In January, Australia condemned Cambodia’s human rights record in the United Nations. Only nine months later, late last Friday afternoon in Phnom Penh, Australia’s Immigration Minister Scott Morrison awkwardly clinked champagne flutes with Cambodian officials to celebrate inking a memorandum of understanding that will resettle those seeking asylum in Australia in the country — it is now the only alternative they have to remaining in detention on the remote island of Nauru.
A bottle of that champagne costs about US$100 in Phnom Penh’s restaurants. That’s the same amount earned each month by factory garment workers in the country’s sweatshops, now being used by global manufacturers like H&M, Levi Strauss, GAP and many more.
The deal to lift minimum wages from US$80 to US$100 per month was only grudgingly accepted by former Khmer Rouge commander Hun Sen, Cambodia’s Prime Minister. Garment workers are seeking more, an extra $60 per month, but during a demonstration for higher wages in early January government forces, dressed as police but rumoured to be paramilitary, killed five people and injured dozens of others. This is the land of opportunity that the Abbott government is trying to sell to detainees and refugees on Nauru.
Those who want to learn about Cambodia will not be told ugly truths, but those on Nauru are still not happy, with protests about the deal breaking out on the island at the weekend.
In return for taking the refugees one of the world’s most corrupt regimes will be handed a minimum annual payment of $40 million — that’s effectively a signing fee to bump Australia’s aid to the country $119 million each year. In addition there are uncalculated tens of millions more for things from airport landing fees to “tailored” resettlement fees.
Yet the number of refugees heading to Cambodia, trumpeted as up to 1000 by the Australian government, could end up being far, far fewer. At the beginning of the program Cambodian officials said they would accept as few as five, and Cambodian press reports say the number may top out at only 100. That would barely make a dent in the 1000 on Nauru, only 230 of whom have been processed as official refugees.
As Denise Coghlan, the Australian-born head of the Jesuit Refugee Service in Cambodia, noted: “The Cambodians are very good negotiators.”
The memorandum of understanding also shows that Australia continues to dodge its obligations under the Refugee Convention. Third-country dumping is illegal, former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson says, concerned over the 200 children now in detention.
Coghlan is particularly concerned about a clause in the deal that says Cambodia will provide necessary security for refugees, who will be housed in Phnom Penh until they attain basic Khmer language skills needed for survival. “What I fear is men with guns,” she said. Cambodian security forces, as garment workers learned to their peril in January, are uncommonly trigger happy. After their initial stint in the capital, refugees will be settled outside the capital, in provincial centres like Siem Reap and Kampong Cham, perhaps a good thing, says Coghlan.
Opposition to the deal came thick and fast from all quarters over the weekend, with Amnesty International describing it as a “new low”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was cynically included in the MoU without its knowledge. Yet High Commissioner Antonio Guterres said: “This is a worrying departure from international norms.”
“Refugees are persons who are fleeing persecution or the life-threatening effects of armed conflict. They are entitled to better treatment than being shipped from one country to the next.”
The detail in the MoU is often vague and much remains unknown, a fact exacerbated by Morrison’s continued refusal to answer any questions about the deal.
“Australia has already pumped millions of dollars into Nauru and Manus Island through our aid budget and all the infrastructure required, but they have still failed. So now we’re moving onto the next developing country that will take a hand-out from Australian taxpayers,” said Misha Coleman, Australian Churches Refugee Taskforce chief.
“How can Australia sit on the Security Council and expect other world powers to support us when we really need them, when we are withdrawing from our international agreements in areas such as International Refugee Law, which is a global problem, that needs global solutions?” Coleman asked.


24 thoughts on “Morrison seals refugees’ Cambodian fate — but for how many?”
The Old Bill
September 30, 2014 at 12:03 amThere they go again, outsourcing our country’s jobs. They have closed our local jail, I mean refugee centre and none of the staff were offered transfers to PNG or Nauru.
At least the food will be better in Cambodia, especially with a $40 million prepayment. Might apply for work there myself, mining’s not what it used to be.
AR
September 30, 2014 at 6:05 amGiven that vast areas of Kampuchea are still strewn with rusting mines in the 2nd & 4rd decades, perhaps the newcomers could be offered the job of clearing that land?
As an example, could don a hi-viz vest and lead the way.
AR
September 30, 2014 at 6:06 am..’Scot could don a hi-viz..’
GideonPolya
September 30, 2014 at 10:31 amQualitatively it is clear from a human rights violation, corruption and dire poverty perspective that Cambodia is not a safe place for penniless refugees having no inkling of Cambodian history, culture, economy or language.
Quantitative estimates of the risk involved in sending refugees from Australian concentration camps to Cambodia derive from readily accessible World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Population Division data.
Thus according to WHO the difference in infant mortality (in units of under-5 infant deaths per 1,000 live births ) between Cambodia (40) and Australia (5) is 35 i.e. of every 1000 under-5 year old refugee infants sent to Cambodia from Australia 35 will die before their 5th birthday as surely as if they were lined up and every 30th refugee infant shot dead by Australian concentration camp guards.
According to UN Population Division data the difference in annual avoidable mortality (in units of avoidable deaths per 1,000 of population per year) between Cambodia (1.9 ) and Australia (0) is 1.9 (for details see Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, that includes an avoidable mortality-related history of every country since Neolithic times and is now available for free perusal on the web) i.e. of every 1,000 refugees sent to Cambodia from Australia 1.9 will die avoidably EACH YEAR – and 19 will die avoidably every 10 years as surely as if they were lined up and every 50th refugee shot dead by Australian concentration camp guards.
Australians who vote for the Coalition and the Cambodia Solution are inescapably complicit in the deliberate passive murder of refugees and of refugee infants. Those who ignore, excuse, deny, support, advocate or are otherwise complicit in the gross abuse and death of fellow human beings – especially of children and women – have crossed the line separating decent Humanity from barbarism. Decent Australians utterly repelled by such gross abuse of children and women in particular will vote 1 Green and put the Coalition last.
David Hand
September 30, 2014 at 12:02 pmGideon,
The refugee convention has absolutely nothing to say about economic factors such as poverty, infant mortality or knowledge of the receiving country’s politics, culture and history.
It limits itself to safety from persecution and that’s all. It doesn’t even talk about permanent resettlement. For example the Syrian refugees entering Turkey will not be resettled there. Turkey will expect them to return to Syria when it is safe to do so.
Yeah yeah, Coalition voters may be evil sociopaths and, how did you put it? barbarians, but their government is still honouring the refugee convention.
j.oneill
September 30, 2014 at 12:20 pmDavid [email protected] There are in fact two critical documents; the Convention (largely a response to post WW2 factors) and the Protocol that is much more wide ranging. You are apparently not familiar with the latter.
All three paragraphs of your post are simply wrong. Most importantly, for a country that pretends to adhere to the rule of law, Australia is in continuing breach of its obligations under the Convention and Protocol. This has been pointed out on numerous occasions by, inter alia, the UNHCR, most recently a few days ago commenting on the Cambodia deal.
Not, judging by your posts, that facts are especially material to your world view.
Norman Hanscombe
September 30, 2014 at 1:57 pmDavid Hand, it must be frustrating to see the complete misunderstanding of posters who “know” their opponents are evil, but keep up your efforts to encourage them to think before they speak.
As you said, “The refugee convention has absolutely nothing to say about economic factors such as poverty, infant mortality or knowledge of the receiving country’s politics, culture and history [and]It limits itself to safety from persecution and that’s all.”
The True Believers don’t accept honouring U.N. decisions is enough and believe (sadly but genuinely) that Australia must “honour” requirements that NO other International Governments accept. It doesn’t even talk about permanent resettlement.
Being faux noble is a warming experience for those who engage in it.
Norman Hanscombe
September 30, 2014 at 2:37 pmJ.oneill, it’s an intriguing assertion that, “Australia is in continuing breach of its obligations under the Convention and Protocol”, but I’ve seen nothing to support such a clear cut and bald claim, so it’s a shame that [in common with many who’ve made similar assertions] that you fail to spell out precisely WHICH obligations have been :breached”.
j.oneill
September 30, 2014 at 2:57 pm@ Norman Hanscombe 17 & 18. If you bothered to look at the evidence for my claim it is readily apparent. It is probably true that you have “seen nothing” but then have you looked? Just to take some examples (there are many others but this is a comment not an article). The Convention and Protocol forbid what is known as “refoulment”, that is the returning to the place of origin without a proper assessment of the person’s claim to refugee status. We not only return persons not properly assessed, we even deny them the process of assessment itself. We also lock up children. We fail to provide a proper level of care. We insist on calling them “illegal” when that is manifestly outside the Convention. If you are genuinely interested in the issue as opposed to simply supporting an insupportable policy, then read Hathaway & Foster The Law of Refugee Status 2nd ed Cambridge University Press 2014.
Many of these issues have been canvassed in the High Court where the Australian government has a zero success rate in defending its policies. The latest response? We will amend our law so that we are not bound by the Convention says Morrison. Hubris and stupidity are a powerful combination and our government has them in spades.
Norman Hanscombe
September 30, 2014 at 3:23 pmYou ask, quite reasonably, “but then have you looked?”. I’ve been looking analytically at relevant disciplines for decades. That’s why I understand (to use your words) with “refoulment, that is the returning to the place of origin without a proper assessment of the person’s claim to refugee status” no entity has referred a case involving it to appropriate International Tribunals.
If your other examples have enjoyed a similar fate at International levels (and they have) you need to explain why this means Australia should be deemed a pariah.
I know you don’t accept Australia has a right to act as it has under both Labor and non-Labor Governments, but until we’re told by the U.N. or other accepted International Authority we CANNOT do what we have, your opinions on what should be done aren’t evidence that Australia has sinned, except against your dearly held prejudices.