Alternatives to Refugee Offshoring: A Look Into Australia’s Asylum Policies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Australia’s offshoring policies and use of migrant detention centers lead to severe human rights violations. Currently, multiple European countries attempt to establish similar outsourcing partnerships with African states, which endangers the entire asylum system. To emphasize human security as a global norm, Parliament must outlaw offshoring practices. Australia ought to establish community-operated accommodation centers within national territory, which could be managed by locally based non-profits or international NGOs such as Amnesty International or the International Rescue Committee. The U.S., Sweden, and Canada have already implemented community-based models that proved to be more humane and cost-efficient than current for-profit detention centers. Australia could also lessen the number of incarcerated individuals by removing the annual refugee quota. To date, if the government already reached the set cap, those who meet resettlement criteria are still subjected to traumatic offshoring experiences. To improve the morality of Australia’s asylum system, Parliament must:
· Establish onshore community-operated accommodation facilities that include individualized case management programs
· Abolish the refugee quota
· Increase transparency so the global community can verify that adjudication processes occur in accordance with international law
Introduction
Established in 2001, the “Pacific Solution Policy’’ initiated the transfer of asylum seekers arriving on Australian shores to the islands of Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG). This scheme marked the beginning of an outpouring of protectionist strategies implemented by the Canberra government. While states have the right to uphold principles of sovereignty, the offshoring of refugees creates three primary humanitarian and geopolitical issues. Firstly, relocated individuals endure poor living conditions and a lack of access to rights such as healthcare and education. Recent reports of exceptionally high rates of adult self-harm (Hedrick 2019) and Traumatic Withdrawal Syndrome in children demonstrate the long-term effects of residing in inhumane detention centers (“Child..Facts” 2018). Several detainees also suffer post-traumatic stress disorder from prior experiences associated with forced displacement (“Australia…Guinea” 2019). A severe shortage of healthcare on the island prevents residents from receiving needed treatment. In efforts to appease the outraged human rights activist community, Parliament passed a 2019 Medevac law that allowed refugees to be temporarily transferred to Australia to receive medical care (“Offshore…Statistics” 2022). In December of that year, however, officials repealed this law, leaving individuals already approved for transfer in Nauru. Due to these inadequate policies, 12 people died in Australian detention centers, most from suicide (“Factsheet…Borders” 2019). One detainee who fled conflict in the Middle East illustrated the situation, expressing that “in [his] country they torture your body but in Australia they kill your mind” (Passardi 2022).
Secondly, offshoring plays a primary role in maintaining Australia’s neo-colonial relationship with Nauru. Rather than recognizing Nauru’s sovereignty, the Canberra administration uses its land as though it belonged to Australia. Upon consideration, one can easily recognize the hypocrisy of this policy. Australia initiated offshoring activities under the claim that asylum seekers endangered the country’s sovereign territory. As a solution, the government established a resettlement scheme that encroaches on the sovereign interests of another state.
(“Australia…Guinea” 2019). Because Nauru remains dependent on Australia for trade, officials have little opportunity to oppose the Pacific policy. And considering the territory’s miniature size, only eight square miles or 25 minutes to drive around the entire island, the addition of hundreds to over a thousand asylum seekers places a significant burden on local populations (Salyer 2020). The policy directly contradicts concepts of sovereignty that Australia claims to uphold and demonstrates a continuation of Western exploitation of former colonies.
Thirdly, offshoring represents a transfer of responsibility from a country with greater resources to a state with lesser capacity, which could have detrimental impacts on the whole asylum system if applied on a wide scale. Though Australia operated the Pacific Solution for over two decades, its relevance and timeliness have renewed in light of the recent changes in the UK’s asylum policy. In April 2022, Britain passed a law that would allow the offshoring of asylum seekers arriving from the English Channel to Rwanda (“Memorandum…Rwanda” 2022). Home Secretary Priti Patel modeled the UK-Rwanda Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) directly off Australia’s policy with Nauru. Denmark and Austria also expressed interest in implementing similar programs, marking the beginning of the proliferation of a cruel policy that sacrifices the welfare of individuals involved. A Doctors Without Borders employee who spent over a year working with refugees in Nauru expressed great disdain towards the UK policy. He attempted to spread awareness of how the “detention system shattered people’s resilience, identity, and hope,” and that “no pharmacological treatment or psychological therapy can help the people kept in these environments to fully recover” (O’Conner 2022). Because of its comparatively small size, the situation in Nauru is not well known, and awareness of the human rights abuses must be spread to caution policymakers considering implementing similarprograms.
In recent months, Australia formed agreements with third countries such as New Zealand and the United States to resettle hundreds of refugees. Thanks to these arrangements, only around 100refugees remain in Nauru. However, the government maintains its agreement with the island to host irregular arrivals, giving the state power to continue relocations if asylee numbers increase (“Regional…Resettlement” 2022). Additionally, the state recently signed a $4.6 million deal with a former US prison operator accused of negligence that led to gang rape and two murders in immigrant detention centers (Doherty & Knaus 2022). Australia must spearhead a new immigration solution for those remaining and, on a wider scale, put forth a narrative that emphasizes human security as a global norm.
Proposed Policy Options
Bail Programs
An alternative to detention (ATD) could materialize through surveyed release agreements for asylum seekers and refused refugee claimants. This program would discharge detainees who meet the criteria under strict supervision while providing case management resources to determine specialized solutions for each person. Upon extended compliance with program requirements, the surveillance of those released gradually subsides as trust between caseworkers and refugees builds. One project, the Toronto Bail Program in Canada, has successfully implemented this system since 1996 and achieved an average 94% compliance rate (“Alternatives…Canada” 2015). Additionally, the program “costs CA$10–12 per person per day compared with CA$179 for detention” (“Alternatives…Canada” 2015). The program also collaborates with a local homeless shelter to provide accommodation for those released, which indicates its holistic and supportive approach.
The Canadian Council for Refugees advocates for this program over immigrant incarceration; however, they outline issues regarding the scheme’s design. Firstly, the plan mimics elements of the criminal justice system (“Alternatives…Program” 2015). Even the term “bail” contains connotations related to former convict reentry into society. As widespread stereotypes equating refugees with criminals already pervade the international community, governments must encourage narratives that humanize rather than vilify those fleeing conflict. Additionally, if detainees do not meet the requirements for participation in the bail program, it can make them seem less eligible for other forms of release (“Alternatives…Program” 2015). The Council also expressed concern with delayed processing times, which may leave detainees
imprisoned for extended periods. Overall, supervised release programs improve upon detention centers but carry ulterior issues that may impede immigrant welfare.
Furthermore, governments must implement bail programs that ensure the humane treatment of those released. The Canadian models of ATD differ significantly from US schemes, which essentially prolong detention center surveillance methods. ICE collaborates with private prison corporations to operate US ATD programs. Unlike the support services implemented under the Toronto Bail Program, US ATD does not include case management to help refugees navigate ambiguous bureaucratic processes. Instead, surveillance techniques deteriorate the dignity of asylum seekers through aggressive home searches, court tracking, and arbitrarily mandated ankle shackles (“Report…Incarceration” 2019). One woman, for example, shared that an ICE officer told her the anklet should be removed by her first or second appointment. However, after ten months, she still endured the device because its removal is left to the discretion of the specific ICE officer on her case (“Report…Incarceration” 2019).
While ICE claims electronic ankle monitors (EM) provide liberation to people who might otherwise be imprisoned, in actuality, they serve as a tool of legal violence that seeks to criminalize migrants. Frequent EM malfunctions trigger “violations” that alert the police and can be used to justify deportation (Martinez-Aranda 2022). The defects create a
barrier between those with EM and their surrounding migrant communities who hope to avoid confrontation with the authorities (Martinez-Aranda 2022). By severing opportunities to build social ties, American EM serves as a form of “extended punishment”, eliminating the autonomy ATD supposedly provides. While the US ATD program boasts the cheapest costs at only $4.43 per day (compared to the $129.64 daily costs of detention per adult) and achieved a 77% compliance rate, Australia ought to follow Canada’s more ethical approach to comply with humanitarian sentiments.
Community-Based Accommodation
Rather than offshoring or implementing forms of surveillance that treat immigrants as criminals, Australia can establish community-based accommodation facilities within its national territory. These facilities, operated by non-profits and humanitarian activists rather than the currently used for-profit prison management companies, would supply a more ethical and cheaper asylum system. Models in the U.S., Canada, and Sweden already found success using these tactics and boasted high program compliance rates. These schemes use a holistic approach that provides shelter, food, support services, and, most importantly, individualized case management
plans. Each participant collaborates with a caseworker to familiarize themselves with tools for financial literacy, education, and identity documentation (“Report…Incarceration” 2019). One Chicago participant who entered the program after their release from an ICE detention center described it as “an immigration hospital. They take emotionally broken people, who have been oppressed in their homeland, and provide a supportive and caring environment where they help people adjust to life in the United States” (“Report…Incarceration” 2019). Quickly moving asylum seekers from detention centers or, better yet, directly transferring them to community-based centers to await processing would allow them to bypass additional trauma caused by imprisonment. Community-based programs also promote a narrative of care and rehabilitation as opposed to ideas of criminal redemption.
Opponents commonly argue that creating a welcoming and comfortable asylum system will encourage more people to seek refuge, thus burdening the Australian government and taxpayers. Controversy exists in the scholarly community regarding the effects of restrictive migration policies in destination countries. Hatton and Williamson find that policies such as immigration quotas and migration selectivity can intervene in people’s decision to seek asylum, affecting net immigration rates into certain countries (“The…Migration” 2016). However, on a broader level, regulation measures cannot be successful because push factors beyond destination country control often carry more influence than policies (“The…Migration” 2016). Because politics and laws will not halt people fleeing physical threats such as violence, poverty, or disaster, individual countries with rigid policies only exacerbate the refugee crisis on an international scale. As nearly all migration scholars agree, strict regimes combined with entrepreneurial smuggler networks propel people to pursue irregular and dangerous routes of movement (“The…Migration” 2016). People in dire situations will continue to migrate despite any obstacles governments place in their way. Decreasing legal routes for asylum forces people to seek out illegal migration pathways, which empowers criminal networks while endangering innocent people.
Reform Processing Systems
A 2014 Amendment placed a cap on the number of protection visas the government can issue per year (“Asylum…Australia” 2022). Thus, even if Australia plans to accept the individual’s asylum claim, a visa cannot be granted if the quota has been reached. The policy generates severe delays in processing for people waiting for their status to be determined and for those with refused claims who await deportation. The regulation also catalyzed extended wait times for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the body in charge of claimant decisions. In 2021, the median time for an asylum decision stood at 104 weeks, with the Tribunal only processing 34% of refugee cases within the year (“Asylum…Australia” 2022). In fact, the recent resettlement agreements for hundreds of people in Nauru came nine years after negotiations originally took place (Butler & Hurst 2022). During this wait time, asylum seekers remained in limbo without access to healthcare, education, or employment. Australia ought to repeal this law, to allow for more rapid processing and deportation of those refused. Moreover, a UNHCR report highlighted the intricacy of refugee cases arriving in Nauru and the lack of adjudication experience among Nauruan officials, which causes increased processing times. (UNHCR 2013). The Canberra Administration must ensure that all personnel receive adequate training to properly assess claims.
Increase Transparency
While word from resettled persons and the few doctors allowed on the island during the Medevac law exposed the injustices occurring in Nauru, rigid secrecy regulations likely disguise the true extent of the abuse. Madeline Gleeson, a lawyer who worked in the offshore detention centers, referred to the laborers in the detention facilities:
”If somebody working in one of these offshore centres were to talk publicly about what was going on in that centre, they would be subject to two years’ imprisonment for having spoken about that. That is not speaking about classified national security information; that is talking about the common comings and goings of the day… [Nauran law] also originally covered doctors who might be raising concerns that they were seeing with patients there” (Hynd 2021).
Concern about international reputation and pressure from Australia to keep the occurrences quiet prompted Nauru to implement strict censorship policies on people involved in migrant offshoring. A recent report surfaced, revealing the Australian government’s contracts with private security company Wilson Security to survey asylum seekers in Nauru who spoke to journalists, lawyers, and refugee advocates (Knaus 2022). After a string of protests, Wilson began keeping tabs on refugees who spread “negative propaganda” about regional processing centers (Knaus 2022). The necessity of corporations to survey and possibly muffle citizen voices indicates the lack of morality involved in the detention centers and calls for concern regarding the government’s management of protestors. Full transparency must be reached to ensure that Australia, a state typically recognized as an advocate of human rights, genuinely fulfills its humanitarian responsibilities towards refugees.
Recommendations
REPEAL THE 2014 AMENDMENT
This would allow for rapid processing of those left waiting. Placing quotas on the number of refugees accepted does not act as a method of deterrence and, instead, deepens the burden on host facilities and exacerbates human rights violations of those in transit. Removing this law will allow the Appeals Tribunal to decrease current backlogs and catalyze resettlement activities. A change in legislation will also signal a narrative change in Australia’s migration policy, indicating a prioritization of moralism to the international community.
ABOLISH OFFSHORE PROCESSING
The government should cut ties with prison operators and, instead, collaborate with non-profit and charity organizations to establish housing and administrative facilities that can house refugees. They should then transfer all asylum seekers in Nauru to onshore programs that provide individualized case management and physical and mental health support services. Though this will require a start-up cost, the long-term financial outlook of community-based programs will save government resources and taxpayer money. Additionally, removing refugees will ease the burden on Nauru and mark a step towards reducing neo colonial relationships with islands in the Pacific. Australia can also implement other ATD such as bail programs, however, only as a last resort for participants who may not be eligible for community center shelters.
INCREASE TRANSPARENCY
Allow journalists and international activist organizations full access to Nauru and all other asylum processing facilities. Without media transparency, the global community cannot know that Australia upholds the human rights of those fleeing conflict. Australia must demonstrate its commitment to human security in law, practice, and international media.
