Papua New Guinea Supreme Court: Australian Aslyum Detentions Are Illegal
The Manus Island detention center in 2012.

Papua New Guinea Supreme Court: Australian Aslyum Detentions Are Illegal

 
 

In explosive news this week, the Papua New Guinea (PNG) Supreme Court found that the Australian-funded detention of asylum seekers on PNG’s Manus Island province is unconstitutional. The bench unanimously found that the prolonged detention of asylum seekers breaches the right to personal liberty found in section 42 of the PNG Constitution. The Supreme Court has henceforth ordered that the Australian and PNG governments take immediate steps to end the detention program.

In 2014, PNG’s leader of the opposition, Belden Namah, brought a case opposing the detention center; a separate case was filed in 2015 on behalf of over 277 asylum seekers on Manus. The PNG government’s defense team was funded by the Australian government. Namah’s case was that the 2012 Memoranda of Understanding between Australia and PNG that set up the detention scheme were in breach of the constitution. By allowing Australia to transfer the asylum seekers by force into PNG, and then allowing the PNG government to detain them on Manus, the scheme breached the constitutional rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement.

The decision has thrown a wrench into the works of the Australian government’s long beleaguered “Pacific Solution.” First introduced under the Howard government in 2001, the reintroduction of the Pacific Solution under Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2012 saw thousands of asylum seekers detained offshore on Nauru and Manus Island. It has also seen two men lose their lives on Manus under the care of Australian taxpayers, alongside continuous reports of sexual assault, the ongoing harassment of gay asylum seekers, and multiple suicide and self-harm attempts.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

There are some 900 men in the Manus Island detention center, over 400 of whom have been identified as refugees. Immigration officials in PNG are thought to be attempting to transfer some of the Manus refugees into a “transit center” to prepare for resettlement in PNG, as well as introducing policies like conditional day leave. However, the decision this week has thrown many of these plans into disarray. The Supreme Court has called for the immediate restoration of freedom of movement, both for those who have been recognized as refugees and those subject to so-called “negative determinations.”

In return for offloading its humanitarian responsibility onto these foreign governments, Australia has been paying significant sums of money into Nauru and PNG, including a range of multi-million-dollar development initiatives on both Manus and the mainland, amounting to some $450 million overall. Under the current deal, the PNG immigration department conducts refugee status assessments and the resettlement processes, while the detention center is run by private contractors — including the Transfield corporation, on a $1.2 billion dollar contract — who are hired by the Australian government.

Public opinion in PNG toward the Australian-funded detention center has not been positive. Many regard the asylum seeker issue as an Australian problem that has been exported to PNG, with PNG students protesting in 2013 that “PNG is not your dumping ground” and the bishop of Port Moresby condemning the way that PNG had “become an accomplice in a very questionable handling of human tragedy.”

While he previously attempted to evade the question of the illegality of the detention through making constitutional amendments to erode the right to liberty, Prime Minister Peter O’Neill has already signaled that there are deep concerns about whether the continued operation of the detention center is in PNG’s best interests. In addressing the National Press Club in Canberra in March, O’Neill declared that the center should eventually be closed, stating that the controversy surrounding the center has “done a lot more damage for Papua New Guinea than anything else” and that “we cannot hold the refugees there forever.”

The order to close Manus holds significant ramifications for the future of the over 900 asylum seekers on the island. The 481 men who have been identified as refugees are eligible to be settled in PNG, although whether the PNG community will be at all receptive to absorbing 400+ largely Muslim men — and whether the asylum seekers themselves will accept resettlement in an often hostile environment — remains up for debate.

The same can be said for Australia’s alternative resettlement site of Cambodia, the product of a $55 million deal with the Cambodian government that has been so unpopular that only two asylum seekers have chosen to settle there permanently. Consequently, a daunting task lies ahead for the already overstretched PNG immigration department. Further resettlement demands are likely to be a big headache for a country that is already struggling to accommodate around 10,000 West Papuan refugees living within their borders. This difficulty will remain a prime concern for the PNG government, even if O’Neill ultimately chooses the Nauru route of turning Manus into an “open facility,” where the asylum seekers are effectively free to move around within the broader prison of the island itself.

Assuming that the PNG government abides by the court order, the O’Neill administration may have few options beside breaking the MOU with Australia. The Supreme Court ruling comes only days after the Supreme Court issued an interim injunction ordering a halt on the forced deportation of asylum seekers. Whilst there is some doubt as to whether the immigration department will abide by this ruling, overall it seems unlikely that the remaining asylum seekers could be deported back to their countries of origin.

Breaking the MOU will be a drastic step within the Australia-PNG relationship, and may well imperil the PNG economy. The aid budget from Australia to PNG for 2015-2016 period stands at A$477 million, making PNG the largest single recipient of Australian aid. But with most of the financial incentives for entering into the MOU already sunk, and his government currently plunged into a deep corruption crisis with the recent arrest of his attorney general and another arrest warrant floating over his own head, O’Neill may be tempted to wash his hands of the drama and send the responsibility back to Australia.

Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has already firmly announced that the men will not be resettled in Australia, but it is unclear where else they can go. Australia’s other offshore facility of Nauru may be an option, but whether it has the capacity to take another 400 men is another question entirely. A return to Christmas Island may be in order. Whatever developments may follow, it is clear that the situation in Manus will be changing fast. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Ambeng Kandakasi: “In cases like the present, which involves the liberty of persons or other rights and the freedom of human beings, prompt action is required.”

Sally Andrews is a New Colombo Plan Scholar and the 2015-2016 New Colombo Plan Indonesia Fellow. She is a Director of the West Papuan Development Company and the 2016 Indo-Pacific Fellow for Young Australians in International Affairs.

This article was originally published on the Young Australians in International Affairs blog, Insights. It is reprinted with kind permission.

Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief