Australian Immigration Minister Scott Morrison in Sydney on September 23, 2013. (AFP PHOTO/William WEST)
Australia’s controversial offshore asylum centers are once again making headlines following a violent protest at a Papua New Guinea facility on Tuesday in which one asylum seeker was killed and at least 77 more injured. There are conflicting accounts of what took place on Manus Island, with Australian Immigration Minister Scott Morrison initially claiming that detainees started a riot after attempting to force their way out of the facility’s fences. Refugee representatives, on the other hand, have disputed the minister’s claims, alleging that detainees came under siege by Papua New Guinea police and locals.
Reports around the nature of the injuries and first-hand accounts appear to contradict the government’s line and, with the outcry growing around the incident — which rights advocates are now describing as a “premeditated massacre” — Canberra has been forced to backtrack slightly on their version of events. Morrison conceded later on Tuesday that there was some ambiguity about the source of the violence and has announced that an independent review will be undertaken, albeit by his own departmental secretary.
The violence, along with the government’s response, is sure to invite more scrutiny of Australia’s offshore asylum regime, which has already attracted the criticism of rights organizations like Amnesty International, the group labeling the facility on Manus Island “cruel and prison-like” in a December report. The Manus facility is one of two Australian-operated detention centers in the South Pacific (the other is on the island of Nauru) and has seen protests escalate over the past few weeks, reportedly in response to news that detainees would remain indefinitely isolated on the island even if their refugee claims were accepted.
VISUAL CONTEXT: Australia’s asylum seekers
Source: WSJ
The policy of redirecting refugees to these offshore facilities predates Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s aggressive stance on asylum seekers, representing successive governments’ precarious balancing act between Australia’s international obligations and domestic pressure for tough immigration policy. The offshore sites allow officials to stop short of turning away refugees entirely, but also serve as a physical solution to housing arriving asylum seekers — most of whom never even set foot on Australian soil — as well as a psychological deterrent.
Canberra’s refugee policy, which mandates the detention of maritime arrivals (sometimes indefinitely), is clearly designed to deter potential asylum seekers. The inhumane conditions at these camps, though shrouded in official secrecy, are nonetheless common knowledge. Perversely, it appears that the Australian government is actively hyping this bad reputation to refugees (see the Customs and Border Protection Service’s comic book campaign to deter Afghan asylum seekers).
As nasty as the Manus incident may be, it only plays into this campaign. Even with the outcry, the advantages of the off-site system, which provide literal, physical distance between Canberra and the extra-national facilities, allow Abbott’s government enough room to insulate itself from the specific atrocities (allowing for blame to instead be directed towards the security firm charged with overseeing the facility or Papua New Guinea) while also maintaining its image as tough on immigration.
