Back to

Correcting misinformation about Australia’s offshore processing policy

Amid political debates on the ‘externalization’ of asylum in the United Kingdom, Europe and beyond, Kaldor Centre scholars show why the Australian model of offshore processing should be avoided – not imitated.

Published on the 09 July 2024 by Clare Francis
MANUS ISLAND, PAPUA NEW GUINEA - 2018/02/05: Pakistani asylum seeker, Shabbir Hossein looks out over the ocean. He fled the Taliban in his native country and was hopping to find sanctuary in Australia. But in stead he was sent to Australia offshore detention center at Manus island. The human cost of Australias offshore detention policy has been high for those unfortunate enough to have been caught in its net. For asylum seekers trapped on the remote island of Manus in Papua New Guinea, the future remains as uncertain as ever. Australias offshore detention center there was destroyed in 31 October 2017 but for the 600 or so migrants who remain on the remote Pacific island, little has changed. The asylum seekers live with the torment of separation from family and friends and in the shadow of depression and the traumas of their past. (Photo by Jonas Gratzer/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Over the past decade, political debates about the ‘externalization’ of borders as a means of deterring asylum seekers have been hotly contested in Europe and elsewhere. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer scrapped the UK-Rwanda deportation scheme – which would have seen thousands of asylum seekers forcibly transferred to Rwanda for processing – on his first full day in office. Yet, faced with increased support for far-right parties in the 2024 European elections, the German parliament is considering potential models for asylum processing in third countries.

Some European political leaders have invoked the Australian ‘model’ of offshore processing as a success story that could be exported globally. However, a paper by Kaldor Centre scholars Madeline Gleeson and Natasha Yacoub in the new Externalizing Asylum series, “Offshore Processing” in Australia, shows that such international interest is based on misunderstandings or misinformation about the implementation and effectiveness of the policy in Australia.

Contrary to some public claims, there is no evidence that offshore processing had any deterrent effect on asylum seekers trying to reach Australia by boat, Gleeson and Yacoub write. Nor was the policy successful when weighed against other key indicators, including its cost, lawfulness, and humanitarian impact. Gleeson and Yacoub conclude that offshore processing has not ‘worked’ in Australia. Far from a model, it should serve as a warning to other countries who risk being mired in similar policy failures.

Read “Offshore Processing” in Australia and explore the series, Externalizing Asylum, available in German and English.

Watch the 5-minute explainer, ‘Cruel, costly and ineffective: The failure of offshore processing in Australia’.

For more information, contact the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law.