1	Report, exposes, conditions, Australia-funded, refugee, detention, centers

Compared to most other wealthy countries the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat is small, and absolutely minuscule in comparison to the number of refugees hosted by many developing nations. But even a small number of boats will inevitably create a major political issue. So it is that despite the economic downturn and the vital climate change summit soon to occur in Copenhagen, much of the debate in Australia’s Parliament over the last two weeks has been about a couple of refugee boats seeking to get to Australia.

Until recently, most Australians had been unaware that their government was funding international agencies in Indonesia to house asylum seekers and assess their claims. This has been going on under both the previous and current government, but until now little attention had been paid to what conditions the refugees and asylum seekers were kept in or what happened to them.

Awareness is likely to be further increased with a new report just released by Australian lawyer Jessie Taylor. The report is titled ‘Behind Australian Doors: Examining the Conditions of Detention of Asylum Seekers in Indonesia’.

Ms Taylor, accompanied by a film maker and an Afghan refugee who is now an Australian citizen, spent July 2009 visiting asylum seekers in 11 different places of detention throughout Indonesia, as well as meeting with people who were not detained, many of who had applied to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) office in Indonesia and been recognised as refugees but had still been unable to be resettled. Overall, they spoke to around 250 people, including around 120 children and unaccompanied minors.

The report’s findings indicate that:

...living conditions for the asylum seekers range from acceptable to appalling. They are administered either by Indonesian immigration authorities and police, or by IOM [International Organisation for Migration]. Living conditions are (generally) unsanitary, unsafe, isolated and utterly inappropriate for children. Detainees are often denied schooling, appropriate food, medical care and clean water.

It also states that

...families are generally housed in more appropriate accommodation, when there are women and babies. However, there are many 13 to 17-year-old children in adult jails, slipping through the cracks because they are alone and do not have parents or siblings to look out for them.

Equally problematic, from the point of view of the effectiveness of the policy behind Australia funding these measures, as well as from a general human rights perspective, the processing time for asylum claims is slow and unclear.

Detainees are to be processed by UNHCR, which is hugely under-resourced and overworked. Consequently, processing often takes many months. It is not uncommon for people to wait 24 to 36 months between their initial registration and their refugee status determination. Delays depend on a number of factors, including geographical location of the applicant (ie, in Jakarta, applicants have fairly easy access to UNHCR, but in the remote centres, access is more difficult, and delays are often prolonged). 

People routinely wait for many months to be registered and interviewed by UNHCR. It may take another 12-18 months after interview to receive a determination. Positive findings of refugee status are meaningless in the current context, as there is no prospect of third country resettlement. Refusals are often given without reasons, either written or oral, despite UNHCR guidelines to the contrary.

The report quotes figures from the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) that there are currently around 2000 asylum seekers and refugees currently being held in prisons, detention centres and compounds across Indonesia. The cost for the upkeep for these people is funded by the Australian government in an effort to try to prevent or discourage them from trying to reach Australia by boat.

UNHCR figures indicate that there are 2,107 people registered with UNHCR (as at 26 October 2009).

Figures from Australia’s Immigration Department indicate the following resettlement numbers from Indonesia over recent years:

2008-2009: 35 people

2007-2008: 89 people

2006-2007: 32 people

In the report, Ms Taylor states that:

...the Australian government and the asylum seekers are agreed on one thing: trying to reach Australia by boat is not a good idea. To my surprise, more than 90% of people we met in Indonesia had not come with the intention of getting on a boat. The prospect of the long, dangerous journey is the last thing that most families want to face. Instead, we gleaned the impression that people came to Indonesia to be processed by UNHCR and resettled. They are willing to wait for this to happen. However, when weeks stretch to months and months stretch to years, with no apparent action from UNHCR or IOM, the boat option begins to look more attractive. It is because of delays in processing and failure to resettle genuine refugees that Australia has seen an increase in boat arrivals in recent times.

She goes on to say:

...if the asylum seekers could see a genuine movement in the process, and feel like their claims were being properly considered, and if they were allowed access to decent services (particularly simple schooling for their children), it seems that the number of boat arrivals would drop off drastically. One thing is for certain: nobody happily makes the decision to make the ocean journey - they are driven to do so by the lack of any other viable option presenting itself.

A positive aspect of the report is that it seeks to provide a solution, not just document problems.

The two step solution proposed in the report states that:

...in order to stop boats from coming, the Australian government need only to:

1. Install a controlled, robust and fair assessment and resettlement process direct from Indonesia to Australia (most logically through bolstering the capacity of the UNHCR); and

2. Slightly increase its resettlement intake, allowing swift durable solutions for individuals determined to be refugees under the Refugee Convention.

This sort of regionally cooperative approach, with adequate financial and logistical support from Australia is the only policy that can work in the long-term – along with always seeking to reduce the sort of conditions which turn people into refugees by forcing them to flee in the first place.  

It is a constructive recommendation which definitely goes in the right direction, but I think it is a bit optimistic to suggest it “only” requires these two steps.  The number of displaced people in the Southeast Asia region is very large and is likely to stay that way at least as long as the current Burmese regime remains in power. The current actions of the Sri Lankan government are also clearly contributing significantly to the problem at the moment.

It would require a bit more than a “slight” increase in Australia’s refugee resettlement intake – which currently stands at 13500 for both refugee and other humanitarian entrants. Still, Australia’s overall migration intake has been increasing rapidly in the last 10 years without a proportional increase in the humanitarian intake. Migration is likely to remain at or near current high levels for the next decade or more, so I believe there is room for a substantial increase in the total refugee intake – at least up to 20000 per year. 

Resettlement does cost the government money in the early years, although evidence shows that over time refugees provide a net revenue gain for the government as they move into the workforce. But funding UNHCR, IOM and the Indonesian government to warehouse refugees for years also costs money, with no productive benefit to anyone.

The debate still has a long way to run, but now that attention has been drawn to the poor conditions refugees are kept in using Australian government money, it is unlikely to subside until there are clear improvements. Hopefully, we may even see debate shift to practical and pragmatic solutions, rather than the over-reaction and fear which has dominated to date.