Australia's mandatory detention regime for asylum seekers who come by boat has been widely and justifiably condemned. This is a lecture delivered on 20 August 2011 at the annual conference of the Australia and New Zealand Association of psychiatry, Psychology and Law.

1. A tale of two
Pacific Solutions
Harry Minas
Centre for International Mental Health
Melbourne School of Population Health
Delivered at:
Winter Symposium: Young People and State Intervention
Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry,
Psychology and Law (VIC)
Mercure Ballarat Hotel & Convention Centre, Ballarat
20 August 2011

2. Outline
 Refugees and asylum seekers
 Impact of detention on mental health
 Mandatory detention
 The 1st Pacific Solution
 The 2nd ‘Pacific Solution’
 Where to next?

3. Refugees and Asylum Seekers

4. Definition of a Refugee
A refugee is someone whom:
Owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion, is outside the
country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that
country
or
Who, not having a nationality and being outside the
country of his former habitual residence, is unable or
owing to such fear is unwilling to return to it
(UNHCR Convention on Refugees 1951)

5. Refugees and asylum seekers
 In 2009 15.2 million refugees globally – most in
developing countries
 Many more internally displaced persons &
‘persons of interest’
 983,000 asylum seekers
 Women and girls constitute - 47%
 Children below 18 years - 41%
UNHCR
 Australia takes about 14,000 refugees per
year

6. Australia s International Obligations
 Australia
was
one
of
the
24
countries
that
par4cipated
in
the
conference
in
Geneva
in
July
1951
that
dra=ed
and
unanimously
adopted
the
Conven4on
Rela4ng
to
the
Status
of
Refugees
 Among
the
first
signatories
of
the
1951
Conven4on
-­‐
the
6th
state
to
sign
in
January
1954
-­‐
and
of
the
1967
Protocol
on
the
status
of
refugees
 Australia
re-­‐affirmed
its
commitment
to
the
Conven4on
and
Protocol
at
a
Ministerial
Mee4ng
in
Geneva
in
December
2001
 The
refugee
Conven4on
is
 the
founda4on
of
of
the
interna4onal
system
of
refugee
protec4on
 a
human
rights
instrument
with
legal,
poli4cal
and
ethical
significance
that
goes
well
beyond
its
specific
terms

7. Australia: Human rights leader
 In the past 50 years >700,000 refugees re-settled in
Australia
 Australia has been
 A leader in protecting the human rights of refugees
 Among the most generous refugee resettlement countries
in terms of:
 the number per capita of refugees resettled and
 in the quality of resettlement programs
 Australia s resettlement programs for refugees with
Permanent Protection Visas are still among the best
internationally
 although there is considerable room for improvement in the
quality & accessibility of mental health and other services

8. Mental health impact of detention

9. Reports: 2007-2010
1. Commonwealth Ombudsman, Notification of decisions and review rights for unsuccessful visa applications, Report no. 15 of 2007, 2007.
2. Proust E, Report to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on the Appropriate Use of Ministerial Powers under the Migration and Citizenship Acts
and Migration Regulations, 2008.
3. Refugee Council of Australia, Australia’s refugee and humanitarian program:1.
Community views on current challenges and future directions, Sydney,
2008.
4. Commonwealth Ombudsman, Administration of detention debt waiver and write‐off, Report no. 2 of 2008, 2008.
5. Refugee Council of Australia, Who bears the cost of Australia’s Special Humanitarian Program?, Sydney, 2008.
6. Commonwealth Ombudsman, The Safeguards System, Report no. 7 of 2008, 2008.
7. Australian Citizenship Test Review Committee, Moving forward...Improving Pathways to Citizenship, Canberra, 2008.
8. Refugee Review Tribunal, Guidance on the assessment of credibility, Sydney, 2008.
9. Simon K, Asylum Seekers, Briefing paper no. 13 of 2008, NSW Parliamentary Library Service, Sydney, 2008.
10. AHRC, Immigration detention and visa cancellation under section 501 of the Migration Act, Sydney, 2009.
11. AHRC, Complaints by immigration detainees against the Commonwealth of Australia, Report No. 40, Sydney, 2009.
12. Commonwealth Ombudsman, Use of Interpreters: AFP, Centrelink, DEEWR, DIAC, Report No. 3 of 2009, 2009.
13. Commonwealth Ombudsman, Detention arrangements: the case of Mr W, 2009.
14. Spinks H, Australia’s settlement services for migrants and refugees, Research paper, no. 29, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2009.
15. Kent L and Abu‐Duhou J The Search for Protection: Resettled refugees reflect on seeking asylum in Asia and the Middle East, Refugee Council of
Australia, 2009.
16. Refugee Review Tribunal, Guidance on vulnerable persons, Sydney, 2009.
17. DIAC, Refugee and Humanitarian Issues: Australia’s Response, 2009.
18. Commonwealth Ombudsman DIAC: Invalid Visa Applications, Report No. 10 of 2009, 2009.
19. Spinks H, Refugees and asylum seekers: a guide to key electronic resources, Background note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2009.
20. Brennan F, Kostakidis M, Williams T and Palmer M, National Human Rights Consultation Report, Canberra, 2009.
21. Karlsen E, Complementary protection for asylum seekers ‐ overview of the international and Australian legal frameworks, Research paper no. 7,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2009.
22. Taylor J, Behind Australian Doors: Examining the Conditions of Detention of Asylum Seekers in Indonesia, 2009.
23. Refugee Council of Australia, Family reunion and Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program: A discussion paper, Sydney, 2009.
24. Buckmaster L, Australian government assistance to refugees: fact v fiction, Background note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2009.
25. Green J and Eagar K, The health of people in Australian immigration detention centres, Medical Journal of Australia, 2010, 192 (2).
26. Phillips J, Asylum seekers and refugees: what are the facts?, Background note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2010.
27. Phillips J and Spinks H, Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976, Background note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2010.
28. Karlsen E, Phillips J and Koleth E, Seeking Asylum: Australia’s humanitarian response to a global challenge, Background note, Parliamentary Library,
Canberra, 2010.
29. Refugee Council of Australia, Refugee policy in the 2010 federal election campaign: What the parties are saying, Sydney 2010.

10. Mental Health: Detention
 Prolonged immigration detention damages
mental health
 The manifestations of such harm include depression,
anxiety, self-harm, suicide attempts and a number of
suicides.
 Particularly vulnerable to such harm are people who
have been traumatised in their own countries and
most in need of our protection.
 Also vulnerable are children and adolescents, who
suffer developmental distortions and delays, as well
as psychological disorders.
 This harm is likely to be long-term.

11. Mental Health: Vilification
 The harm caused by detention and the
temporary protection visa regime has been
exacerbated by the systematic and sustained
vilification to which asylum seekers have been
subjected.
 Asylum seekers have been systematically
portrayed as queue jumpers, and therefore
undeserving of our protection, and as
representing a risk to national security.

12. Detention Centres: January-June 2011
 1,507 hospital admissions
 72 psychiatric inpatient admissions
 213 episodes of self-harm needing medical
attention
 723 voluntary starvation needing medical
attention
 Riots and general disorder
 264 criminal incidents reported to police

13. Mandatory detention

14. Mandatory detention
 Mandatory detention introduced -1991
 Temporary protection visas - 1999
 TPVs were introduced “as a disincentive to
unauthorised arrival…”
 TPV holders, unlike permanent protection visa
holders
 had no right of return if they left Australia
 no automatic right to family reunion
 limited access to welfare and settlement
services
 Tampa and the Pacific Solution – 2001

15. Labor Opposition Policy - 2002
 ‘The Howard Government’s ‘Pacific Solution’ has cost
more than half a billion dollars to date and is budgeted to
cost more than half a billion more in the next four years.
Despite wasting more than a billion dollars and despite
the Howard Government’s claims that none of these
asylum seekers will set foot on Australian soil, 312 have
already been resettled in Australia with more on the way.
The Howard Government now says that the only reason
for the ‘Pacific Solution’ is to prevent asylum seekers
from gaining access to the more favourable processing
system in Australia.’
Crean & Gillard: ‘Protecting Australia and protecting the Australian way’
December 2002

16. Labor Opposition Policy - 2002
 ‘The ‘Pacific Solution’ is not just costly, it is a
short term ad hoc strategy. Does anyone really
believe Australia will be detaining asylum
seekers on Nauru in 10, 20 or 50 years?’
 Labor’s 2002 policy committed Labor to ‘ending
the so-called “Pacific Solution”, because it is
costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter
of principle’.
Crean & Gillard: ‘Protecting Australia and protecting the
Australian way’ December 2002

17. UNHCR 2002
 ‘Of concern to UNHCR in the cases of Nauru and Manus
Island, is that refugees who have been recognized and
therefore have had their status regularised remain detained
until a durable solution is found. This detention is without time
limits or periodic review. The ongoing detention of persons
recognized as refugees is a restriction of freedom of
movement in breach of Article 26 of the 1951 Convention.
Furthermore, such detention is not consistent with Article 31
(2) of the Refugee Convention, which provides that
restrictions of freedom of movement shall only be applied until
the status of refugees in the country is regularised. Even
though these recognised refugees are no longer on Australia's
territory, Australia's obligations under the Refugee Convention
continue to be engaged until a durable solution is found.’

18. Detention
 85-90% of boat arrivals in immigration detention
centres have been found to be refugees.
 This proportion has declined in the past year or
two.
 When we are considering detention of asylum
seekers it is essentially detention of refugees

19. Immigration Minister
 Introduction of the Detention Values statement - 2008
 ‘The Rudd Government is proud of its reforms in
abolishing temporary protection visas, closing the so-
called Pacific Solution, introducing decent values to
detention policy, providing independent review of
negative asylum decisions and abolishing detention
debt. They reflect values of fairness, respect and
decency in dealing with asylum seekers not a weakening
of border security’.
Senator Evans, late 2010

20. Immigration Minister 2010
 ‘The contemporary debate in Australia has been
characterized by a narrow focus on domestic
policy and a return to demands for simplistic and
punitive policy responses, with no regard to
evidence of likely success.’
Chris Evans, late 2010
 Senator Evans criticised the Howard
Government for ‘the outsourcing of Australia’s
international obligations with the
establishment of the Offshore Processing
Centres at Nauru and Manus Island’.

21. Gillard PM
 Despite the introduction of the 2008 ‘Detention Values’,
soon after becoming prime minister Ms Gillard
 Committed Labor to offshore processing.
 Fully adopted the Opposition position that people
smugglers must be denied ‘a product to sell’
 Announced a new policy framework ‘to ensure people
smugglers have nothing to sell’ - a ‘regional
processing centre’ in East Timor.
 Gillard: ‘The purpose would be to ensure that people
smugglers have no product to sell. Arriving by boat would
just be a ticket back to the regional processing centre.’
 When asked about Ms Gillard’s plan the prime minister
of East Timor, Xanana Gusmao, replied: ‘What plan?’

22. Where too next?

23. Secretary’s Questions
Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Immigration Detention Network
 How should we manage the issue of asylum?
 What is the balance between our international obligations to
protect refugees and our need for strong border controls?
 Can we manage different cohorts, with different success rates
or security and risk features, in different ways?
 How do we manage reception… and our detention network?
 Is immigration detention a deterrent?
 Does immigration detention facilitate case resolution?
 What range of facilities should be utilised?
 For how long is an immigration arrival and status
determination process in a detention centre environment
required?

24. Border protection
 The use of the term border protection suggests
that it is we who need protection from refugees,
rather than they who engage our protection
obligations
 Has the government been aware of the mental
health and other harms done by the detention
and temporary protection visa regime?
 Yes, but clear and persistent advice has been
comprehensively ignored

25. Re-traumatisation is OK
 A disturbing element of the re-traumatisation of
already vulnerable people – by systematic
vilification, prolonged detention and the agony of
temporary protection – is that it is knowingly
done in pursuit of the policy objective of border
protection.
 In Australia it has become legitimate to
systematically mistreat one group of people in
order to influence the behaviour of another.
 It is also disturbing that that such mistreatment
has been presented in a way that wins the
approval of the majority of the population.

26. Pacific
Solu+on
2
 The fate of the ‘Malaysia solution’ is unknown -
dependent on the High Court
 The Gillard government signed an agreement
yesterday with the PNG government to re-open
Manus Island

27. Population Survey August 2011
 Boat arrivals should be:
 Allowed to land and claims assessed in Aus – 53%
 Sent to another country to assess claims – 28%
 Sent back out to sea – 15%
 Boat arrivals should be:
 Held in detention – 64%
 Allowed to live in the community – 32%
 ‘Genuine’ refugees should be:
 Allowed to stay permanently in Aus – 60%
 Allowed to stay temporarily until safe to return – 36%

28. The
future
 We
are
now
where
we
were
in
2001,
except
we
now
have
a
bipar4san
consensus
 We
will
re-­‐commence
transporta4on
of
asylum
seekers
 The
next
government
 Nauru
 Temporary
protec4on
visas
 ???
Other
measures

29. Current Asylum Seeker Policy
 The damage inflicted in August 2001 by Coalition
opportunism and Labor weakness has yet to run its course.
 Australian Federal Police train in a clearing in the jungle on Christmas Island to handle
any possible trouble with refugees being transported to Malaysia. (Herald, Sun 2/8/2011)