The Australia Asylum Debacle

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.