Malaysia has more than 90,000 refugees, many of them ethnically-born Rohingya who are fleeing Burma. The presence of refugees in Malaysia is much greater than in Australia, but the subject does not dominate political discourse as here. Last week, they finally had hope when they were informed that they had been accepted by a foreign country to resettle. Like other refugees, they had no choice where to send them. They didn`t care. But Australia agreed to take them. In a few weeks, they will be relocated to Perth, one of two cases heading to the VA. “We are not currently in formal talks for a transfer agreement with Indonesia because I have focused on Malaysia,” Bowen said. The next morning, in one of The poorest neighbourhoods of Kuala Lumpur, Burmese refugee Patrick Sang Bawi Hnin heads to a non-descriptive door that marks the hidden entrance to china Centre, an underground relief group set up by Chin refugees.
Under the terms of the agreement, Australia has agreed to bear all transfer costs. Tenaganita, an organization that has been involved in human trafficking and refugee trafficking for 15 years, does not understand and sees how an asylum exchange framework of the convention will combat human trafficking. The agreement has raised concerns among refugee advocates and human rights groups, including the human rights record in Malaysia. They say Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention — a major reason why the federal government has not taken nauru as a treatment option. In 2009, several members of the UN Human Rights Council expressed “concerns” about refugees and asylum seekers detained in Malaysia. An unlikely coalition of senior judicial officials, lawyers, former diplomats and opposition politicians is questioning the legality of the agreement to take in refugees from Australia. UnHCR, which deals with all aspects of refugee treatment in Malaysia, said it had not been consulted on the plan or that it had said what it would be. (iv) complies with relevant human rights standards, when they guarantee such protection.
 M70/2011 and M106/2011 vs. Minister of Immigration and Citizenship  HCA 32 (August 31, 2011), Paraden 116 (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ).  Above, Para 118 (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ).  The Court found that there was “no need to consider a broader question about the content or application of the Minister`s duties as a guardian.” See above, by. 147 (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ).  Above, Para 146 (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ).  Prime Minister and Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, “Legislation Restoring the Powers of the Immigration Act” (press release of September 12, 2011), www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/legislation-to-restore-migration-act-powers/ (September 12, 2011).  Upstairs.  See z.B. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia on thieves and resettlement, Note 9, Clause 8, paragraph 1, 10, paragraph 2 a), 10(a), 10(a) (a)  Men who had been waiting until recently for transfer to Christmas Island were arrested at the Christmas Island Immigration Centre at North West Point. For more information on this institution, see Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009 Immigration detention and offshore processing on Christmas Island, at www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.html (viewed 24 august 2011) and Australian Human Rights Commission, 2010 Immigration detention on Christmas Island, at www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2010_christmas_island.html (viewed 24 August 2011).