Parallels of Cruelty to refugees:
Normalising the unacceptable in Australia and the UK
Philomena Murray, Margherita Matera and Tamara Tubakovic
May 2022
On 14 April 2022, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson unveiled the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the government signed with Rwanda. This MoU marks an important step in implementing the government’s new Nationality and Borders Act, regarded as the ‘the most radical changes to the broken asylum system in decades’ by punishing individuals who try to enter the UK without prior authorisation. A key component of this Act is the ability to send asylum-seekers who arrive in a manner that is dubbed ‘illegal’ (particularly targeting those who seek to arrive in UK via boat across the Channel) to be processed offshore. This MoU is the first such agreement that the UK government has signed with a third country to facilitate the offshore detention and processing of asylum claims. It also effectively prevents these asylum-seekers from being able to settle in the UK, should their claim be successfully processed.
This policy is framed for a domestic audience, linked to the rhetoric of the UK taking back control of its borders and determining who has the right to enter, or be excluded. Yet, this focus on control and deterrence will undermine the UK’s standing and responsibility as a member of the community of states that are signatories to the Refugee Convention.
The Nationality and Borders Act and the recent MoU further align the UK with the harmful and cruel practices that successive Australian governments have adopted since the 1990s, pursuing a harsh policy of deterrence and detention towards asylum-seekers arriving by boat. Australia’s approach comprises five pillars: mandatory and indefinite detention; offshore processing; maritime interdiction and push-backs; temporary protection visas (TPVs); and a no resettlement in Australia policy. Offshore detention and processing of asylum-seekers represents the ‘hallmark’ of Australia’s refugee policy, where the processing of asylum claims takes place beyond state territorial borders.
In 2001, the Australian government concluded bilateral agreements with the governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG) to facilitate the transfer of asylum-seekers to mandatory detention and processing centres in these countries as part of its Pacific Solution to deter what it labelled ‘unauthorised maritime arrivals.’ Legitimising this policy has been a narrative of protecting state sovereignty, where refugees are framed as threats to the integrity of state borders and societal cohesion. This policy has continued under successive governments, on both sides of the political spectrum, even in the face of extensive evidence of the harm caused to those asylum-seekers who have been transferred to offshore detention centres and of the violation of international refugee, human rights and maritime law. Despite this proven cruelty, Australia has increasingly been regarded - and even admired - as a model or template for governments around the world, and in particular for the UK government, as it also seeks to ‘take back control’ of its border.
The agreement with Rwanda paves the way for the UK to relocate asylum-seekers who arrive ‘illegally’ in the UK to Rwanda for processing. Under the scheme, individuals who are granted asylum will be encouraged to remain in Rwanda for at least five years. However, much of the scheme remains unclear.
Firstly, although the government had hoped that the first flights would commence by end May, the agreement is currently subject to a number of legal challenges which may either delay the implementation of the plan or scuttle the plan altogether.
Secondly, many practical aspects of the plan remain unclear. For example, there are short-term plans to convert a former hostel into a detention centre but no details on long-term plans to house transferred asylum-seekers.
Thirdly, there is no clarification as to what would happen to those individuals whose claims are rejected.
Fourthly, the agreement requires the consent of both the UK and Rwanda for the relocation of individuals to these detention centres. The UK is therefore reliant on the consent of Rwanda before it can transport an asylum seeker to Rwanda. In response to criticisms from the African Union and individual African states following an agreement that Rwanda signed with Denmark, the Rwandan government had stated ‘it will not accept relocation of citizens of neighbouring countries or those with criminal records’.
Australia is no template – borrower beware!
Although the UK government’s attempt to model Australia and introduce a system of offshore processing could be potentially short-lived, it unfortunately confirms that there is a growing cruelty in its approach. With the growing global movement of asylum-seekers and refugees, both Australia and the UK have decided to engage in harsh practices and the adoption of harmful models for refugee protection.
Given the widespread documented physical, mental and sexual abuse against men, women and children under Australia’s system of offshore processing and detention (See: Amnesty International 2013; 2014; 2016; Commonwealth of Australia 2015; Farrell, Evershed and Davidson 2016; UNHCR 2012; 2016), it is imperative that the UK government reconsider its plans to offshore its responsibilities, especially in light of its recognition that some refugees could face persecution under the Rwanda deal.
This approach by governments in the UK and Australia to externalisation risks eroding the international refugee system. Offshore processing policies challenge core principles of international refugee and human rights law, prevent people from exercising their right to seek asylum, and confine refugees in countries where their human rights are systematically violated.
If the UK continues to follow the current Australian approach, it is feasible that this externalisation approach could become even more entrenched in other states, as a growing number of politicians in Europe already admire and promote the Australian case as an exemplar - and some have indicated their support for the UK’s MoU with Rwanda.
These policies remain damaging, with substantial human and political costs. They undermine international efforts and collaboration to bring about an enduring solution to refugee protection. It is imperative to hold reluctant states to account as they offload responsibility to states that are not in a position to protect the rights of asylum-seekers.
Both Australia and the UK engage in inhumane and cruel policies. These agreements are not, as Prime Minister Johnson presented, ‘the prototype of a solution to the problems of global migration that is likely to be adopted by other countries’. There are viable alternatives. Rather than a race to the bottom, both of these states could take it upon themselves to become leaders for a new approach, one that recognises a common humanity and a common claim to protection.
Prof Philomena Murray, Jean Monnet Chair ad personam, is Honorary Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne. She holds honorary positions at Trinity College Dublin and the United Nations University Institute for Comparative Regional Integration Studies, Bruges. She is Director of the Comparative Network on Refugee Externalisation Policies (CONREP), ), a Jean Monnet Network that examines the externalisation of the refugee policies within the EU and Australia. She is a founder of Academics for Refugees. Research interests include refugee externalisation policies; EU legitimacy; comparative regionalism; EU-Asia and EU-Australia relations.
Dr Margherita Matera is a Research Fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Her research and publications focus on the European Union’s role as a security and foreign policy actor. She has a research interest in the externalisation and securitisation of EU refugee policies with a specific focus on how this has manifested in north Africa and with examining the parallels in externalisation policies between Australia and Europe. She is currently the Research Coordinator of the Comparative Network on Refugee Externalisation Policies (CONREP), a Jean Monnet Network that examines the externalisation of the refugee policies within the EU and Australia.
Dr Tamara Tubakovic is a Teaching Fellow in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Warwick. Her research intersects the fields of public policy, European Union politics, and refugee and border studies. Her work focuses on the institutional politics of EU asylum policy reform; the power of ideas and narratives in shaping policies on asylum seekers in Europe and Australia; and the construction and consequence of refugee externalisation policies. She is also a research partner on the Comparative Network on Refugee Externalisation Policies. (CONREP), a Jean Monnet Network that examines the externalisation of the refugee policies within the EU and Australia.