Australia’s policy shift regarding ‘boat people’ issue: the re-establishment of offshore processing facilities in Nauru And Papua New Guinea (2010-2012)

AUSTRALIA’S POLICY SHIFT REGARDING ‘BOAT PEOPLE’ ISSUE:

THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFSHORE PROCESSING FACILITIES IN NAURU AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(2010-2012)

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

This thesis entitled:

..AUSTRALIA'S _{POLICY SHIFT REGARDING'BOAT PEOPLE' ISSUE:}

THE RE.ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFSHORE PROCESSING FACILITIES IN

NAURU AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA (2OIO-2012)"

1. Is my original work proposed

to

fulfill

one

of requirements

to obtain

undergraduate degree

in

Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN) Jakarta.

All

sources used

in

this thesis

I

have attached according

to the rules

applied in Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN) Jakarta.

If

this thesis is afterwards found not as my original work recognized as plagiarize from other's work,

I

agree to take all the responsibilities and penalties applied by Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN) I akarta.

2.

THESIS ADVISER RECOMMENDATION LETTER

Thesis adviser hereby declares that the student:

Name

: Nathasa Tiara Ramadan Student

Number

: 1110114000032

Major

: Intemational Relations (Intemational Program)

Has finished the undergraduate thesis entitled:

.AUSTRALIA'S _{POLICY SHIFT REGARDING'BOAT} PEOPLE' ISSUE:

THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFSHORE PROCESSING FACILITIES IN

NAURU AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA (2OIO-2012)"

And fulfiiled requirements to be examined.

Jakarta, April 17,2015

Acknowledged by, Head of Depatlment

Approved by, Thesis Adviser

4,

n-*b,

Mutiara Pertiwi. M.A NIP: 19801 129 200912 2 002 Debbie AffiantY, M. A

PANEL OF EXAMINERAPPROVAL SHEET THESIS

..AUSTRALIA'S _{POLICY SHIFT REGARDING'BOAT PEOPLE' ISSUE:}

THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFSHORE PROCESSING FACILITIES IN

NAURU AND PAPUANEW GUTNEA (2010-2012)" By

Nathasa Tiara Ramadan 1110114000032

Has been defended in thesis orai defense in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN) Jak,rta on Apdl

1'].'h, 2014. This thesis was assessed and approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for Bachelor of Afts (B.A.) in Intemational Relations.

Head of Oral Defense,

Debbie Affiantv. M.A

Examiner II,

Budi S. Satari. M.A

Head of Departmelt

Faculty of Social and Political Science

h*

Debbie Affianty. M.A

ABSTRACT

The practice of transferring asylum seekers who arrive to Australia by boat (boat people) to countries in the Pacific was first introduced by the Howard

Government in 2001. This policy became widely known as the ‘Pacific Solution.’

It provided boat people to be sent to offshore facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) Manus Island, where their refugee status was being processed. Yet, the Australian Labor Party, United Nations, and international human rights groups strongly opposed it. They accused the implementation of Pacific Solution over the issue of human rights violation, inadequate offshore processing location, and political interest.

Meanwhile, Kevin Rudd, Australia’s Prime Minister from the Labor party abolished the Pacific Solution in February 2008. A ministerial press release noted that a total of 1637 people had been detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities between 2001 and 2008, including 786 Afghans, 684 Iraqis and 88 Sri Lankans.

However, Rudd’s Labor colleague, Julia Gillard resumed Howard’s Pacific Solution in 2012 when she became the Prime Minister. Gillard’s decision was

highly provocative, considering her refusal on the implementation of offshore processing before. Despite the controversy, the policy is still adopted by the Australian government until now. The qualitative method in the form of literature review will be the guidance througout the data colelecting. This research will employ Foreign Policy Analysis of Domestic Influnces to investigate the driving

factors of Gillard’s change. The author argues that; (1) legislatures and (2) public

opinion are two factors which influence the policy shift of Australia on ‘boat people’ issue.

Keywords: boat people, offshore processing facility, Australia, Nauru, PNG.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdullilahhirabbilalamin...

I would like to express my gratitude for those who have supported me throughout the making of this thesis. I realized without their support I could not even sit here at the moment and wrote this testimony. I want to appreciate them with a few words that came deep from my heart:

1. My immense gratitude to Allah SWT for the endless blessings. So that I can finish my skripsi and fulfill my duty as an undergraduate student. 2. I present this thesis as gift to my parents, my sisters and brother. They are

my true champion.

3. Mrs. Mutiara Pertiwi M.A, my thesis advisor. She poured many positive impacts in me. Thank you for being honest with me for all this time, therefore I can learn from my mistakes and take actions to remedy them. 4. My friends, Qory, Andri, Sutan, and all HI Inter 2010 classmates.

Batusangkar, 5 April 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT... v

ACKNOWLEDGMENT... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CHARTS... viii

TABLE OF TABLES... ix

TABLE OF FIGURES... xi

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION... xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION... 1

A. Problem Statement... 1

B. Research Question... 6

C. Objectives and Benefits... 7

D. Literature Review... 7

E. Theoretical Framework... 9

F. Research Method... 12

G. Outline... 13

CHAPTER II AUSTRALIA, THE ‘BOAT PEOPLE,’ AND THE ‘PACIFIC SOLUTION’...15

A. Australia’s commitment on refugee under international conventions... 15

B. John Howard’s ‘Pacific Solution’ in 2001... 17

2. The opening of offshore processing facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island in 2001... 22 3. Critics from international human rights organizations…... 25 C. The Evaluation of Offshore Processing Facilities under Kevin Rudd in 2008... 27

1. The Australian Labor Party position on the

Howard’s offshore processing arrangement…..……. ... 27 2. The shutdown of offshore processing facilities in

Nauru and Manus Island in 2008... 30

CHAPTER III THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFSHORE PROCESSING FACILITIES IN 2012... 33

A. The attitude shift of Labor party: from Rudd to Gillard government... 33 B. The re-opening of offshore processing facilities in Nauru

and Manus Island in 2012... 37 C. Critics from international human rights organizations... ... 40

CHAPTER IV. THE DRIVING FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE

AUSTRALIA’S POLICY SHIFT ON ‘BOAT PEOPLE’... 43

A. Legislatures... 43

B. Public Opinion... 56

BAB V. CONCLUSION... 64

BIBLIOGRAPHY... xiv

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart IV.A.1. Boat Arrival to Australia (2003-2013)

Chart IV.B. 1. Concerns on asylum seekers arriving by boat Chart IV.B. 1. Number of Permanent Visas Divided by Categories

Chart IV.B. 2. The percentages of whether Australians are concerned or not

LIST OF TABLES

Table IV.A.1. Composition of the Senate after 1 July 2011

Table IV.B. 1. Whether policy towards asylum seekers has been too soft or too harsh, 2003–2010 (percentages)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure IV.A.1. Progress of Legislation

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

AES Australian Election Study ALP Australia Labor Party

CAT Convention against Torture FAA First Administrative Agreement

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights NGO Non-Governmental Organization

OPC Offshore Processing Centre

PNG Papua New Guinea

SAR Search and Rescue

SRR Search and Rescue Regions

TPV Temporary Protection Visa

U.N United Nations

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

According to the Australian government‟s policy statement of human rights,

an asylum seeker is someone who declares that he or she is a refugee but whose claim has not yet been assessed.1 Meanwhile a refugee is an asylum seeker whom their refugee status has been granted by a certain government.2 Many asylum seeker try to jump the refugee processing queue and try to reach Australia by any

means, mostly via small boat. These asylum seekers were labeled as „boat people‟

by the Australian government.

Since the first boat arrival in 1976, asylum seekers who have managed to arrive by boat to Australia reveals a significant number. According to the

Parliament of Australia, the number of „boat people‟ in 1976 was 111, and has risen up to 13.108 in July, 2013.3 In contemporary era (after the Cold War), these people are coming from various countries in Asia, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Sri Lanka, places that are suffering from long periods of serious human insecurity.4 Despite the serious human security concerns, Australia does not have

1 _{2012 Face the Fact Chapter 3. Australian Human Rights Comission. 2012. Available at:}

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/face-facts-2012/2012-face-facts-chapter-3, accessed in the 10th of September 2013.

2 _{People on the Move. Amnesty International. 2013. Available at:}

https://www.amnesty.org/en/refugees-and-migrants/rights-of-refugees-and-migrants, accessed in the 10th of September 2013.

3 _{Boat Arrivals in Australia since 1976. Parliament of Australia. July 23, 2013. Available at:}

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011 -2012/BoatArrivals, accessed in the 10th of September 2013.

4_{Asylum seekers: Let‟s have a Mature Discussion, media release. Available at:}

http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265:asylum-seekers-lets-have-a-mature-discussion&catid=35:news-a-media&Itemid=63, accessed in the 6th of September 2013.

consistent responses against the boat people in the past decade. In 2001, after John

Howard‟s term was over, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd dismantled the offshore

processing facilities in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Nauru. Then Julia Gillard readopted it in 2012. This thesis is an analytical effort to understand the changing response of Australia to boat people in the period of Julia Gillard.

The boat people issue has created certain dilemma for Australia since at least 433 asylum seekers were rescued from a sinking boat by the Norwegian freighter Tampa on August 26, 2001.5 While Tampa was headed for Australia‟s Christmas Island, Australian authority informed the rescues would not be allowed to disembark.6It appears to point out Indonesia, the country in which the „nearest

feasible port of disembarkation‟ was located.7

The plan that the rescues ought to have been taken to Indonesia was highly debatable. In fact Indonesia is not the signatory of United Nations Refugee Convention. A state without legal asylum systems generally considers refugees

are susceptible to „detention, expulsion, refoulement and other serious protection

risks.‟8

Therefore asylum seekers in its territory may not have the same levels of protection as they could arrange in Australia. But from the Australian

government‟s perspective, they came to Australia illegally.9

So that Australia

5 _{Tampa Final Chapter as 12 Get Approval. The Age. 2004. Available at:}

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/19/1084917654069.html, accessed in the 30th of July 2014.

6 _{Maritime Report,}

supra note 16, 1.3. Available at

http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2011/11/APLPJ_06.1_taylor.pdf, accessed in the 13th of June 2014.

7 _Ibid.

8 _{2015 UNHCR Subregional Operations Profile-South East-Asia. The U.N Refugee Agency. 2014. Available}

at: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e488116.html, accessed in the 5th _{of September 2014.} 9_{Maritime Report, supra note 16, 1.3. Available at}

could not accept them. The point was Australia would not allow the Tampa survivors to enter Australian soil.10

In its efforts to counter the above problems, John Howard, Australia‟s Prime

Minister at that time planned to establish the „Pacific Solution.‟ This is a struggle

to transfer Tampa‟s boat people to several Pacific countries, such as Fiji, Palau,

Tonga, and Tuvalu throughout September and October 2001, it was however unsuccessful.11 Eventually, the Australian government carefully resolved the replacement of Tampa rescue by making arrangements for 150 of the Tampa survivors to have their claims considered in and by New Zealand and for the remainder was going to Nauru to process their refugee status.12

To manage similar cases occur in the future, an offshore processing facility was made. The Australian Government completed its negotiations and signed administrative agreements with the governments of Nauru and PNG on September and October 2001, which was known as Pacific Solution today.13 On 15 April 2002, there are approximately 1155 people was transferred to Nauru and 356 people to PNG‟s Manus Island.14 If they are found as refugees, soon they would

be sent for a resettlement to other Western countries. In Australia‟s press, this new arrangement with PNG and Nauru was an achievement.

10 _Ibid.

11 _{Maritime Report,}

supra note 16, 1.3. Available at

http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2011/11/APLPJ_06.1_taylor.pdf, accessed in the 13th of June 2014.

12 _{Refugee Deal a Shambles, Sunday Age (Melbourne, Austl.), Sept. 2, 2001, at 1. Available at}

http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2011/11/APLPJ_06.1_taylor.pdf, accessed in the 13th of June 2014.

13_{The „Pacific Solution‟ revisited: a statistical guide to the asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus}

Island. The Parliamentary of Australia. September 2012. Available at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012 -2013/PacificSolution, accessed in the 23th of August 2014.

Despite the success, these offshore facilities were also under hard criticism. The Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reveals that the Government‟s Pacific Solution has failed to hold on fundamental human protections in key human rights treaties.15 Moreover, the condition on Manus Island was inadequate. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

(UNHCR) examined the majority of asylum seekers live in „cramped

accommodation‟ conditions, with some of them placing their bedding on the floor

to desert the „particularly oppressive‟ hot conditions.16

Moreover it said, there is a

block „smelt putrid‟ and broken shower equipment which made filthy water filling the floor.17 It also noted that all asylum seekers showed signs of mental health issues and mental illness.18

Meanwhile, a strong opposition towards the issue is also displayed by the Australian Labor Party. As documented by the Parliament of Australia, in November 2008, the Labor Party expressed its disagreement and declared that Labor committed to abolish „Pacific Solution.‟ They argued it was „neither humane nor fair,‟ the Pacific Solution was „ineffective and wasteful.‟19 One of the Labor prominent political leaders, Julia Gillard, also stated in 2007:

„Labor will end the so-called „Pacific Solution‟, the processing and detaining of asylum seekers on Pacific islands, because it is „costly

15 _Ibid.

16_{U.N Refugee Agency Condems Australia‟s Offshore Detention Regime. The Guardian. November 2013.}

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/26/un-refugee-agency-condemns-australias-offshore-detention-regime, accessed in the 1st of August 2014.

17 _Ibid. 18 _Ibid.

19 _{Gillard Reinvents the Pacific Solution. Solidarity.net. August 2011. Available at:}

http://www.solidarity.net.au/refugees/gillard-reinvents-the-pacific-solution/, accessed in the 2nd of August 2014.

(spent more than $500,000), unsustainable and wrong as a matter of

principle.‟20

When John Howard was replaced by Kevin Rudd in 2007, the offshore processing arrangement was evaluated. It was considered unsuccessful as the boat arrival raised and put Australia‟s border in jeopardize.21 The Rudd government on

8 February declared to dismantle Howard's „Pacific solution‟ which involved the end of offshore processing facilities in Nauru and PNG‟s Manus Island.22

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees welcomes the shutdown of Australia's

„Pacific Solution.‟23

Yet, only in the period of five years, the offshore facilities were resumed by Julia Gillard in 2010. The impetus for change was as well considered after she found the growing death toll of asylum seekers. Immediately, her government embraced „22 Recommendations of Expert Panel‟ into asylum seeker policy.24 It was including the reestablishment to offshore processing arrangement in Nauru and Papua New Guinea.25 Julia Gillard eventually readopted John Howard's Pacific Solution, agreeing to reopen offshore processing centers in Nauru and Manus Island.

20 _{PNG Confirms Talk to Reopen Manus Island Detention Centre. ABC. May 2011. Available at:}

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3210106.htm, accessed in the 2nd of August 2014.

21 _{Rudd Reveals His Pacific Solution: MP. The Sydney Morning Herald. October 2009. Available at:}

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/rudd-reveals-his-pacific-solution-mp-20091013-gups.html, accessed in the 5th of September 2014.

22_{Immigration Detention in Australia. The Parliament of Australia. 2013. Available at:}

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012 -2013/Detention#_Toc351535442, accessed in the 1th of August 2014.

23_{UNHCR Welcomes Close of Australia‟s Pacific Solution. The U.N Refugee Agency. 2008. Available at:}

http://www.unhcr.org/47ac3f9c14.html, accessed in the 5th of September 2014.

24 _{Australia Asylum MPs Back Offshore Processing. BBC News. 2012. Available at:}

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19264516, accessed in the 6th of August 2014.

Her decision to re-establish the offshore arrangement in PNG and Nauru was not untouched by hard criticism. The Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) such as Amnesty International firmed that it opposes any measure of offshore processing and policies aiming on deterrence to punish people based on their mode of arrival.26 Beyond the critic, Gillard‟s decision to re-establish this offshore processing facilities also implied such a contradiction with the promise she made once to her political constituent.

Having these offshore facilities re-opened, Gillard and the rest of Labor

Party‟s leaders are being inconsistent with their previous position. Eight years earlier, Labor parliamentarians including Gillard had demonstrated very differently upon the issue as she in 2007 quoted „We have committed to ending the so-called „Pacific Solution.‟27 The shift of Australia‟s policy of offshore asylum processing from Rudd to Gillard government, despite their similar political party base, raises an analytical inquiry to investigate. This thesis takes an effort to clarify the driving factors that have contributed to this provocative shift.

B. Research Question:

What are the driving factors contributed to the policy shift of Australia

under Julia Gillard government on „boat people‟ issue?

26 _{United Opposition Migration Legislation Amendments. 2012. Available at:}

http://www.hrlc.org.au/files/united-opposition-migration-legislation-amendments.pdf, accessed in the 2nd of August 2014.

27_{The Gillard‟s Government Offshore Dumping Policy. Available at:}

C. Objectives and Benefits

The objectives of this research will be:

1. To analyze the driving factors that lead the Gillard government re-established one of the most controversial elements of the Howard

government's „Pacific Solution,‟ by reopening the offshore facilities in Nauru and Manus Island.

2. To explain the attitude shift of the Australian Labor government under Rudd to Gillard government upon the case of offshore processing facilities on Nauru and Manus Island.

Furthermore, the benefits of this research will be:

1. To inform the readers upon the topic of Australia‟s asylum policy. 2. To contribute International Relations analysis on asylum seeker issues

in Australia.

D. Literature Review

The discussion of Australia‟s asylum policy asylum has been always debatable. The response towards the issue usually leads into pros and cons. Thus there are many scholars or academicians have done academic writings about it.

Meanwhile only a few research have focused the discussion on the actor‟s

behavior. The author thinks there is a political shift of Australian under the government of Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard upon the issue of the offshore

processing facilities in Nauru and Manus Island. Hence the explanations of literature reviews below are expected to support the author‟s research is significant to be discussed in International Relations discipline.

The research from State Crime Journal „Back to Future: Australian Border Policing under Labor, 2007-2013,‟ Michael Grewcock analyses the border

policies of Australia‟s federal Labor governments between 2007 and 2013. He argues that the policies of „externalization‟ pursued by Labor inevitably directed to the reestablishment of the Pacific Solution. Which was introduced for the first time by the previous Liberal-National Party Coalition government.

Meanwhile, in 2012, Caroline Fleay from Curtin University, wrote an article on Journal of Centre for Human Rights Education „Repeating Despair on Nauru: The Impacts of Offshore Processing on Asylum Seekers.‟ Generally, she examines that the Australia‟s legislation passed by Federal Parliament in August 2012 allows for men, women and children to be sent to Nauru and Manus Island for offshore processing was inhumane and is about to repeated under Gillard government. She argues that the experiences of asylum seekers held on Nauru highlight the depression and mental health problems. It is caused by the poor detention system. Meanwhile, it is deteriorated because it was located in isolated island, where living conditions were inadequate and refugee claims processing was uncertain. Furthermore, Fleay concludes that offshore processing will continue to be a form of punishment for asylum seekers arriving by boat to Australia.

Lastly, from journal Universitas Airlangga, Muhammad Rizki Herdianzah

wrote a thesis of „Kebijakan Pemerintah Australia Terkait Permasalahan Irregular Maritime Arrivals Periode Kepemimpinan Perdana Menteri Julia Gillard Tahun 2010 – 2012.‟ Herdianzah discovers that Australia‟s asylum policies in response to Irregular Maritime Arrivals (boat people) under the Gillard government as punitive. The policies were encompassing several attempts made by Gillard, such

as „Regional Offshore Processing Centre‟ in Timor Leste,the „Malaysia Solution,‟

and the reestablishment of Pacific Solution. There are three of factors which were considered as the influential factors on the policies making. They are bureaucratic,

partisan, and mass media factors. Yet he found that state‟s interests was not an influential factor on the policy making.

Referring to the literature reviews above, we may conclude the three of these research have particularly focused on the policy. The researches scrutinize

the Australia‟s asylum policy of offshore processing arrangement as punitive.

Meanwhile, in this research, the author will focus on the actor‟s behavior. The

author indicated there is a shifting attitude of the Australian Labor government under Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard on issue of offshore processing arrangement.

E. Theoretical Framework

In order to establish a rigid research in explaining and understanding this research, the theoretical framework will be employed. The theoretical framework has been mentioned as an important tool for the research to answer the research

question that was raised in this thesis. For the purpose of analysis, this research will use the concept of Foreign Policy Analysis of domestic Influence.

In the book „Foreign Policy,‟ Pearson underlines that the actions (foreign policy) of a state is resulted from decision making process, influencing by the

state‟s internal structure, which are:

1. Legislatures

In parliamentary systems, legislatures play a key role in designing and implementing foreign policy. Although, in executing an international agreement, the consent of Parliament is not needed. Yet

the Prime Minister requires the Parliament‟s vote if the international agreement is affected to the change of the state‟s Law. Normally, most international agreements include a few changes, therefore the Parliament allows to exercise its right to approve or disapprove the international agreements.

Since Australia embraces the parliamentary system, Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister is allowed to implement Malaysia Solution without the Parliament approval as long the policy does not entail some changes to the Australian Migration Act. Unfortunately, in order to pass the policy, Gillard requires the House of Representative and the Senate approval. Because according to the Migration Act, a non-member to the U.N Refugee Convention cannot do offshore processing. In fact Malaysia is not signatory to the Convention. Therefore, the Senate will determines whether Gillard‟s bill to amend

the Migration Act will success or otherwise. As Pearson explained on

the book „Foreign Policy,‟

„In parliamentary systems, executives, for example, prime ministers are chosen by the political parties that hold a dominant position in the legislative bodies. Often parliamentary executives do not need to submit treaties or policies for formal approval by the legislatures. Yet legislatures in parliamentary systems still hold power

regarding foreign policy.‟ 28

2. Public Opinion

The importance of foreign policy issues held by the citizens of a state. Due to citizen‟s direct vote on the presidential or ministerial election, public opinion has greater influence on foreign policy in democracies than in authoritarian governments. Political leaders must pay attention to what citizens think. As Pearson explained on the book

„Foreign Policy,‟29

„It must persuade people to accept its policies, because in the end, policies are carried out by ordinary people like

soldiers, workers, and bureaucrats.‟

The Gillard government can success in governing democratic society as it needs public support to survive. Because the government failure on Malaysia Solution can shift public opinion. Consequently, public prefers to favor Coalition Party‟s policy of Pacific Solution in order to heal their disappointment.

28 _{Foreign Policy. The White House Oval Office. 2010. p, 136. Available}

at: http://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/hip/us/hip_us_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0205059570.pdf. Accessed in the 5th of December 2014.

F. Research Methods

The research employs the qualitative method in the form of literature

review. In his book „An Introduction to Qualitative Research,‟ Hancock expounds

upon the features of qualitative research. Hancock explains qualitative research is concerned with the opinions, experiences and feelings of individuals producing subjective data. It describes social phenomena as they occur naturally. Also, there is no attempt is made to manipulate the situation under study as is the case with experimental quantitative research. For understanding of a situation is gained through a holistic perspective. In qualitative method, data are collected through literature studies and direct encounters with individuals or one to one interviews.

The primary resources of this research are collected from the international and local media, relevant journals, and articles from trusted sources, such as Australian government website, educational institutions, and academic research centers that have been uploaded from internet. Other references are taken from the official website of Australian, UNHCR Australia, Amnesty International, library of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, the library of FISIP UIN Jakarta and the National Library of Indonesia.

G. Outline

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

A. Problem Statement B. Research Question C. Purposes and Benefits D. Literature Review E. Theoretical Framework F. Methodological Research G. Outline

CHAPTER II. AUSTRALIA, THE ‘BOAT PEOPLE,’ AND THE ‘PACIFIC

SOLUTION’

A. Australia‟s commitment on refugee under international conventions B. John Howard‟s „Pacific Solution‟ in 2001

1. The Tampa case

2. The opening of offshore processing facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea‟s Manus Island

3. Critics from international human rights organizations

C. The Evaluation of Offshore Processing Facilities under Kevin Rudd in 2008

1. The Australian Labor Party position on the Howard‟s offshore processing arrangement

2. The shutdown of offshore processing facilities in Nauru and Manus Island in 2008

CHAPTER III. THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFSHORE

PROCESSING FACILITIES IN 2012

A. The attitude shift of Labor party: from Rudd to Gillard government B. The re-opening of offshore processing facilities in Nauru and Manus

Island in 2012

C. Critics from international human rights organizations

CHAPTER IV. THE DRIVING FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE

AUSTRALIA’S POLICY SHIFT ON ‘BOAT PEOPLE’ ISSUE A. Legislatures

B. Public opinion

CHAPTER II

AUSTRALIA, THE ‘BOAT PEOPLE,’ AND THE ‘PACIFIC SOLUTION’

A. Australia’s Commitment to Refugees under two International Conventions

Australia has international obligations in relation to asylum seekers who come to Australia, regardless of the method of their arrival. Australia ratified the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees in 1954 and the Protocol in 1973.30 Under the agreement, Australia is responsible to accept asylum seekers who arrived on Australian soil.31 Later on 13 August 1980, Australia bound to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).32 The ICCPR requires Australia to take all necessary legislative and other measures to avoid cruel detention and punishment towards asylum seekers.

Under these two agreements Australia holds three major obligations.33 The first is to not return refugees or asylum seekers to their home country. As the principle of non-refoulemet in the U.N (United Nations) Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, in Article 33(1) provides:34

„No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or

30 _{Australia Refugee Policy. Australian Prime Minister Centre. Available at:}

http://static.moadoph.gov.au/ophgovau/media/images/apmc/docs/81-Refugees.pdf. Accessed in the 11th of December 2014.

31_Ibid

32 _{Human Rights Explained: Fact sheet 5: the International Bill of Rights. Australian Human Rights}

Comission. Available at: www.humanrights.gov.au/human-rights-explained-fact-sheet-5the-international-bill-rights. Accessed in the 11th of December 2014.

33_{The Pacific Solution: Assesing Australia‟s Compliance with International Law. Bond University Student}

Law Review. January 3, 2007. Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/buslr/vol3/iss1/, accessed in the 3rd _{of September 2014.}

34_{Refoulment. UNESCO. August 23, 1977. Available at:}

freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political

opinion.‟

This is also known as the principle of non-refoulement. Importantly, refoulement is not restricted to returning a refugee to the place where they come from.35 It also forbids Contracting States not to locate refugees to a territory in which refugees

are at „risk of persecution.‟36

Secondly, the Refugee Convention also prohibits discrimination of asylum seekers based on the mode of their arrival to the country where they are seeking protection.37 The 1951 the Refugee Convention article 1 forbids „...penalties such as limitation and prevention to immigration access may not be imposed on

refugees „on account of their illegal entry.‟38

The cause of discrimination in this article includes the differentiation between classes of visas provided by Australian Immigration for asylum seekers based on their legality in entering Australian territory.

Thirdly, the ICCPR guarantees that every refugees and asylum seekers will be free from arbitrary arrest or detention.39 This Convention provides many fundamental rights, including prohibition of torture, cruelty, inhuman and degrading treatment.40 In its article 7 and 6(1), ICCPR claims:41

35_{Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The U.N Refugee Agency. Available at:}

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.pdf., accessed in the 16th of October 2014.

36_Ibid.

37_{Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The U.N Refugee Agency. Available at:}

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.pdf., accessed in the 16th of October 2014.

38_{The Refugee Convention, 1951. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/4ca34be29.pdf, accessed in the 15}th _of

October 2014.

39_{Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The U.N Refugee Agency. Available at:}

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.pdf., accessed in the 16th of October 2014.

40_{Core Human Rights in the Two Covenants. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High}

Commissioner. September, 2013.

http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/IHRS/TreatyBodies/Page%20Documents/Core%20Human%20Rights.pdf, accessed in the 16th _{of October 2014.}

„No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be

protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.‟

Detaining refugees in this treatment may be widely considered as unlawful under the ICCPR, and may also constitute a penalty for illegal entry as prohibited under the Refugees Convention.42

B. John Howard’s ‘Pacific Solution’ in 2001

1. The Tampa Case

The arrival by boat of asylum seekers on Australian territory is not a new phenomenon. The first arrival occurred in 1976, and it brought at least 111 asylum seekers in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.43 Ever since, the Australians use the

term „boat people‟ to address asylum seekers who arrive by boat to Australia.44

In the following waves, more people from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Southern China came ashore. Australia under the Prime Minister Malcom Fraser received the

„boat people‟ flow from Vietnam gladly. Between 1976 and 1982, more than 2000 Vietnamese boat people were resettled in Australia.45 They were not detained in a camp and were issued a temporary protection visa.

41 _{International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations Human Rights. December 16, 1966.}

Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx. Accessed in the 11th of December 2014.

42_{The Pacific Solution: Assesing Australia‟s Compliance with International Law. Bond University Student}

Law Review. January 3, 2007. Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/buslr/vol3/iss1/1, accessed in the 3rd of September 2014.

43 _{Boat Arrivals in Australia since 1976. Parliament of Australia. July 23, 2013. Available at:}

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012 -2013/BoatArrivals, accessed in the 3rd _{of September 2014.}

44 _Ibid.

45 _{Migration Policy Institute. July 11, 2012. Available at:}

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/australias-boat-people-asylum-challenges-and-two-decades-policy-experimentation, accessed in the 16th of October 2014.

The government's good treatment of the Vietnamese boat people was a golden period of Australia's immigration history.46 In the 1970‟s, Australia displayed its welcoming humanitarian treatment to refugees. Australia had three facilities as immigration detention centers, in Sydney, Perth and Melbourne.47 The facilities were adequate for basic protection and refugee processing occurred efficiently.

This resulted in a change of Australia‟s treatment on refugees after 1992.48

It was due to the number of boat arrivals increased between November 1989 and January 1992.49The „boat people‟ issue then became a serious concern not only in

terms of the lack of control over Australia‟s borders, but also of whether the arrivals were „genuine refugees.‟50

The anxiety continued and drove Australia to

establish „mandatory detention‟ in 1992.51

In 1993, the Parliament extended the application of mandatory detention to all persons whose arrived without visas or who were in Australia on an expired or cancelled visa.52 Unfortunately, this Act continues to influence asylum seeker policy until today.

The most intriguing „boat people‟ arrival issue was the case of Tampa. It occurred on August 26, 2001, when Indonesian fishing vessel Palapa sunk on its

46_Ibid. 47 _Ibid.

48 _{Boat Arrivals in Australia since 1976. Parliament of Australia. July 23, 2013. Available at:}

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011 -2012/BoatArrivals, accessed in the 16th of 2014.

49_{Australia‟s Immigration Detention Policy and Practice. Australia Human Rights Commission. Available at:}

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/last-resort-national-inquiry-children-immigration-detention/6-australias-immigration, accessed in the 16th of October 2014

50 _{Malcolm Fraser's Response to 'Commercial' Refugee Voyages. ECU Publications Pre. 2011. Available at:}

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7219&context=ecuworks. Accessed in the 25th of December 2014.

51 _{Boat Arrivals in Australia since 1976. Parliament of Australia. July 23, 2013. Available at:}

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011 -2012/BoatArrivals, accessed in the 16th of 2014.

way off Christmas Island, Australia.53 It was then rescued by the Norwegian cargo ship MV Tampa with 433 Afghani asylum seekers found alive.54 Australia prohibited survivors from accessing Australian territory and requested the Tampa to return survivors to Indonesia.55 Its action referred to the 1979 International Convention on Maritime, Search and Rescue (SAR), of which Australia and Indonesia were signatories.56

According to the agreement, the area where the Palapa sunk was part of

Indonesia‟s Search and Rescue Regions (SRR).57 However Indonesia turned down any obligation to assist the Tampa survivors. Indonesia believed these survivors were not refugees but illegal immigrants.58 Moreover, on an interview on 30

August 2001 to Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Indonesia‟s Parliamentary

Commission on Migration and Security, Yasril Ananta Baharuddin, defended

Indonesia‟s stance on Tampa case:59

„...because these are not refugees and this is not a political asylum according to the international law, Geneva Convention 1951.This is illegal migrant, so basically, economic reason from that point of view, we are under no obligation, international obligation I mean, based on law international and our national legislation. We cannot accept the

53_{Australian Border Deaths Database. Monash University Arts. Available at:}

http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/thebordercrossingobservatory/publications/australian-border-deaths-database/, accessed in the 3rd _{of September 2014.}

54_{Taylor, Savitri. The Pacific Solution or A Pacific Nightmare?: the Difference Between Burden Shifting and}

Responsibility Sharing. Asia Pacific Law and Policy Journal. Vol, 6. Issue, 1. Winter 2005. Available at: http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2011/11/APLPJ_06.1_taylor.pdf, accessed in the 13th of June 2014.

55_{Tampa Enters Australian Waters with 433 Asylum Seekers on Board on Board. ABC News. 2001.}

Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/stories/2012/01/19/3412121.htm, accessed in the 17th of October 2014.

56_{Does Indonesia have to take asylum seekers rescued by the Australian Navy? ABC News. November 22, 2013. Availablet at:}

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-14/asylum-seekers-rescued-at-sea/5088168, accessed in the 17th of October 2014.

57_{Does Indonesia have to take asylum seekers rescued by the Australian Navy? ABC News. November 22, 2013. Availablet at:}

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-14/asylum-seekers-rescued-at-sea/5088168, accessed in the 17th of October 2014.

58_{Indonesia defend its stand on the Tampa. Australia Broadcasting Corporation. July, 30 2001. Available at:}

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s355372.htm, accessed in the 17th of October 2014.

responsibility because they are not Indonesian citizens. They came from Afghanistan and other countries.‟

According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ships have an obligation to rescue persons in distress at sea.60 Yet no clear legal obligations were imposed on any state to take responsibility for ship crash survivors who did not wish to return home.61 Meanwhile the UNCLOS Article to rescue persons in distress at sea had convinced Arne Rinnan, the Tampa Captain, to rescue the wrecked Palapa. Rinnan even pleaded to Australian authorities to receive the survivors.22 His act relied on the commitment of Australia to treat boat people according to the International Rules of Sea Rescue, as codified in UNCLOS.62

Yet more than two hours after his plea, Australian authorities continued to eschew responsibility for the sea rescue operation.63 The proposal to have Indonesia as the spot of disembarkation was un-agreed upon. In fact, at the end, Indonesia agreed to allow the Tampa survivors to disembark on the Merak port of Indonesia, but unfortunately the survivors rejected it.64

Australia‟s response delivered a clear message that it would assist the Tampa survivors to disembark on any place but Australia. To confirm it, a policy has been executed by the Australian government, assigning their regional

60_{Preambule to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Available at:}

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm, accessed in the 4th of September 2014.

61_{The Pacific Solution or A Pacific Nightmare?: the Difference Between Burden Shifting and Responsibility}

Sharing. Asia Pacific Law and Policy Journal. Vol, 6. Issue, 1. Winter 2005. Available at: blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/.../APLPJ_06.1_taylor.pdf,accessed in the 13th of June 2014.

62_{The State of The World‟s Refugees 2006. The UN Refugee Agency. April 2006. Available at:}

http://www.unhcr.org/4444d3c320.html, accessed in the 4th of September 2014.

63_Ibid.

64_{Refugee Ship: Who should take Responsibility? BBC UK. September 4, 2001Available at:}

diplomats to find location on which the survivors could be temporarily settled.65 Meanwhile Australian also approached the government of Timor Leste for a negotiation but it did not succeed.66

The Tampa case was eventually resolved in a dramatic twist. After their efforts, Australia‟s search ended when New Zealand agreed to be the host for the 208 survivors in 2001.67 It was unclear whether New Zealand was giving its favor

or disdain in agreeing Australia‟s suggestion to receive the survivors. As New

Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, recalled, the event of Tampa was an untold

lesson. Australia's refusal to accept the asylum seekers made her learned of „the

stand-off.‟68 In 2002, New Zealand had accepted 208 Afghan refugees from the Tampa, including 131 Tampa survivors and another 77 who waiting their refugee status determination in Nauru by UNHCR.69

On 17 September 2001, Australia established an emergency bill named

„Border Protection Bill 2001.‟70

The bill provided Australia with the authority to remove the MV Tampa and any ships or other vessels found in the territorial waters of Australia.71 The United Nations, the government of Norway, legal

65_{. Accessed in the 13}th _{of December 2014.}

66_{The Pacific Solution or A Pacific Nightmare?: the Difference Between Burden Shifting and Responsibility}

Sharing. Asia Pacific Law and Policy Journal. Vol, 6. Issue, 1. Winter 2005. Available at:

http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2011/11/APLPJ_06.1_taylor.pdf, accessed in the 13th of June 2014.

67_{We are the Truly Lucky Ones. The New Zealand Herald. April 9, 2005. Available at:}

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10119544, accessed in the 20th of September 2014.

68_Ibid.

69_{UNHCR warmly welcomes New Zealand citizenship for 'Tampa Boys.' The UN Refugee Agency. April 8,}

2005. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/4256678014.html, accessed in the 20th of September 2014.

70_{Border Protection Bill 2001. Parliament of Australia. August 29, 2001. Available at:}

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0102/02bd041, accessed in the 17th _of

October 2014.

71_{How Tampa Become a Turning Point. Amnesty International. June 14, 2007. Available at:}

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/how_tampa_became_a_turning_point/, accessed in the 17th of October 2014.

commentators, and human rights advocates strongly opposed this Bill.72 The Border Protection Bill 2001 was accused of breaching the 1951 Refugees Convention of non-refoulement73and for humanitarian reasons.

2. The Opening of Offshore Processing Facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) Manus Island

The Tampa case became a turning point in Australian history.74 This event totally transformed Australia‟s point of view and attitude toward „boat people‟. Immediately Australia took precaution from the Tampa incident to strengthen its border and immigration policy. As Australian Prime Minister, John Howard on 28 October 2001 displayed his distaste on boat arrivals, he declared, „We decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.‟75 Thus Howard

initiated the establishment of the „Pacific Solution‟ as a deterrent policy to stop the arrival of „boat people.‟

Pacific Solution initiated a significant change to the Australian Migration Law. Under the new policy, the territories of Christmas Island, Ashmore Reef,

and the Cocos Islands were excluded from „the apprehension of Migration Act.‟76

In fact, these outer territories are the locations for „boat people‟ to disembark.

72_Ibid.

73_{The Refugee Convention, 1951. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/4ca34be29.pdf, accessed in the 15}th _of

October 2014.

74_{How Tampa Become a Turning Point. Amnesty International. June 14, 2007. Available at:}

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/how_tampa_became_a_turning_point/ accessed in the 20th of September 2014.

75_{Terror and Performance. Routledge 2014, p, 176, availabet at}

http://books.google.co.id/books?id=jgxgAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=statemen t+%E2%80%9CWe+decide+who+comes+to+this+country+and+the+circumstances+in+which+they+come% E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=94as2mtq_k&sig=B4W7g7egrJHmjmVRV5tDU4kn4cE, accessed in the 22th of September 2014.

76_{Border Protection Bill 2001. Parliament of Australia. August 29, 2001. Available at:}

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0102/02bd069, accessed in the 24th of September 2014.

According to the 1958 Australian Migration Act, refugees who reach Australian territory would have the opportunity to access Australian courts of law.77 Therefore, for refugees who reach the excised parts of Australia, the right to seek asylum would be denied. Furthermore, the Pacific Solution commanded the

Australian Navy to intercept and transfer arriving „boat people‟ to detention

camps on the small Pacific islands of Nauru and Manus for status processing and detention.78

Nauru and PNG have agreed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Australia to receive „boat people‟ arrivals. On September 10, 2001, Nauru signed a Statement of Principles and First Administrative Agreement (FAA) with Australia agreeing to host 283 of the Tampa survivors and 237 other asylum seekers intercepted by the Australian Navy.79 Later on December 11, 2001 the FAA was replaced by a new agreement to host up to 1,200 asylum seekers at a time.80 Meanwhile, on October 11, 2001, Australia and Papua New Guinea signed a Memorandum of Understanding to host 225 asylum seekers.81 After they are taken to Nauru and PNG, their claim would be examined through a series of administrative processes. Once it is granted, Australia and the UNHCR would search for third-party countries willing to resettle them.82 However, recognized

77_Ibid.

78 _{Asylum Seekers and Refugees What are the Facts. Parliament of Australia. February 11, 2013. Available}

at:http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/20 122013/PacificSolution#_Toc334509636, accessed in the 23th of September 2014.

79_{Chapter 10 : Pacific Solution: Negotations and Agreements. The Parliament House of Australia. Available}

at:http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/maritimeincident /report/c10, accessed in the 23th of September 2014.

80_Ibid. 81_Ibid.

82 _{UNHCR: Australia-Papua New Guinea asylum agreement presents protection challenges. The U.N}

Refugee Agency. July 26, 2013. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/51f2426e6.html, accessed in the 23th of September 2014.

refugees also given the same treatment as rejected asylum seekers and asylum seekers who awaiting status determination.83 They disallow to go outside but to spend months within the offshore processing areas while waiting for their placement.84

The opening of the offshore processing facilities in Nauru and Manus Island were highly provocative. Neither Nauru nor PNG were parties to the Convention against Torture (CAT) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).85 Consequently, asylum seekers right is limited. Therefore, the offshore processing needed to be done under sufficient watch to keep the prosperity and human rights obligations in order. In the long term it could cause some problematic issues. In 2003 for example, 9 residents of the processing

centers in Nauru launched „a hunger strike‟ protesting their detention.86

Ironically, both Australia and Nauru responded by blaming each other. Nauru‟s Finance Minister accused Australia of having failed to provide adequate medical assistance.87 On the other hand, Australia argued that it was not responsible for

the protest, since it occurred outside Australia‟s authority. Sadly, the protest which launched by the asylum seekers failed to free them from the detention.

83_Ibid.

84_{The Pacific Solution or A Pacific Nightmare?: the Difference Between Burden Shifting and Responsibility}

Sharing. Asia Pacific Law and Policy Journal. Vol, 6. Issue, 1. Winter 2005. Available at: blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/.../APLPJ_06.1_taylor.pdf,accessed in the 13th of June 2014.

85 _{Monitoring the Core International Human Rights Treaties. United Nations Human Rights. Available at:}

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/TreatyBodies.aspx, accessed in the 23th of September 2014.

86_{Migration Information Source. December 1, 2012. Available at:}

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/top-10-2012-issue-8 -major-immigration-countries-take-crack-addressing-thorny-issue-immigrant, accessed in the 24th of September 2014.

87 _{Hunger strikers are Nauru's problem: Ruddock. Fairfax Digital. January 7, 2004. Available at:}

3. Critics from International Human Rights Organizations

The Refugees Convention and the ICCPR questioned the „Pacific Solution‟ as it might harm three legal obligations of: (1) „the prohibitions on refoulement;

(2) discrimination due to illegal entry; and (3) detention.‟88

The ICCPR has clearly stated its non-acceptance of refoulement of refugees at a state‟s frontier.89

However Australia‟s policy of sending refugees to excised territories imply

otherwise. While the Refugee Convention has declared that refugees may not be penalized despite their legality coming on a territory,90 in actuality, „boat people‟ were detained in inhumane offshore facilities for uncertain lengths of time as the result of Australian policy. Moreover, Australia has been applying detention

system for arriving „boat people‟ since 1992. Unlike Australia, PNG and Nauru

are not familiar and inexperienced to implement the detention system.91 Therefore, the offshore processing arrangement stands in stark contrast to the standard of lawfulness in the ICCPR.

In response, Philip Ruddock, Howard‟s Immigration Minister responded that he would like to reevaluate Australia‟s obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention on Refugee Status.92 He argued that the structure of the UN Refugee Convention was no more suitable to the present

88_{Australia International Obligations. Parliament House of Australia. Available at:}

http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/report/attachment_3_australia_internationa l_obligations, accessed in the 17th _{of September 2014.}

89_Ibid.

90_{Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. UNHCR. 28 July, 2951. Available at:}

http://www.unhcr.org/496365eb2.pdf. accessed in the 25th of September 2014.

91_{Fact sheet 82 - Immigration detention. Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection.}

Available at: https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/82detention.htm, accessed in the 25th of September 2014.

92_{The Conversation. July 18, 2013. Available at:}

condition of refugees who seek asylum through countries in search of „preferred countries.‟93

More he said:

„There are something of the order of 14 million, I think, people who

are found to be refugees by the United Nations and they‟re right around the world. We can‟t take them all. We are one of the largest

per capita re-settlers of refugees and what is happening is our capacity to re-settle and help is being diminished because we‟re being now very close to overrun by those who are in a position to pay people smugglers and are coming here... Humane policy is about protecting our borders and maintaining our capacity to help those who need it

most.‟94

Human rights groups, legal scholars, and United Nations bodies have criticized the treatment of refugees as incompatible with the international treaties.95Australia‟s offshore processing laws in Nauru and Manus Island were not considered as suitable with fundamental human rights principles.

93_{The Australian. July 16, 2012. Availablet at:}

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-

affairs/immigration/post-war-refugee-convention-short-changes-australia/story-fn9hm1gu-1226426694966?nk=7c5b6b7bd33002fce712e0e890eb8d30, accessed in the 10th of September 2014.

94_{Transcript: Afternoons with Tim Webster (2UE) Interview with the Hon Philip Ruddock MP. Parliament}

House Canberra. Available at:

http://www.ruddockmp.com.au/BerowraElectorate/Speeches/tabid/78/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1549/ Transcript-Afternoons-with-Tim-Webster-2UE-Interview-with-the-Hon-Philip-Ruddock-MP.aspx, accessed in the 18th of October 2014.

95_{Australia: "Pacific solution" one year on -- punishing the refugees. Amnesty International Press Release.}

August 25, 2002. Available at:http://web.amnesty.org.ai.nsf/recent/asa120092002> accessed in the 24th of September 2014.

C. The evaluation of Offshore Processing Facilities under Kevin Rudd in 2008

1. The Australian Labor Party Position on the Offshore Processing Facilities Issue

The controversy of the offshore processing implementation developed among Australians politicians in 2004.96 The Australia Labor Party (ALP) as a major political party in the country began itself to oppose the policy. Actually, at the beginning, it agreed on the establishment of Pacific Solution. As Australia‟s Official explained on the Parliamentary Document:97

„Both of the major parties believe that tough deterrence measures are

necessary to stem the flow of asylum seeker boats to Australia. In particular, both parties currently support the practice of transferring asylum seekers who have arrived by boat to offshore processing centres in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Nauru; the practice of mandatorily detaining all unauthorised maritime arrivals; and the need to maintain tough anti-people smuggling and border protection measures in cooperation with neighbouring countries in the region.‟

Later on in 2004, Julia Gillard, the prominent member of the Australian Labor Party denounced the Nauru and Manus Island facilities, acknowledge it

were „too costly‟ and the Pacific Solution was „unsustainable.‟98 A joint report called A Price Too High: The cost of Australia’s approach to Asylum Seekersby Oxfam and A Just Australia, explained since 2001 offshore processing facilities in Nauru and PNG have cost the Australian taxpayer more than $500,000 per person

96_{The Gillard‟s Government Offshore Dumping Policy. Available at:}

http://www.safecom.org.au/offshore-dumping.htm, accessed in the 2nd of August 2014.

97_{A comparison of Coalition and Labor government asylum policies in Australia since 2001. Parliament of}

Australia. February 28, 2014. Available at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314 /AsylumPolicies#_Toc381358238, accessed in the 18th of October 2014.

to process fewer than 1,700 asylum seekers in Nauru, Manus and Christmas Island.99

In 2006, the Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd, and his deputy Julia Gillard,

shared the same opinion on the issue. They both were eager to bring the „Pacific Solution‟ to an end and find a regional offshore center with Timor Leste instead. The parliament of Australia highlights the Report of the Inquiry into a Certain Maritime Incident outlined that asylum seekers endured a lots of difficulties in Nauru and Manus Island such as limited access to water, sanitation and electricity.100 On the contrary, the ruling government was led by John Howard, the leader of the Liberal-National Party Coalition, which priors the policy of „Pacific

Solution.‟ Therefore, since the establishment of „Pacific Solution‟ in 2001, „boat

people‟ became of the most important issues of competition between the two political parties.

The Labor Party and Liberal-National Party Coalition were in disagreement

on the method to stop the „boat people‟.101

This included the question of whether

„boat people‟ should be given temporary visa instead of permanent protection.‟102

The Coalition has argued that the abolition of Temporary Protection Visa (TPV)

99_{The Pacific Solution: A $1 billion “living hell”? Oxfam. 23 August, 2007. Available at:}

https://www.oxfam.org.au/media/2007/08/the-pacific-solution-a-1-billion-living-hell/ Accessed in the 24th of September 2014.

100_{Asylum Seekers and Refugees What are the Facts. Parliament of Australia. February 11, 2013. Available}

at:http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/20 122013/PacificSolution#_Toc334509636, accessed in the 23th of September 2014.

101 _{Back to the Future: Australian Border Policing Under Labor, 2007–2013. State Crime Journal, Vol. 3, No.}

1 (Spring 2014), pp. 102-125. Available at:

http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/back_to_the_future_published_ver sion.pdf. Accessed in the 24th of September 2014.

and Pacific Solution would increase the number of unauthorized boat arrivals.103 It

had declared that TPVs were „an effective deterrent to boat arrivals.‟104

Meanwhile, Labor argued that the introduction of TPVs was „ineffective‟ in

decreasing the number of boat arrivals.‟105

Labor believed the TPV actually have increased the number of women and children came to Australia by boat, as TPVs did not provide family reunification rights.‟106

Labor argued since there was no family reunification, families could not rely on men arriving to Australia alone.107 It implied that they were disable to apply visa for their family member once they are resettled. Therefore, it was necessary to take the whole family including women and children together on the risky journey to Australia.108 Since 2005, the numbers of children in offshore detention have increased significantly. Between July 1999 and June 2003, 2,184 children arrived in Australia without a valid visa.109

103_{A comparison of Coalition and Labor government asylum policies in Australia since 2001. Parliament of}

Australia. February 28, 2014. Available at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314 /AsylumPolicies#_Toc381358238, accessed in the 18th of October 2014.

104_{Restoring Sovereignty and Control to our Borders. Joint Press Conference, Transcript. May 25, 2010.}

Available at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314 /AsylumPolicies#_Toc381358238, accessed in the 18th of October 2014.

105_{Failed Policies and Cheap Politics Offer no Solutions. C Evans (Minister for Immigration and}

Citizenshipmedia release). 27 May 2010. Available at

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314 /AsylumPolicies#_Toc381358238, accessed in the 18th of October 2014.

106_{Failed Policies and Cheap Politics Offer no Solutions. C Evans (Minister for Immigration and}

Citizenshipmedia release). 27 May 2010. Available at

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314 /AsylumPolicies#_Toc381358238, accessed in the 18th of October 2014.

107_{Restoring Sovereignty and Control to our Borders. Joint Press Conference, Transcript. May 25, 2010.}

Available at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314 /AsylumPolicies#_Toc381358238, accessed in the 18th of October 2014.

108_Ibid.

109_{Australia Detention Profile. Global Detention Project. July 2008. Available at:}

http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/asia-pacific/australia/children-women-and-other-vulnerable-groups.html. Accessed in the 10th of December 2014.

In 2007, the Australia Labor Party won the federal election. The Labor‟s

candidate, Kevin Rudd was popular with its soft asylum seeker policy as he detested the „Pacific Solution.‟110 Rudd had been leading the Coalition‟s candidate, John Howard in the poll as preferred Prime Minister. Rudd's approval ratings had maintained from levels above 60%.111 At the end of 2007, Kevin Rudd officially became the new Australian Prime Minister. After his election, his commitment to dismantling the offshore processing awaited to be proven.

2. The Shutdown of Offshore Processing Facilities in Nauru and Manus Island in 2008

Once elected as the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd‟s vow to dismantle Howard‟s offshore processing facilities on Nauru and Manus Island has been

fulfilled. The new Prime Minister ended the controversial policy in February 2008.112 From that point on, no more refugees would be sent to Nauru and Manus Island. Yet, Australia would remain strict on the border policy. The Rudd

government would send arriving „boat people‟ to processing center on its Indian

Ocean territory of Christmas Island instead.113

110_{Labor Seeks Compromise on Asylum Seekers. La Trobe University. March 1, 2012. Accessed in the 11th}

of December 2014. Available at: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2012/opinion/labor-seeks-compromise-on-asylum-seekers. Accessed in the 11th of December 2014.

111_{Election Summary. ABC Elections. Available at:}

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/summary.htm. Accessed in the 11th of December 2014

112_{The Sydney Morning Herald. July 4, 2013. Available at:}

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/dont-hold-your-breath-for-asylum-seeker-solution-kevin-rudd-20130704-2pd3r.html, accessed in the 18th of October 2014.

113_{Australia Winds Up the Pacific Solution. Amnesty International. February 15, 2008Available at:}

Furthermore, his government also abolished Temporary Protection Visas for the refugees.114 As the Rudd government argued, the Temporary Protection visa

was one of the Howard government‟s punitive treatments of refugees. A data from

Australia Parliamentary Document informed about the refugee‟s limited rights under the TPVs on travel, family reunification, and settlement services such as English language programs, employment and income assistance.115 To resolve the problems, Chris Evans, Rudd‟s Minister for Immigration and Citizenship replaced the TPVs with Bridging Visa as he deeply stated:116

„As a result of the abolition of the TPV policy, any existing

Temporary Protection visa or Temporary Humanitarian visa holder will be processed for permanent residency in Australia (Bridging Visa). From early 2008-09, people found to be refugees will receive a

permanent visa, regardless of their mode of arrival.‟

The shutdown was also remarked with the departure of 21 Sri Lankan refugees for resettlement in Australia.117

Although Rudd had shown his commitment, public concerns emerged about

what to do next. „Mandatory detention‟ policy is still in order. Christmas Island, Cocos Island, and Ashmore Reef persistently remain excised from Australia's migration zone.118 Consequently, „boat people‟ intercepted inside the excised location would still have their claims assessed not in the mainland. They would be

114_{Asylum Seekers. The Monthly. Available at:}

http://www.themonthly.com.au/nation-reviewed-robert-manne-comment-asylum-seekers-2706, accessed in the 17th„of October 2014.

115_{Rudd Government scraps Temporary Protection visas. Parliament of Australia. May 13, 2008. Available at:}

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F4JG Q6%22 Accessed in the 17th of October 2014.

116_Ibid.

117_{Asylum Seekers. The Monthly. Available at:}

http://www.themonthly.com.au/nation-reviewed-robert-manne-comment-asylum-seekers-2706, accessed in the 17th_{„of October 2014.} 118 _{Labor abandons its 'Small „Excision Zone. Safecom. Available at:}

sent to neither Nauru nor Manus Island but Christmas Island.119 Christmas Island was a remote area that used to be detention facilities for arriving asylum seekers before the Tampa incident.

119_{Direct Action. December 7, 2008. Available at:}

http://directaction.org.au/issue7/refugees_rudd_replaces_pacific_with_indian_ocean_solution, accessed in the 26th of September 2014.

CHAPTER III

THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFSHORE PROCESSING FACILITIES

IN 2012

A. The attitude shift of the Labor Party on ‘boat people’ issue: from the Rudd to Gillard government

Under Kevin Rudd's government, Australia dismantled the controversial

„Pacific Solution‟ shortly after he was elected as the Prime Minister in 2008. 120

His immigration ministry, Chris Evans stated the shutdown of „Pacific Solution‟

was the proudest moment of his political career.121 He implied that after seven

years of „Pacific Solution‟ regime, asylum seekers were eventually would be

liberated from the punishing policy.

In the 2010 election, Labor Deputy, Julia Gillard succeeded Kevin Rudd as the 27th Australia Prime Minister.122 After the election Gillard had promised that

her government would put the evaluation of „boat people‟ policy as a

priority.123However, the future of the Labor Party relied on Gillard‟s government

in the next few years in resolving the „boat people‟ issue. Labor Party expected that Gillard would resume the path of her Labor predecessor, Kevin Rudd, on asylum policy.

120 _{Australian Politicians are Adrift on a Sea of Hypocrisy. The Daily Telegraph. July 1, 2012. Available at:}

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/australian-politicians-are-adrift-on-a-sea-of-hypocrisy-writes-peter-van-onselen/story-e6frezz0 1226413146824?nk=7c5b6b7bd33002fce712e0e890eb8d30, accessed in the19th of October 2014.

121_Ibid.

122 _{2010 Federal Election: a brief history. Parliament of Australia. March 6, 2012. Available at:}

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1112 /12rp08#_Toc318798313, accessed in the19th _{of October 2014.}

123 _{Gillard Bites Bullet on Asylum Seekers. Australia Broadcasting Corporation. July 6, 2010. Available at:}

Gillard argued the Rudd government inherited an unfinished task on the offshore processing issue. Since the shutdown, the boats arrivals have increased.

From 2009 to 2010, there was likely to be 43.4 % increase in „boat people‟

arrivals, the highest in any year in Australian history.124

In the 2010 election campaign, the new Coalition leader, Tony Abbot suggested the re-introduction of temporary visas and the reestablishment of the Pacific Solution.125 He claimed that he had the support of about two-thirds of the Australian people.126 To respond to the issue, Gillard announced plans to set up a processing facilities in Timor Leste.127 Under this arrangement, arriving „boat

people‟ would be sent to Timor Leste to have their refugee claims assessed.128 It was rumored in 2010 that Gillard was planning to build a regional offshore processing facility. The location was still unclear, with Gillard approaching a number of countries in the region. The Australian Greens and some refugee advocacy groups viewed this arrangement similar with Howard‟s „Pacific

Solution.‟129

124 _{Asylum Seekers and Refugees: What are the Facts. Parliament of Australia. February 11, 2013. Available}

at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012 -2013/AsylumFacts, accessed in the 19th of October 2014.

125_{2010 Federal Election: a brief history. Parliament of Australia. March 6, 2012. Available at:}

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1112 /12rp08#_Toc318798308, accessed in the 19th of October 2014.

126_Ibid.

127_{Prime Minister Julia Gillard Backs Away from Plan for East Timor Processing Center for Asylum Seekers.}

The Courier Mail. July 9, 2010. Available at: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/prime-minister-julia-gillard-backs-away-from-plan-for-east-timor-processing-centre-for-asylum-seekers/story-e6freon6 1225889444149?nk=7c5b6b7bd33002fce712e0e890eb8d30, accessed in the 19th of October 2014.

128 _{Gillard Bites Bullet on Asylum Seekers. Australia Broadcasting Corporation. July, 6 2010. Available}

at:http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2946422.htm, accessed in the 19th of October 2014.

129 _{2010 Federal Election: a brief history. Parliament of Australia. March 6, 2012. Available at:}

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1112 /12rp08#_Toc318798308, accessed in the 19th _{of October 2014.}

Gillard described the new offshore processing facility in Timor Leste as the Pacific Solution with a „human face‟130 During the 2010 election campaign, Gillard proposed the establishment of a regional processing center in Timor Leste

to neutralize the reestablishment of „Pacific Solution‟ issue raised by the Coalition

candidate.131 Under the plan, asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat would be transferred to Timor Leste to be assessed. Gillard believed the purpose of the new center would be to eradicate the people smuggling activities.132 Labor's plan to create a regional center goal was clear. Her government emphasized that the policy was not to punish the asylum seekers. Yet it was to fight the people smuggling trade by removing the incentive for boats to leave their ports of origin in the first place.133

Gillard‟s stance on boat people was challenged and fell into a vulnerable

position after a ship crashed on 15 December 2010.134A ship containing 89 „boat

people‟ crashed into rocks off the shore of Christmas Island.135 In this fatal accident, 50 people perished.136 Australian lawyer, George Newhouse condemned

130 _{Part 5 Transcript. La Trobe University. Available at:}

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/ideas-and-society/asylum-seekers-and-australian-democracy/part-5-transcript, accessed in the 19th of October 2014.

131_Ibid.

132_{Gillard Unveils “East Timor Solution.” The Sydney Morning Herald. July 6, 2010. Available at:}

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-unveils-east-timor-solution-20100706-zy9s.html Accessed in the 11th of Dcember 2014.

133 _Ibid.

134 _{Christmas Island Asylum Seekers Told Rescuers would not Come at Night Ahead of Disaster. The}

Australian. July 27, 2011. Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/christmas-island-asylum-seekers-told-rescuers-would-not-come-at-night-ahead-of-disaster/story-e6frg6nf-1226102802234, accessed in the19th _{of October 2014.}

135_Ibid

136_{SIEV 221 Tragedy: Asylum Seekers‟s Families to Sue Government Over 2010 Christmas Island Accident.}

ABC News. Juni 17, 2014. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-17/asylum-seekers-families-sue-over-2010-christmas-island-tragedy/5528270, accessed in the19th _{of October 2014.}

the government‟s inadequate rescue response.137

Gillard immediately responded to the crash by reviewing the asylum seeker policy.

On 25 July 2011, Gillard announced Australia and Malaysia were signing a bilateral agreement to swap 800 boat people for 4000 confirmed refugees waiting in Malaysia for resettlement.138 This bilateral proposal was called the „Malaysia

Solution.‟ However the „Malaysia Solution‟ posted a serious challenge to the

Gillard government. Refugee advocates reacted by calling Malaysian Solution a

„rebadging of the Pacific Solution‟,139 _{as „reference‟ to the former}

Howard government's controversial asylum policy.140 Meanwhile Gillard denied her Malaysian Solution was similar to the Howard's Pacific Solution because it did

not adopt a „unilateral Australian approach‟.141

She insisted this was a regional solution to resolve the regional challenge.142

On 31 August 2011, the High Court concluded that the Malaysian Solution was illegal.143 The High Court held that the Malaysian Solution contradicted section 198a of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth),144 because Malaysia was not party to the UN Refugee Convention 1951 and had no legal obligation to protect asylum seekers. The High Court found that this was an essential violation

137_Ibid.

138_{Gillard Announces Malaysian Solution. The Sydney Morning Herald. May 7, 2011. Available at:}

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-announces-malaysian-solution-20110507-1ed0h.html, accessed in the 20th of October 2014.

139 _{Report Seeks to Break Australian Impasse over Asylum Seekers. CNN World. August 13, 2012. Available}

at:http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/13/world/asia/australia-asylum-houston-report/index.html, accessed in the 20th of October 2014.

140_Ibid.

141_{Gillard Announces Malaysian Solution. The Sydney Morning Herald. May 7, 2011. Available at:}

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-announces-malaysian-solution-20110507-1ed0h.html, accessed in the 20th _{of October 2014.}

142_Ibid.

143 _{The High Court Decision on the Malaysian Solution. ABC Canberra. November 25, 2011. Available}

at:http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/11/23/3374312.htm, accessed in the 20th of October 2014.

of Migration Act principles, and as such, the Malaysian Solution was a contravention of Australian law.145

B. The reopening of offshore processing facilities in Nauru and Manus Island in 2012

The decline of the Malaysian Solution triggered Gillard to reopen the offshore processing facilities in Nauru and Manus Island. The proposal was recommended by a panel of experts. Unlike the Malaysian Solution, the majority in Parliament fully backed the proposal to revisit Howard‟s offshore processing facility this time.146 The Immigration Opposition spokesman, Scott Morrison said,

„....the Coalition is willing to support legislation to open the offshore centers in Nauru and Manus Island.‟147

It drove the Gillard government to pass the proposal. These facilities were established with a Memorandum of Understanding between the Governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Asylum seekers who arrive on boats will be sent to Nauru and PNG. Family reunion rights would also be removed.148 Without these rights, Australian government prevented „boat

people‟ from sponsoring family members to reunite with them in Australia.149

The

145_Ibid.

146_{Government to Re-Introduce Offshore Processing. ABC News. August 14, 2012. Available at:}

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-13/government-to-re-introduce-offshore processing/4195900, accessed in the 23th of October 2014.

147_Ibid.

148_{Offshore Processing of Asylum Seekers Could Begin Within Months, PM Says. News. August 15, 2012.}

Available at: http://www.news.com.au/national/tent-cities-for-new-refugees/story-fndo4eg9-1226449752006, accessed in the 23th of October 2014.

Australian Government announced the relocation of asylum seekers to Nauru Manus Island would resume in November 2012.150

Under the re-establishment, Gillard‟s government created a „no advantage‟

principle. The Gillard‟s Minister for Immigration, Tony Burke, underlined that every „boat person‟ who arrived to Australia after 13 August 2012, will endure „an indefinite period‟ before and after being recognized as refugees.151

Hence, this principle provides asylum seekers who were sent to Nauru and Manus Island a slow and long process for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to assess their claims.152 The Panel Experts believed that a ‟no

-advantage‟ principle should deter boat people to come to Australia since it won‟t

benefit them.153

On the other hand, the panel also recommended Australia to increase the humanitarian intake of refugees from 13,750 a year to 20,000, rising to 27,000 over five years.154 This would be a „reward‟ given by the Australian government for those who apply for a visa through regular immigration channels.155 These

150_{The Truth about Manus Island: 2013 Report. Amnesty International. December 11, 2013. Available at:}

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/33587, accessed in the 23th of October 2014.

151_{“No Advantage” is the Maximum Disadvantage for Boat Arrivals. Refugee Council of Australia.}

November 21, 2012. Available at: https://refugeecouncil.org.au/n/mr/121121_noadvantage.pdf, accessed in the 23th of October 2014.

152_{Australia‟s Ship Wrecked Refugee Policy. The Monthly. Available at:}

http://www.themonthly.com.au/australia-s-shipwrecked-refugee-policy-tragedy-errors-guest-7637, accessed in the 23th of October 2014.

153_{No Advantage? Nobody Knows What that Means. Crikey. September 13, 2012. Available at:}

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/09/13/no-advantage-nobody-yet-knows-what-that-means/, accessed in the 23th _{of October 2014.}

154_{Australia to Deport Boat Asylum Seekers to Pacific Islands. The Guardian. August 13, 2012. Available at:}

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/13/australia-asylum-seekers-pacific-islands, accessed in the 23th

of October 2014.