Search

Begin New Search Topic Asylum Seekers Political Geography Australia

1. Temporary Protection Visas in Australia: A reform proposal

Author:
Mary Anne Kenny, Nicholas Procter, and Carol Grech
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
The election of a new government in May 2022 provides an opportune moment to reassess Australia’s approach to refugees and people seeking asylum. The Labor government has signalled that our treatment of refugees and asylum seekers needs to change—to provide people with greater certainty and more durable protection, and to enable the Australian community to benefit more fully from their contribution. One of the most detrimental elements of Australian refugee law and policy in the past decade has been the use of temporary visas. Temporary protection has been the only option available for people who arrived by boat and were recognised as refugees. Known as the ‘legacy caseload’, these people are caught in a system of law and policy that keeps them in a state of perpetual limbo. This is an inhumane, unsustainable, and inefficient system that inflicts mental harm and creates costly, bureaucratic burdens. Providing permanent protection to the 31,000 men, women, and children in this group—many of whom have been recognised by Australia as refugees in need of protection—would provide them with a resolution of their legal status and enable them to move forward with their lives, while also acknowledging the significant contribution this group has already made to the community through work and social engagement. This Policy Brief provides concrete recommendations about how to move refugees on temporary visas to permanent visas—using existing powers under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and minor amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)—as well as recommendations for people whose protection claims have not yet been assessed, or have been refused. The 17 recommendations are intended as a package of coherent and inter-related measures, rather than a suite of different options.
Topic:
Reform, Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Temporary Protection Visas
Political Geography:
Australia

2. Cruel, costly and ineffective: The failure of offshore processing in Australia

Author:
Madeline Gleeson and Natasha Yacoub
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
‘Offshore processing’ is a method of border control which involves forcibly transferring asylum seekers to third States to have their claims processed.1 It is not a new phenomenon. 2 However, whereas offshore processing was previously viewed as ‘a significant exception to the normal practice’,3 Australia’s development of the policy over the past two decades has generated significant political interest elsewhere, such that other countries are looking to replicate it. 4 In light of this development, this policy brief critically assesses Australia’s experience of offshore processing against its stated policy objectives and other indicators of success or failure, including its cost, lawfulness and impact on the people subject to it. For most of the past two decades, offshore processing has been a hallmark of Australia’s approach to deterring people from seeking asylum by boat. First established by a conservative Coalition government in 2001, the policy operated until 2008 when it was dismantled by the new Labor government as an abject policy failure. Despite that assessment, Labor re-established offshore processing in 2012 following an increase in the number of people trying to reach Australia by boat, and a political impasse in Parliament as to how this should be addressed. In its second iteration, offshore processing saw asylum seekers transferred to Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG) for two years, under shifting policy settings, before Australia ceased new transfers in 2014 and reoriented its border protection policies to maritime interception. While offshore processing formally remains part of Australia’s asylum policy in 2021, Australia has spent considerable effort and money since 2014 trying unsuccessfully to extract itself from its arrangements in Nauru and PNG. This policy brief explores the objectives and practice of offshore processing since 2012, highlighting four distinct phases of the policy. It analyses the failure of offshore processing to achieve its border protection, humanitarian and foreign policy aims. In particular, it finds that the Australian model of offshore processing: • does not deter irregular maritime migration, ‘stop the boats’ or ‘break the business model’ of people smuggling networks; • does not ‘save lives at sea’ or achieve any other humanitarian objective; and • suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty.
Topic:
Border Control, Offshoring, Migration Policy, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Australia

3. The Interdiction of Asylum Seekers at Sea: Law and (mal)practice in Europe and Australia

Author:
Violeta Moreno-Lax
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
The phenomenon of irregular migration by sea or ‘boat migration’ is not new, 1 but it has drawn significant attention since the Tampa affair in Australia in 2001 and during the so-called ‘migration/refugee crisis’ in the Mediterranean in 2015–2016. Both regions have replaced proactive search and rescue (SAR) efforts with militarised border security missions, which has had detrimental effects on those seeking asylum. This policy brief explores this evolution and critically evaluates policies and practices of deterrence at sea against the standards set by international law. It considers:  State powers of interception, as regulated by the law of the sea for the different maritime zones, in particular as they relate to flagless (migrant) vessels;  The duties of SAR for flag and coastal States, clarifying notions of ‘distress’, ‘rescue’, ‘disembarkation’ and ‘place of safety’ as applied to asylum seekers;  The interaction of State obligations under the law of the sea with their obligations under human rights and refugee law, especially with respect to the principle of non-refoulement, non-arbitrary detention and due process guarantees, as well as issues of extraterritoriality and ‘effective control’. The policy brief concludes that current strategies in Europe and Australia are not viable in the long term. It recommends that both regions abandon practices of containment without protection, engage in genuine SAR actions, and embrace a comprehensive approach to ‘boat migration’ that conforms with States’ international legal obligations and the rights of refugees and migrants.
Topic:
International Law, Migration, Refugee Crisis, Deterrence, Protection, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Europe and Australia

4. Extraterritorial processing in Europe: Is ‘regional protection’ the answer, and if not, what is?

Author:
Jane McAdam
Publication Date:
05-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
The loss of over 700 lives in a single incident in the Mediterranean on 18 April 2015, following a six-day period in which over 10,000 migrants were rescued, has sparked renewed debates about whether extraterritorial processing – sometimes called ‘offshore processing’ – might save lives at sea.1 Despite a plethora of European proposals over the past 20 years, none has ever been sufficiently fleshed out to receive adequate support to be implemented. Legal and practical concerns have proven insurmountable. There is also recognition that while regional or other external processing arrangements may provide a useful complement to other protection mechanisms, they are not a solution in and of themselves. This paper examines European proposals for extraterritorial processing and the establishment of regional protection centres by considering: • their policy rationale; • their history; • legal concerns; • comparisons with Australia and the United States; • the role of host States; • models for regional processing; and • complementary strategies that can provide a protection ‘toolkit’. Cooperative regional approaches can help States to develop more coherent, systematic and predictable responses to refugee movements. But they must acknowledge the concerns and interests of all participating States. And timely solutions for refugees will be central to their success or failure. The paper concludes by offering a flexible range of tools that can help States to provide protection in a safer, and more regular, manner. Unless States create measures to allow people to seek protection lawfully, dangerous journeys will continue.
Topic:
Refugees, Protection, Asylum Seekers, and Extraterritorial Processing
Political Geography:
Europe, Australia, United States of America, and Mediterranean