Australia’s more than two decades of offshore migration processing is drawing renewed attention as the European Union and United States expand or consider arrangements that involve sending some migrants to third countries.
Australia introduced its first major offshore processing policy in 2001 under the government of then-Prime Minister John Howard. Known as the “Pacific Solution”, the policy was designed to discourage people from travelling by boat to seek asylum in Australia.
Under the system, asylum seekers arriving by sea could be transferred to processing facilities in countries including Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
The policy was later dismantled by a Labor government in 2008, which described it as expensive and ineffective. However, offshore processing was reintroduced in 2012 as boat arrivals and deaths at sea increased.
The number of people transferred offshore reached more than 3,000 during 2013 and 2014.
Supporters of the Australian system have argued that offshore processing and other border measures helped discourage dangerous sea journeys and reduced incentives for people to pay smugglers to reach Australia by boat. But the policy has also faced years of criticism over the treatment of asylum seekers and the conditions in offshore facilities.
Access to the facilities for journalists and independent observers was restricted for long periods, according to Australia’s Refugee Council. Critics have argued that limited outside scrutiny made it difficult to independently assess conditions and the effectiveness of the policy.
Former detainees have also brought legal cases over their treatment. In 2017, a group of asylum seekers held on Manus Island reached a settlement worth 70 million Australian dollars following claims involving abuse and unlawful detention.
An Australian Senate inquiry also heard testimony about alleged neglect, untreated medical conditions and concerns about the safety and dignity of people held on Nauru.
The financial cost of the policy has also been significant. Australia had spent more than 13 billion Australian dollars on offshore detention since 2012, according to the report.
The country has continued to develop third-country arrangements. More recently, Nauru agreed to accept certain foreign nationals convicted of crimes in Australia who cannot legally be returned to their countries of origin, under a deal reportedly worth 2.5 billion Australian dollars over 30 years.
The Australian experience is now being watched as the European Union develops its own framework for return arrangements outside the bloc.
On October 1, EU countries formally approved new return rules allowing member states to establish return hubs in non-EU countries for people who have received decisions requiring them to leave. The arrangements require an agreement with the third country and must comply with international human rights standards, including the principle of non-refoulement. Unaccompanied minors are excluded from such arrangements.
The EU says the new rules are intended to improve the enforcement of return decisions. Around two-thirds of people ordered to leave the EU currently do not actually leave, according to the European Council.
Several EU countries are already working together on possible return hubs. Germany, Austria, Greece, Denmark and the Netherlands have been involved in discussions about developing a common approach, with Rwanda and Uganda among countries that have been mentioned as possible partners.
The proposal has raised questions over whether third-country facilities can provide adequate legal protection and humane conditions while also delivering the intended reduction in irregular migration.
The United States has also expanded its use of third-country deportation arrangements. The US has reached agreements with countries in Africa and Latin America to receive people deported from American territory.
The US system has faced legal challenges over whether migrants receive adequate notice about where they will be sent and whether they have a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture before removal.
Australia’s experience demonstrates that offshore migration policies can involve substantial financial commitments and remain subject to legal and human rights scrutiny for many years.
It also shows that measuring the impact of offshore processing can be difficult because such policies are often implemented alongside other border measures, including efforts to intercept or turn back boats.
For governments considering similar arrangements, the Australian case therefore raises questions not only about whether offshore processing can reduce irregular arrivals, but also about its long-term costs, oversight, legal safeguards and the treatment of people transferred outside the country where they initially sought protection.