point of departure for a dangerous naval journey to Australia. As well recognised Indonesia is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees or the 1967 Protocol . Relevantly, nor is India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Laos, and Malaysia, among others which are more probably a source of refugees. This means that, for the purposes of international refugee law, asylum seekers in such countries are not afforded the usual legal protections provided by the Convention (e.g,. cooperation with the UNHCR, exemption from reciprocity, non-refoulment etc). As a result, legal judgement in countries which are signatories, such as Australia, declares that such locations do not constitute a "first safe country" for the purpose of seeking asylum. The UN Convention for the Rights of the Child must also be added to the list of international legal obligations that Australia is a signatory towards that is relevant in this debate, given the content of recent legislation. Processing of asylum seekers is therefore effectively carried at the most probably point of naval departure to Australia and prior to that departure, i.e., Indonesia. If additional processing was provided, this would reduce the numbers of those willing to engage in dangerous naval journeys. In this regard, the proposal of the Australian Greens have significant merit. As a result the Isocracy Network recommends: Recommendation 3 : Immediately increasing funding to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees by $10 million, specifically in Indonesia and Malaysia to boost the capacity to assess asylum applications. Recommendation 4 : Increasing