The Pacific Solution was the name given to the Australian government policy (2001–2007) of transporting asylum seekers to detention centres on small island nations in the Pacific Ocean, rather than allowing them to land on the Australian mainland. It had bipartisan support from both the Liberal-National government and Labor opposition at the time. The Pacific Solution consisted of three central strategies. Firstly, thousands of islands were excised from Australia’s migration zone or Australian territory. Secondly, the Australian Defence Force commenced Operation Relex to interdict vessels carrying asylum seekers. Finally, these asylum seekers were removed to third countries in order to determine their refugee status. There were a number of pieces of legislation supporting this policy. The policy was developed by the Howard government in response to the 2001 Tampa affair and was implemented by then Australian Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock.
Asylum seekers were intercepted at sea while sailing from Indonesia and moved using Australian naval vessels. Detention centres were set up on Christmas Island, Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, and on the tiny island nation of Nauru. Some were also accepted for processing by New Zealand. Most of the asylum seekers came from Afghanistan (largely of the Hazara ethnic group), Iraq, Iran, China, and Vietnam. The last asylum seekers to be detained on Nauru before the end of the policy had come from Sri Lanka and Myanmar.[1]
Under the Pacific solution, 30 percent were sent home, 43 per cent of asylum seekers resettled from Nauru and Manus Island ended up in Australia. The remaining were settled in other countries.[2]
The policy was abandoned by the Australian Labor Party government of Kevin Rudd following its election in 2007.
Contents |
The Pacific Solution was introduced as a deterrent to asylum seekers travelling by boat to Australia without the authorisation of the Australian government. This is not actually required under the Refugee Conventions Australia has signed, however in support of the policy Prime Minister Howard prominently stated that "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."[3]
By redefining the area of Australian territory that could be landed upon and then legitimately used for claims of asylum (the migration zone), and by removing any intercepted people to third countries for processing, future asylum seekers were deterred from making the dangerous journey, once they knew that their trip would in most likelihood not end up with a legitimate claim for asylum in Australia.[4]
The Pacific Solution goal was reducing the number of irregular entrants arriving in the Australian waters by boat. Arrivals dropped from a total of 5516 people in 2001 to only 1 arrival in all of 2002 after implementation of the policy. This may be partly due to the removal of the Taliban from power, however the War in Afghanistan itself was a likely push factor. The low level of boat arrivals continued all the way through the Pacific Solution period. Since the abolition of the policy there has been a sharp increase in boatpeople arrivals with over 2700 boatpeople arriving in 2009 alone.[5][6]
During the Pacific Solution period and liberation of Afgahnistan and Iraq, the Howard Government was able to begin closing detention centres due to the lower number of refugees fleeing persecution. Baxter, Woomera and Curtin detention centres were all closed during the Pacific Solution. The Labor government opened Christmas Island detention centre late 2008, and has since expanded facilities accommodation there replacing the Nauru facilities.[7][8][9]
The number of genuine refugees who were put through the Pacific Solution process was much lower than those who are currently seeking asylum. Only around 40% of Pacific Solution refugees were granted Australian Visas, another 30% went to other countries such as New Zealand (who have the right to settle in Australia) and another 30% were sent home.
In May 2011, amid the Gillard government's plans to address the issue of asylum seekers arriving by non-air means by organising an asylum seeker 'swap' for long-standing genuine refugees with Malaysia. Refugee lawyers asked the High Court to strike down the deal, arguing that the Immigration Minister did not have the power to send asylum seekers to a country that has no legal obligations to protect them.
There were calls on the government to revisit the Pacific Solution by re-opening the detention centres on Nauru. Several of these came from former outspoken critics of The Pacific Solution. Refugee lawyer Marion Le, who had demanded the facility be shut down in 2005, said that it was "time for Labor to bite the bullet and reopen Nauru", while human rights lawyer Julian Burnside agreed, saying "asylum-seekers would receive better treatment in Nauru than Malaysia." [10] This echoed the sentiment of Independent MP Andrew Wilkie who several days previously, while stopping short of calling for a return to the previous arrangement, noted that "John Howard's Pacific Solution was better." [11] The Australian Government now has an increased urgency of finding a processing centre solution after the Malaysian swap deal was deemed unlawful by the High Court.[12]
A poll of 51,305 readers by Fairfax Media that closed on 2nd September, 2011 indicates that 40% of Australians, or of Fairfax Newspaper readers, want on-shore processing of asylum seekers, 20% want re-opening of Naru, and 35% want to send all asylum seekers 'home' whether genuine refugees or not.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/polls/opinion/malaysia-refugee-swap-ruled-unlawful-20110831-1jld6.html
On 27 October, 2008 the Sydney Morning Herald's Diplomatic Editor, Cynthia Banaham, reported in her article "Afghans Sent Home To Die" that an SBS documentary called "A Well-Founded Fear" that was to air on 19 November of that year told the stories of nine Afghan refugees that were deported under the Pacific Solution and later killed by the Taliban - matters raised by the Edmund Rice Foundation. Phillip Ruddock, Immigration Minister under the Howard Government until 2003 said, "I would never say mistakes are impossible...", and added, "It is the case that Afghanistan is a dangerous place but the [United Nations] Refugee Convention does not say you cannot be returned to a dangerous place".
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/afghans-sent-home-to-die/2008/10/26/1224955853319.html
The policy received criticism from a number of areas, with Amnesty International, refugee rights groups and other non-governmental organisations claiming that Australia was failing to meet its international obligations. The ad-hoc nature in which the policy evolved was also criticised, as it resulted in people being moved to Manus Island and Nauru before facilities were ready.
As of 29 May 2005, a total of 1,229 asylum seekers had been processed on Nauru. Most of those detained were eventually found to be legitimate refugees, sometimes after more than three years in detention. By October 2005 all but two remaining asylum seekers, Mohammed Sagar and Muhammad Faisal, had been transferred to mainland Australia with the majority of these entering the community with temporary protection visas. While Faisal and Sagar were eventually resettled to Australia and Sweden respectively, additional groups of Burmese and Sri Lankan Tamil refugees were brought to the island in 2006 and 2007.
Worldwide refugee applications peaked on a 20 year high in 2001, and fell by around 50% by 2006. This period coincided with the Pacific Solution implementation and makes it difficult to judge the true efficacy of the program.
The cost of the Pacific Solution was over A$15.5 million in 2003/2004, taken from the AusAID budget of $69.9 million.[13]
During the campaign for the 2007 parliamentary election, Australian Labor Party candidate Kevin Rudd promised to put an end to the Pacific Solution if he were elected. Upon assuming office in December, Rudd confirmed that the detention centres on Manus Island and on Nauru would be closed. The seven asylum seekers from Myanmar and 75 of the 83 from Sri Lanka were determined to be genuine refugees and granted the right to settle in Australia.[14][15] An additional 6 Sri Lankans had been found to be genuine refugees but had wrongly been charged with sexual assault; those charges were dropped in January 2008, making it possible for the six men to be resettled in Australia (pending standard health and character checks). Of the two remaining Sri Lankans, one is appealing the rejection of his refugee application, while the other is currently (as of January 2008) hospitalised in Australia.[16] The first 21 Sri Lankan refugees arrived in Australia for resettlement in January 2008.[17] The final 21 arrived in Australia on 8 February, leaving the detention camp empty and marking the end of the Pacific Solution.[18]
Nauru has reacted with concern at the prospect of potentially losing much-needed aid from Australia.[19] Opposition immigration spokesman Chris Ellison said the closure could suggest to people-smugglers that Australia was weakening on border protection.[20]
Julia Gillard vowed in July 2010 to establish a "regional processing centre" in East Timor.[21][22] This was quickly followed by considerable confusion as to the meaning of the announcement.[23]
Tony Abbott has vowed to restart the Pacific Solution policy if he becomes Prime Minister, and engaged with Nauru during the 2010 election campaigning period.[24]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||