Still Drifting

Australia's Pacific Solution becomes "A Pacific Nightmare"

August 2002 Executive Summary Full report as pdf (364kb)	Still Drifting is an update on developments affecting asylum seekers being processed in New Zealand, Nauru and Papua New Guinea. .

Executive Summary

In June 2002, the President of Nauru Rene Harris described Australia's so-called "Pacific Solution" to the refugee issue as "a Pacific nightmare".

Harris' statement came as more than 1,440 refugees and asylum seekers - mainly from Afghanistan and Iraq - were still being detained in camps in Nauru and Papua New Guinea under the Australian refugee policy dubbed the "Pacific Solution." The asylum seekers were refused access to Australia in August 2001 during the Tampa crisis and transported to "third countries" for their asylum applications to be processed. Statements about the "Pacific nightmare" reflect growing anger in the Pacific region that Australia is acting in its own interest, without concern for the dignity and development of neighbouring Pacific countries.

The origins of Australia's policy for asylum seekers in the Pacific are detailed in the Oxfam Australia report Adrift in the Pacific, released in February 2002.1 Many of the issues raised in that report remain valid today. The delay in processing and resettling the asylum seekers is causing rising concern; hundreds of the asylum seekers have been granted refugee status, yet they are still being held in detention in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Despite repeated claims on the part of the Australian Government that asylum seekers would not be re settled here, Oxfam Australia believes that Australia will have little alternative but to resettle most in the longer term.

Still Drifting adds new information about the ongoing plight of refugees and asylum seekers detained in the Pacific. This report details a number of ongoing concerns:

Budgeting for overseas processing

The Australian government has repeatedly said that the processing of asylum seekers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea is a temporary measure. However, the Australian government has budgeted $430 million over the next four years for offshore processing in Pacific Island countries.

In 2001-02, detention of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea has cost taxpayers more than $140 million, including $72 million spent on establishing and running the two detention centres on Nauru, and $42.5 million for the camp on Manus Island. Beyond this, $26.5 million of "additional aid" has been allocated for Nauru in 2002-2003, to meet pledges made by then Defence Minister Peter Reith and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to Nauru, in return for taking the asylum seekers.

Aid to Nauru

Until 1993, Nauru was not a regular recipient of Australian development aid, relying instead from revenues from phosphate mining. Funding to Nauru from the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) amounted to only $28 million between 1992-2001.

With "additional aid" of $26.5 million provided to host the asylum seeker detention camps, Nauru has received an unanticipated - and unsustainable - windfall from the "Pacific Solution."

The refugees currently on Nauru make up nearly 10 percent of the island's population, and place a significant burden on fuel and water supplies. Millions of dollars have been spent keeping the generators and desalination plant on Nauru operating since the refugees arrived, and there are major concerns about the need to re-supply stocks of diesel and lubricating fuel in the future.

The current Australian aid program for Nauru has been developed in an ad hoc manner, and long term planning is needed. The 2002-03 Australian budget includes $2.1 million for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to maintain a consulate on Nauru after the Australian High Commission on Nauru was closed in 1998 - a reflection of the low priority given to our Pacific neighbour until the Tampa crisis.

Refugee outcomes

As at 30 July 2002, 40 percent of the 1609 applications for refugee status processed in Nauru, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea have been successful.

Of the Afghan families and unaccompanied young men transferred from Nauru to New Zealand before the fall of the Taliban regime, 131 out of 132 (99 percent) were granted refugee status. In contrast, Afghans remaining in Nauru have been largely unsuccessful in the post-Taliban era, with only 54 of 751 people (7 percent) processed so far being granted refugee status. Delays by the UNHCR and Australian immigration officials in processing Nauru-based asylum seekers have seriously disadvantaged hundreds of Afghan applicants, because of the change of regime in Afghanistan. The UNHCR has acknowledged that that many more Afghans would have been granted refugee status if they had been detained and processed in Australia in 2001, rather than sent to Nauru.

In contrast, a significant majority of the Iraqi applicants have been granted refugee status (76 percent on Manus and 59 percent on Nauru). For people from other countries such as Pakistan, Iran and Palestine, around a third of those processed in Nauru and Manus have gained refugee status.

These figures contrast with media headlines and talk back radio commentary, which have suggested that few of the "Pacific Solution" refugees have valid claims for asylum.

Delays in resettlement

The Australian government is seeking resettlement places for people who receive refugee status in third countries, but for many, this will take time - possibly 12 months or more.

As of August 2002, at least 108 people have been resettled in New Zealand and Australia from more than 500 successful claimants in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. This includes 49 resettled in Australia. Not only does this contradict previous government statements but is an indirect acknowledgment of Oxfam Australia's previously stated view that Australia should increase its refugee intake. Either way resettlement will be slow and complex. This begs the questions for Australia - will refugees be held in detention indefinitely, even though they have already been classified as fleeing from persecution?

Political, social and economic impacts

Senior government, church and community leaders have continued to express concern over the political, economic and social impacts of the detention of refugees in the Pacific.

The current Australian policy has already exacerbated domestic political conflicts in neighbouring countries, contributing to the sacking of a PNG Foreign Minister and the electoral defeat of the long-serving Governor of Manus Province. In Nauru, senior public servants have been suspended for opposing the policy. There has been growing concern over long-term economic management by the government led by President Rene Harris, leading to the resignation of Nauru's Chief Secretary.

The Australian government has not been transparent with the public in Australia and Nauru about the length of time to be taken for the processing and resettling refugees. Political pressure on the Nauru government is likely to increase if Australia cannot quickly find resettlement places for those people who have been determined to be refugees.

As at May 2002, there were 363 children being detained in the camps in the Pacific. A particular concern is the status and welfare of these children, who do not even have the educational and welfare facilities available to children in Australian detention centres. The current inquiry by Australia's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) into the status of children in detention in Australia does not extend to the overseas camps in Nauru and Papua New Guinea.

Legal and constitutional concerns

There is growing concern in the region that Australia's Pacific Solution is breaching the Constitutions of Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Both Constitutions prevent arbitrary detention from occurring, with explicit provisions providing for the right to a lawyer and for detainees to be brought before a court and charged with an offence requiring detention. These basic human rights have been denied to the detainees on Nauru and Manus Island.

The governments involved should allow independent, qualified legal advisers to visit the camps, to advise all detainees of their full rights under Australian immigration law. Those detained in Manus Island and Nauru who are refused refugee status should have full rights to appeal the decision - in line with the legal rights of those in detention in Australia - even though they are detained overseas.

Safe to return to Afghanistan?

The Australian government is now offering financial inducements to Afghans held on Nauru whose asylum claims have been rejected, to return home voluntarily. However, given the unstable situation in Afghanistan, many UN officials are raising caution about repatriating Afghan refugees at the present time. Although the UNHCR has acknowledged the improved conditions in Afghanistan, they are insisting that any repatriation offer remains voluntary, as Afghanistan still faces enormous problems. The UNHCR says that there are valid reasons for Afghan individuals to be recognised as refugees. Oxfam Australia's own research indicates that security is still poor, with attacks on Pashtuns and other ethnic minorities continuing.

However, Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock has stated that the Australian government is considering forcibly repatriating Afghan detainees currently held in Nauru, Manus Island and camps in Australia, if they refuse to go home voluntarily. The Australian government has amended legislation that will allow the forcible removal of detainees from Manus and Nauru, and either their deportation overseas, or their transit through Australia to either the newly constructed camp on Christmas Island.

Oxfam Australia believes that Australia must take a clear stand against forcible deportation to countries where failed asylum applicants face danger and persecution. The Australian government must investigate other options, including safe haven and short-term humanitarian visas, to avoid the spectacle of Australian troops and police forcibly removing people from Nauru and Manus Island.

Skewed priorities

In its development programs in the Pacific, the Australian government stresses the importance of poverty reduction, good governance, transparency and sustainability. Oxfam Australia supports these policy directions, but is concerned that these principles have not been evident in the hasty introduction and implementation of the asylum seeker policy in the Pacific. Even within the government's priority of "border protection", the money spent on the so-called "Pacific Solution" could be better allocated.

• As expenditure on the Pacific Solution and aid to Nauru has soared, Australia has cut funds to the UNHCR who are dealing with the refugee crisis at source - a policy which Australia has publicly called for.

• The public focus on the 1,600 people affected by the "Pacific Solution" masks the tens of thousands of internally displaced people and refugees in neighbouring Pacific countries such as Solomon Islands, Bougainville and West Papua.

• The National Audit Office has acknowledged that the expenditure on the Pacific Solution has impacted upon management of other risks such as identity and document fraud.

Recommendations

Given the high cost to Australia's defence and aid budgets, and damage to Australia's reputation in the Pacific, Oxfam Australia believes that Australia should:

1. Stop processing applications for asylum in overseas countries. A policy of mandatory detention is inappropriate in Australia, and it should certainly not be exported to the Pacific islands region.

2. Give journalists and Australian independent monitors such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission unrestricted access to the Nauru and Papua New Guinea camps.

3. Encourage the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and all governments involved to allow independent, qualified legal advisers to visit the camps, to advise all detainees of their full rights under Australian immigration law.

4. Organise prompt resettlement of all those currently on Manus Island and Nauru. In doing so Australia should clarify when the refugees will leave Nauru and/or Manus Island to avoid increased tension in already fragile local communities.

5. Take a clear stand against forced repatriation. Given the continuing uncertainty in Afghanistan and the particular nature of their cases, those whose claims have been rejected should be offered a limited humanitarian visa in Australia, until there is clearer evidence that it is safe for them to go home.

6. Increase support to address the situation of refugees and internally displaced people in the Pacific islands in West Papua, Bougainville, the Solomon Islands and other countries.

7. Provide support for Pacific Island governments to sign and ratify the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol and other relevant human rights instruments, and to fully meet the relevant obligations.

8. Increase development assistance to meet the UN target of 0.7 percent of GDP, with special programs targeted at peace-building in areas of conflict, assistance to countries hosting millions of refugees (such as Pakistan and Iran) and long-term sustainable development programs.

9. Develop a new model for processing asylum seekers in Australia. This new model would see asylum seekers detained to for short periods to allow for health, security and identity checks. Those who passed such checks would be conditionally released into the community, with adequate funding for services such as English language training, employment assistance and trauma counselling. Whether remaining in detention or released, their cases would be reviewable and they would be supported by community-based caseworkers; and

10. Review resettlement policies, with a view to increasing the numbers of refugees accepted each year and prioritising the resettlement of those in the Pacific who have been granted refugee status.

For the full report is available as a pdf download (364kb)