Diversity Challenges: Working with Australian-Indonesian Legislation

This essay delves into the complexities of working with diversity within the framework of Australian legislation, particularly concerning interactions with Indonesia on asylum seeker policies. It examines the bilateral refugee arrangements between Australia and Indonesia, highlighting the debatable aspects related to Australia's policies towards asylum seekers, especially concerning offshore processing arrangements with Nauru and Papua New Guinea. The essay addresses challenges in the interception of Australian government policies with migrant groups, focusing on transferring procedures, resettlement of Indonesian groups, and issues arising from the Bali Process. It further discusses barriers to resettlement processing due to differing state understandings and incentives, Indonesian perspectives on migrants and asylum seekers, and the potential negative impacts on Indonesia's relationships with other Southeast Asian nations. The analysis includes considerations of magnetized factors, the Bali Process's limitations, and the overall effectiveness of current arrangements, emphasizing the need for comprehensive and cooperative solutions. Desklib offers a platform to explore similar documents and gain further insights into this topic.

Running head: WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
The bilateral refugee arrangement between Australia and Indonesia has previously been
recognized as a debatable matter to the current policies and regulations of Australia towards the
asylum seekers specifically the arrangements with Naaru and Papua New Guinea (PNG)
intended for offshore dispensation along with the return of asylum seeker vessels which are
furthermore been interrupted by the Australian authoritative system. However, it has been
recognized that the references to the offshore processing as an ‘Indonesian solution’ are prone to
deceive (Missbach, 2013). Furthermore, no distinct bilateral arrangement can thrive in the
boarder sense by focusing on the asylum issues which have been influencing upon the entire
region of Southeast Asia and Australia. However, the issues pertaining to several nations despite
of any bilateral arrangements which Australian authoritative policies caters to, must focus on the
broader commitment with as well as between the neighbouring nations (Hirsch, 2017). The
essay examines certain challenges working with Indonesians within Australian legislation by
focusing on the process of interception of Australian government policies with the migrant
groups. The paper will further focus on the transferring procedures of Australia and resettlement
of the Indonesian groups by casting light on the issues arising with the procedures taken for Bali
resettlement.
The Australian administrative strategy concentrates on the asylum seekers arriving to
Australia travelling on water without legitimate visa documentation will ever be granted
resettlement in Australia. However, individuals are sent to regions of Nauru or PNG for the
processing or local settlement arrangement or in restricted cases identified as resettlement to the
third nation. From the Australian government’s standpoint, once individuals have been relocated
they developed into the responsibility of communities of Nauru or PNG (Phillips & Spinks,
2013). Furthermore, observing a refugee arrangement between Australia and Indonesia it can be

2WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
identified that the Australian government-appointed Expert Panel’s 2012 has provide suggestions
regarding the ‘bilateral collaboration and support related to the asylum seeker concerns with
Indonesians must be highly developed as a matter of exigency (Missbach, 2015). The adjacency
of Australia and Indonesia has assisted several asylum seekers arriving by boat Indonesia to
Australia, whereby several belong to countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. However,
if Australian governmental policies could administer these travel processes through water, then
the level of commitment with Indonesia would be considered with utmost significance
(McKenzie & Hasmath, 2013). It has been recognized by Pedersen & Hartley, (2015) that
Australia with the approval of Indonesia would pose interventions towards the asylum seeker
boats travelling from Indonesia to Australia. As per the opinion of McAdam,( 2013), it is
important to note that Australia would engage in the process of resettling asylum seekers en
routing from Indonesia has been seized by it to Indonesia following to brief evaluation
procedures in order to ensure that those individuals have no intentions of harassment or
maltreatment in Indonesia.
Furthermore, Australia ascertains certain declarations from Indonesia that the nation
would explicitly involve in the prevention of non-refoulement of the resettled persons. With the
crucial assertion from Indonesia, the nation has not been engaged with Refugee Convention
which further comprises the non-refoulement obligation act of Article 33 or the Refugee
Directives or Practices. However, it has been noted that Indonesia would provide provisional
safeguard to the resettled individuals and expect the authorized responsibilities for further
processing. On the other hand, the resettlement arrangements in Indonesia in recent times have
been undertaken by the regulative agencies of the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees (UNHCR) (McAdam, 2013). It has been noted that the UNHCR would not offer any

3WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
permission to the continual responsibility for the executing under any arrangement between
Australia and Indonesia and that they posed utmost disinclination to abide the processing
accountability under the relocation type arrangement have further been envisaged. At this
juncture, it must be note that Australia must not suppose processing any forms of liability in
Indonesia and would further destabilize limited asylum systems being established in Indonesia
and at any circumstances the Asian country would be improbable to accept Australia pertaining
to the asylum legislative procedures within Indonesia (McAdam, 2014). However, it is not
advisable that Australia would execute an effective processing in Indonesia and would further
render the country towards uncertain global legal accountability related to any legal
infringements in Indonesia (Rowe & O'Brien, 2014).
As per the opinion of Phillips & Spinks, (2013), it is significant to identify the significant
barriers to the processing of resettlement which have occurred due to the states’ understanding of
inducement towards refuge groups entering into the country. On the other hand, it has been noted
that from the Australian standpoint it can be argued that there is no any significant motivation for
refugee groups to involve in the arrangement procedures with Indonesia whereby the offshore
resettlement processing on Nauru and PNG along with the unilateral sea prohibition provide to
the interest of the nation by restricting maritime travels of refugee groups from entering into the
coasts of Australia (Klein, 2014). While several Australian directives have adhered to the reason
of unilateral action by not sharing its association with countries in the area whereby Australia
contributes to the refugee issues. However, it can be stated that with the approval of Australia to
this unilateral logic it will further execute as a major obstacle towards Australia following and
considerate under a bilateral processing with Indonesia (Gunningham, 2013). Furthermore, from
the Indonesian standpoint, the processing of resettlement with Australia may be perceived to the

4WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
deficit of incentives and encouragements in entering into the coast of Australia. Therefore, four
significant reasons has been recognized for the perceived lack of enticements whereby the first
recounts to the way migrant groups and migrant policies have been perceived among the
Indonesians (Koser & McAuliffe, 2013). It is important to note that the Indonesian migrant
populace is relatively small, and relative to the generalized population and further compared to
the immigrant population of other nations. Furthermore, unconstructive standpoints of migrant
groups and asylum seekers who influence the national funds and resources and characterize the
issues associated with social as well protection aspects (McKenzie & Hasmath, 2013). However,
the viewpoints associated with the irrelevance and unconstructive nature of the refugees and
tendencies to cause issues to the state further contradict any aspect of encouragement or
incentives for the processing of resettlement purposed for the protection of the nation. Second
reason associated with the perception of lack of inducements can be related to the way the
administrative bodies have supposed migrants and asylum seekers as the significant
responsibility of Australia (Phillips & Spinks, 2013). However, it has been stated that the major
section of Indonesians being travelling to Australia have contributed to the fortified dispute
situations and have further led them to develop into a migrant groups. Furthermore, Indonesians
believe that as a developing nation, the country has been considerably serving transitory
protection to its migrant groups and thereby due to these causes, the country may perceive
asylum seekers as one of the fundamental liability of Australia and further be restrained to itself
presuppose accountability following the proposed arrangement processing. The third factor
explicitly reveals that Indonesia may believe that status quo effectively contributes to the factors
associated with its interests and further eliminating any concern related to inducements for new
arrangement procedures (Missbach, 2013). The unyielding existing migrant guidelines of

5WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
Australia may further ease to the arrangement processing in regions of PNG and Nauru, denial
towards immigration to maritime interceptions in an efficient way. Thus, Indonesia should reveal
detrimental factors as a transit nation on the way to Australia as there would be no prospective
relevance of reaching to the coasts of Australia. As a result, Indonesia would have greater
inclination towards current state of affairs in comparison to make assumptions to the obligations
under the processing of resettlement. Lastly, the processing may be perceived by the Indonesians
as a potential destructive factors related to its associations with the other South Asian states.
However, particularly the arrangements may cause offense to the non-intervening regulations
which have been executed in order to prohibit the migrant discourse within the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations. Furthermore, the standards assume that the Southeast Asian states will
not pose any interventions in the status quo of other states thereby Indonesia may be guarded of a
processing with Australia as further offending to the guidelines as other Southeast Asian states
have been undergoing critical demands in order to assume migrant liabilities if the unitary
sovereign state of Southeast Asia operates in the way under the arrangement with Australia.
Moreover, Indonesia may be taking into consideration the processing of resettlement to be into
the domain of broader regional inclinations and as a component of ASEAN.
At this juncture, another significant barrier must be identified which is regarded to have
contributed as a magnetized factor whereby the aspects of asylum seekers protection will be
improved under the arrangement. It has been presupposed by the sovereign state of Southeast
Asia that Australia would provide immigration places to the migrant groups practiced in
Indonesia and further seek to enhance the conditions for the migrant groups in Indonesia
(Missbach, 2013). However, a severe concern has developed in such circumstances whereby
these developments would encourage or develop the areas of incentives for more refugees to

6WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
seek assistance from Australia and Indonesia regarding these arrangements. Though these critical
concerns can be comprehended by perceiving from the Indonesian standpoints whereby it has
been recognized that Indonesia has been immensely struggling to compact with the unbalanced
and irregular migration procedures deriving from Malaysia (Koser & McAuliffe, 2013).
However, the perception that the process of migration to Indonesia may undergo a growth under
the arrangement would further pose willingness to pose apprehension and fear towards the
Indonesian government whereby these concerns would be associated with the elevated economic
expenditures and challenges to social consistency and solidity from the process of migration
(Phillips & Spinks, 2013). However, it is important to note that without a properly recognized
refugee status determination procedure, Indonesia will not be able to effectively identify the
migrant groups from the ones who have been returning to their country on the grounds of not
qualified for global security levels (Mathew & Harley, 2014). The factors related to pull or
magnetized factors results in creating apprehensive situations on the Australian context as well.
However, prospective related to the augmented rate of migration under the resettlement
processing may further interpret into the ambiguity factors associated with the number of
immigration regions in Australia may necessitate to provide (McKenzie & Hasmath, 2013).
Furthermore, the major section of the migrant groups seeking entrance into Australia in the past
consists of distinctive safety requirements.
At this juncture, the issues surrounding to the Bali process must be taken into
consideration which is regarded as a fundamental political forum whereby Australia and other
nations including Indonesia have engaged themselves into the discourse of obligatory migration
disputes (Kneebone, 2014). Furthermore, several members have in recent times explained the
concept of Bali process as a deliberate, comprehensive, and nonbinding discussion forum for the

7WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
regulations discussion, information distribution along with competence building. However, the
past Bali process progress such as the Regional Cooperation Model as well as the Provincial
Support Office have not been able to offer any vital bilateral or multilateral processing that
would offer advantageous factors in concrete methods (Gammeltoft-Hansen & Tan, 2017).
Furthermore, the Bali process has been stated to provide states with concealment for functioning
and covering a universal hesitation and unwillingness of its associates towards the execution of
migrant safeguard (Koser & McAuliffe, 2013). As a result, the Bali process has been creating
obstacles and complexities in order to accomplish a constructive migrant safeguard arrangement
process between Australia and Indonesia. However, it has been stated that the Bali process may
also deliver unproductiveness to reach the areas where the security discussion have concealed
migrant protection requirements and the areas where its wide ranging association could hinder
intimate cooperation between the neighbouring states such as Australia and Indonesia (Klug,
2014).
Several barriers and complexities have predominantly existed between the Australia and
Indonesia arrangement whereby both the nations believe that there have been no significance of
reasons or inducements and where the apprehension towards the process of migration can be
considered as a magnetizing factor for several other asylum seekers. Thus various investigations
have been conducted in order to cope up with these critical barriers. It is further to note that this
processing of resettlement can be considered as a method for Australia to share migrant demands
with a vital and significant collaborator and further enhance the situation between the political
associations.

8WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
References
Gammeltoft-Hansen, T., & Tan, N. F. (2017). The End of the Deterrence Paradigm-Future
Directions for Global Refugee Policy. J. on Migration & Hum. Sec., 5, 28.
Gunningham, N. (2013). Managing the energy trilemma: The case of Indonesia. Energy
Policy, 54, 184-193.
Hirsch, A. L. (2017). The Borders Beyond the Border: Australia’s Extraterritorial Migration
Controls. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 36(3), 48-80.
Klein, N. (2014). Assessing Australia's push back the boats policy under international law:
Legality and accountability for maritime interceptions of irregular migrants. Melb. J. Int'l
L., 15, 414.
Klug, A. (2014). Strengthening the protection of migrants and refugees in distress at sea through
international cooperation and burden-sharing. International Journal of Refugee
Law, 26(1), 48-64.
Kneebone, S. (2014). The bali process and global refugee policy in the Asia–Pacific
region. Journal of Refugee Studies, 27(4), 596-618.
Koser, K., & McAuliffe, M. (2013). Establishing an evidence-base for future policy development
on irregular migration to Australia. Irregular Migration Research Program Occasional
Paper Series, 01-2013.
Mathew, P., & Harley, T. (2014). Refugee protection and regional cooperation in Southeast Asia:
A fieldwork report.

9WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
McAdam, J. (2013). Australia and asylum seekers.
McAdam, J. (2014). Refugees: Why seeking asylum is legal and Australia's policies are not.
UNSW Press.
McKenzie, J., & Hasmath, R. (2013). Deterring the ‘boat people’: Explaining The Australian
government's people swap response to asylum seekers. Australian Journal of Political
Science, 48(4), 417-430.
Missbach, A. (2013). Waiting on the Islands of'Stuckedness'. Managing Asylum Seekers in
Island Detention Camps in Indonesia: From the Late 1970s to the Early 2000s. Austrian
Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 6(2), 281.
Missbach, A. (2015). Troubled transit: asylum seekers stuck in Indonesia. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak
Institute.
Pedersen, A., & Hartley, L. K. (2015). Can we make a difference? Prejudice towards asylum
seekers in Australia and the effectiveness of antiprejudice interventions. Journal of
Pacific Rim Psychology, 9(1), 1-14.
Phillips, J., & Spinks, H. (2013). Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. Parliament of Australia,
Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliamentary Library.
Rowe, E., & O'Brien, E. (2014). ‘Genuine’refugees or illegitimate ‘boat people ‘: Political
constructions of asylum seekers and refugees in the Malaysia Deal debate. Australian
Journal of Social Issues, 49(2), 171-193.