001. More.... 

Conflict in Sri Lanka
In Sri Lanka the state of escalating conflict and human rights abuses is well documented since the on-the-ground collapse of the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement. These abuses are being performed by various parties to the conflict – the Sri Lankan forces, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the “Karuna faction” (which broke from the LTTE) and other paramilitary groups. CWS’s partners in Sri Lanka and India, notably the National Christian Council of Sri Lanka, and the Organisation for Eelam Refugees Rehabilitation (OfERR) are deeply concerned at the deteriorating security and humanitarian situation in the country.

Nauru processing
The 82 Sri Lankans now join eight Rohingya asylum seekers, originally from war-torn Burma, who arrived on Australia’s Ashmore Reef, excised from Australia’s migration zone, in August 2006.  After spending a month on Christmas Island they were then taken to Nauru.

The asylum seekers on Nauru will be processed by the Australian Immigration Department only. In contrast, CWS supports the need for independent, fair processing, which involves rights of appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and judicial appeal so Australia can fulfill its obligations under the Refugee Convention. As earlier stated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the controversy sparked by the arrival in Australia of  West Papuan boat people in 2006 and the subsequent debate around the withdrawn Designated Unauthorised Arrivals (DUA) Bill 2006, Australia should make access to its usual, full determination system that applies in Australia rather than to an inferior system on Nauru, where there is no guaranteed adequate legal and welfare help or appeals rights.

The UNHCR also notes that the use of Nauru has resulted in prolonged detention-like situations of asylum-seekers and refugees alike, as well as extended separation of families. The practice has also contributed to serious mental health problems. Recognising these issues, Nauru's acting Foreign Minister, Frederick Pitcher, said on March 19 he wants the asylum claims of the 82 Sri Lankans processed within six months and does not want a repeat of the situation where people spent as long as five years waiting for their claims to be finalised. Short processing times may be sought but there is the danger, with no appeals rights, that rushed and wrong decisions will be made and refugees will be returned to danger in home countries.
Also, there is confusion as to whether the Australian Government will insist that those taken to Nauru for off-shore processing, and found to be refugees, must be resettled in countries other than Australia. If so, it is likely to see refugees stranded on Nauru for many years.

Concern has been raised by statements by the Immigration Minister, the Hon. Kevin Andrews, about seeking third country, but not Australian, resettlement for any Sri Lankan asylum seekers found to be refugees and the Australian Government’s approach to the eight Rohingya asylum seekers from Burma.

These Rohingya asylum seekers spent some years in Malaysia but lacked “effective protection”. Malaysian human rights groups and the Malaysian Trades Union Congress report Rohingyas suffering arbitrary treatment, gross employment exploitation and lack of legal or welfare support due to being seen as illegal immigrants. In Malaysia, UNHCR assesses Rohingyas on a group basis and they are provided with a Temporary Protection card, without individual screening. There is no access to resettlement, based on the principle of potential for local integration in Malaysia. In reality, however, the Rohingya face great hardship in Malaysia.

Australia’s Malaysia return proposal
In February 2007, the Australian Government indicated that if the eight Rohingyas opted to remain on Nauru they would not be accepted for resettlement in Australia even if found to be refugees. So the options given by the Australian Government were either accept a “voluntary repatriation package”  to return to Malaysia or be processed on Nauru and wait resettlement by another country if found to be refugees. It is claimed that under the return offer, the asylum seekers would be given a two-year temporary residence visa with work rights by the Malaysian Government if they returned voluntarily, a cash allowance to cover their immediate expenses, and an assurance that the UN's refugee agency would be told if there were plans to "remove them".

Their refugee status claims would be processed in Malaysia by Australian officials and, if accepted, they would be able to resettle with their families under Australia's offshore humanitarian program. This offer was made in December 2006, but only made public by the Rohingya’s lawyer, David Manne, in February 2007 at the request of his clients. “The Age” (17-2-07) reported seven of the eight definitely have rejected the Malaysian return option, out of fear of their past treatment in Malaysia, lack of confidence that the Malaysian authorities will honour their pledges and uncertainty about resettlement outcomes. One is considering the offer based on concern for his young children.

In November 2004, UNHCR welcomed the decision of the Malaysian government to grant temporary stay permits to the estimated 10,000 Rohingya refugee population. Chris Lewr, a Bangkok-based researcher, was unable to determine if a bilateral agreement has been made between Australia and Malaysia.  However, he found that previously no Rohingya received a work permit.  In August 2006, registration had started and 5,000 registered and paid the fee.  Then, the process was suspended due to fraud and is unlikely to start again.  Those who paid never received the work permit.  The Rohingya are thus illegal immigrants in Malaysia.

In March 2007 there have been crackdowns on refugees in Malaysia, with the Malaysian Foreign Minister reported as saying only the term “illegal immigrants”, not “refugees” should be used in Malaysia. Church sources report over a thousand Chins, who have also fled the conflict in Burma, were arrested. Their church was closed down and their centre in Kuala Lumpur was raided.

A way forward
The issues facing the Sri Lankan and the Rohingya refugees highlight the need for the Australian Government to work co-operatively with neighbouring countries, urging them to sign and abide by the Refugee Convention and work well with UNHCR to protect asylum seekers and offer humane options, such as work rights, education and other support and resettlement, while conflicts in home countries are resolved.  To credibly advocate such human rights standards by our neighbours requires that Australia must fully abide by our international human rights obligations, which must include not shifting our responsibilities to protect refugees onto others and adequately supporting asylum seekers in our own community.

Church Heads Urge Government to Revise Extended Pacific Solution for Refugees (14 June 2006)