Though it has recently fallen from
international headlines, Australian refugee policy continues to stand as an
icon of the broken and unworkable international asylum regime. Recently, the Australian government
resurrected its policy under the moniker, the “Pacific Solution,” in which
people seeking asylum who arrive by boat to Australian waters are detained in
third party countries. The program was
closed down in 2008 after 1,637 asylum seekers were diverted by Australian
authorities to Nauru, or Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, to have their
refugee claims processed. According to the UNHCR “[t]he policy was
introduced in 2001 to deny asylum seekers access to Australian territory to
lodge their claims. The then government led by Prime Minister John Howard
adopted the Pacific Solution after Australia refused to allow a Norwegian
freighter, the MV Tampa, to enter Australian waters to disembark
433 mainly Afghan boat people rescued at sea.”
Policy makers hoped that this policy would deter future “unauthorized” asylum
seekers from attempting to reach Australia by boat without a visa. Australian migration policy allows individuals
whom the UNHCR has determined are refugees to apply for a visa abroad and then come
to Australia.
The
policy was harshly criticized for wrongly lumping individuals with legitimate
asylum claims in with economic migrants that the Australian government sought
to exclude. However, between 2001 and 2008, 1,153 of the 1,637 individuals
diverted into asylum camps were ultimately granted refugee status or
humanitarian protection. The UNHCR
confirmed that “[o]f those, 705 (approximately 61 percent) were resettled to
Australia; 401 went to New Zealand; 21 to Sweden; 16 to Canada, six to Denmark
and four to Norway.” The UNHCR criticized the policy stating that “[m]any
bona fide refugees caught by the policy spent long periods of isolation, mental
hardship and uncertainty – and prolonged separation from their
families.” With the termination of the “Pacific Solution” the Australian
government began processing asylum seekers on Christmas Island where
authorities promised to adhere to the letter and spirit of the 1951 Refugee
Convention. However, the core of the
policy, mandatory detention of asylum seekers, remained and remains in
place. Given that asylum claims take an
average of 2 years to process, mandatory detention,
whether on or off Australian territory, approaches the penal. The 1951 Refugee Convention holds that
refugees should be granted government protection while their status is being
determined.
In
September 2012, the labor government, which was responsible for closing the
“Pacific Solution,” reopened off-shore processing in Nauru. From September to April, 2013 the Australian
government spent approximately US $104 million on the program. It appears that the Australian government has
learned few lessons from the first round of the “Pacific Solution.” A three-day inspection by Amnesty
International concluded in a scathing report. “The situation on Nauru is unacceptable. The
unlawful and arbitrary detention of these men in such destitute conditions is
cruel, inhuman and degrading,” said Amnesty’s Dr. Graham Thom. Dr. Thom continued, “[t]he news that five
years could be the wait time for these men under the government’s ‘no advantage’
policy added insult to injury, with one man attempting to take his life on
Wednesday night.” When the Australian government voted to reinstate the
program “the House rejected an amendment that would have set a
one-year limit on the time asylum seekers could be held at the offshore sites.”
Even
more damning is the fact that this hardline policy appears to be failing at its
principal goal: deterrence. According to the BBC, “[s]ince the
government announced its return to the Pacific Solution, 21,730 passengers have
arrived in Australian waters in 340 boats.” The government is responding to conservative concerns with
stemming the tide
of non-white, low-skilled immigrants that would disturb the traditional ethnic
makeup of migration to the country.
There is a political sense that the country is
being overrun by the so-called “boat people” and the newly elected government
has vowed to stop the boats. However,
the Migration Policy Institute points out that
overall asylum numbers in Australia are relatively small:
“While the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports
that the population of resident refugees and asylees has grown for several
decades, the numbers are relatively small. According to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Australia had 23,434 designated refugees
living in the country in 2011. (By comparison, Canada had 164,883 refugees and
Germany, which hosted the fourth-largest number of refugees worldwide, had
571,685. Pakistan hosts the greatest number of refugees, 1,702,700.)”
In addition, Australia’s foreign
born population reflects a heavier presence of Europeans than either Canada or
the US (47.1% compared with 36.8% and 12.1% respectively).
Ultimately, Australian asylum
policy hinges on the legal fiction of an “authorized” asylee or refugee. By requiring that refugees be pre-approved by
the UNHCR before seeking asylum in Australia foists the cost and responsibility
of adjudicating asylum claims on an underfunded and overstretched international
organization. While the UNHCR struggles
to provide basic needs in humanitarian crisis areas such as the countries
neighboring Syria, it is unconscionable for Australian migration officials to
ask so much. More likely is that the
UNHCR stamp of approval is a politically convenient mechanism for restricting
the flow of migrants and refugees into the country.
However, blame does not fall on Australia
alone. Most developing countries have
taken similar measures to restrict access by people seeking refuge. In Europe, the policy
of “push-back” is being widely applied as Frontex
diverts boats with migrants and potential asylum seekers back to third
party countries. Recently, Switzerland
amended its immigration policy and closed down the ability of potential
refugees to file for asylum at Swiss embassies, effectively making arriving on
European soil the only means for application.
Switzerland was the only European country to offer extraterritorial asylum
application. In the United States, tightening
of immigration and border enforcement has made it more difficult for
potential refugees to reach US soil and make their claim. What
is occurring in Australia is only one particularly glaring example of how the
international refugee system is broken.
