Recently, an international conference about camps and border studies was held at Graz University in Austria. I had a chance to participate and discuss Australia’s policy on asylum seekers and refugees. Throughout the conference, Australia was referenced constantly. Wherever I went, I heard of the nation’s banishment of refugees to Manus Island and Nauru cited as a cruel example of the detention industry.
We refugees in Australia have made global headlines over the past decade with different stories of our collective resistance. It is obvious to us how the nation’s detention process has spread internationally.
Many say Australia has inspired other countries, as evidenced by the United Kingdom’s recent plan to send refugees to Rwanda. This is true, but it is not the whole story. Australia’s complex system of violence is spreading globally not only because it is an “inspiration” but also because the nation’s governments have actively influenced, embedded and legitimised detention regimes through language, legal and political frameworks, and a new industrial network of security companies.
Australia has spent $12 billion on its sophisticated detention model over the past 12 years, establishing a large industry from which private companies have benefited. The process has been opaque at best: still today, unanswered questions remain regarding the government’s contracts with private security contractors, such as Paladin, which has faced an AFP investigation following allegations of million-dollar bribes to secure the backing of high-ranking PNG officials to enable it to run offshore processing on Manus Island.
Australia has actively exported this model. In August 2016, Australia welcomed six Danish politicians to visit Nauru to explore the possibility of replicating the system, who then met with Australian officials in Canberra. One of the politicians, Martin Henriksen, a member of the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party, explained that Denmark could maintain refugee camps in Kenya or Greenland, saying, “Australia has found an interesting model. The government will continuously assess different migration policies by looking at the experiences of other countries, including Australia.”
In 2022, former PM Tony Abbott visited the UK and actively promoted Australia’s regime. He urged UK ministers to change the law to establish something similar. In an interview with GB News, he said, “In the end, this is one of those situations where success creates popularity, and because the policies succeed, they are widely adopted. And I certainly think there’s a lesson there and a potential model for other countries such as the United Kingdom, who have a problem with illegal arrivals by boat.”
Australia’s immigration policies and rhetoric also introduce potent discourse and language around “national security”, which demonises people seeking asylum and justifies the violations of human rights, in which refugees are banished to a cage in another country where they are outside the law.
Australia is not the first country to establish such a regime: wealthier countries have historically treated other countries as open prisons to detain refugees, minorities or different ethnic groups. In the early 20th century, the Nansen Office and the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees primarily transferred Russians and Armenians between countries. During World War II, when European countries refused to accept Jewish refugees, the Dominican Republic and Ecuador positioned themselves as destinations for Jewish refugees, consequentially gaining political and economic benefits at a state level. Another example is America’s detention of refugees from Haiti in Guantanamo in 1990.
Yet it is clear that Australia in particular has left an impression on contemporary governments. We have heard how “stop the boats” has been widely used in the UK. We have heard how conservative politicians in the UK have said “We want to save lives at sea, which is why we do it”. And although the Labour Party, which won the recent UK election, has announced it is not going to follow the policy of banishing refugees to Rwanda, this does not mean this increasingly popular practice of sending refugees elsewhere has stopped.
These days, banishing refugees to poorer countries is a widely discussed policy across the EU. The right-wing government in Italy has a contract with Albania, and recently Germany has been using other countries to deport Afghan refugees. Denmark is also following this model. Australia continues to exile people from its shores, with the number of people sent to Nauru topping 100 over the past months, in addition to the 50 or so people remaining in Port Moresby who were originally sent to Manus Island. After 11 long years, these people face continued uncertainty about when they will be transferred to a third country.
This nation’s detention system has deep roots in colonial settlement and historical colonialist mentality. Whereas it once committed a genocide against Indigenous peoples, and still today commits violence against them, today its targets include refugees. Yet while I believe the people of Australia think treating refugees cruelly is just a domestic issue, the reality is that this nation’s model has transcended the region to an international level.
At a public event in Groningen in the Netherlands, an Australian couple stood up in the crowd, crying, and said to me, “we cannot believe there is an event about how our country has become a cruel example — we are ashamed of it.”
Perhaps this was the first time they could see with their own eyes that this tragedy transcends Australia. Perhaps they saw the Groningen event, and me on stage, as an embodiment of what Australia has done to refugees.
Should Australia be exporting its refugee policy? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
