Transcript
GUY GOODWIN-GILL: At that time there was a true regional and broader response. The region was involved in providing temporary protection and asylum and care and maintenance and many other countries were likewise involved in providing solutions and resettlement opportunities for those who were found to be refugees. But then you have close regional involvement and what we have seen laterally is determination on behalf of Australia is to limit or restrict direct arrivals so far as you can. That is one side of a policy but to do that effectively and successfully and without paying compensation for those mistreated through long and arbitrary detention then it is best to have partners and states on board before you start. And that of course this was the case with the Indochina refugee exodus, people were on board and states were on board and prepared to commit. In relation to the latest iteration of the so called, 'stop the boats' programme, they were not. There were no clear resettlement options available for those who were intercepted and detained and that is the weakness and that's the incompleteness of the system as it stands at present.
BEN ROBINSON-DRAWBRIDGE: Is there even potential for countries like Nauru and Papua New Guinea to resettle people?
GG:I don't think of Nauru, with all due respect to those who live on Nauru, as a state in the full sense of the word. I know its a member of the United Nations and it has ratified the 1951 Convention but anyone familiar with Nauru and its current situation and its total financial dependency on cash hand outs from Australia must surely recognise that it is not a place which can effectively live up to the obligations which might be expected of it as a party to international treaties. It doesn't have the resources, infrastructure or opportunities to provide resettlement durable solutions to those who are refugees. And likewise anyone familiar with Papua New Guinea as I happened to go there on missions for the UNHCR as long ago as 1993 where I began to get a sense of social political and cultural obstacles in the way of resettlement of refugees in PNG, even with respect to refugees from mere neighbours. It is not a viable option.
BR: So your symposium last week, 'Breaking the Deadlock,' were you referring to a political deadlock in Australia?
GG: The deadlock as I see it is one which has resulted from, what has supposedly been tough and uncompromising policies, which any politician negotiator policy maker seems to me is probably the one thing you don't want to do is to put yourself in a corner because once you are in a corner, there is no way out. You have no options. And that I am afraid is what happens when you pretend to draw lines in the sand or pretend to be super tough on certain issues. Once you rule out options, people think and become less and less inclined to associate and deal with you because they see nothing in it for them and there is no way you are going to change.
BR: Given last week we saw a backbench MP in the House suggest that Australia needs to form part of the solution. Could this be a way out for the government?
GC: It would be. I hope it would be but I mean it would need careful phrasing and I recognise where we have come from and I recognise the difficulty of moving ahead here. But I think there is an opportunity for leadership. I mean goodness me and not just in this region because we need it as we are faced at the present time, with as the UNHCR will tell you, a phenomenal level of displacement as a result of conflict, violence, persecution, human rights violations and the like. And we are also facing a massive migratory movement driven by the lack of opportunity or the possibility of gaining a livelihood and so we do need now to put into place the mechanisms that will allow us to much more effectively cooperate internationally in the interests of all and in the interests of refugees and asylum seekers, in the interests of migrants, but in particular in the interests of states. And of course we know that in the interest of states given the security of people's movements are very high on the agenda but what I believe is that we are not going to make much progress at all by adopting a unilateralist approach to these issues. It has got to be on the basis of co-operation but also on the basis of well established international law and principles. But those can be managed, we have seen how they can be managed, those issues can be managed, within the framework of law. They don't have be managed through hanging tough and being arbitrary.
