THE PRACTICES OF AUSTRALIA’S IMMIGRATION
POLICIES TO ENCOUNTER THE ILLEGAL
MARITIME ARRIVALS IN STRENGTHENING
AUSTRALIA NATIONAL SECURITY (2001 – 2013)
By
CHERRISH AUGIANTI
016201300029
A thesis presented to the
Faculty of Humanities
President University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for
Bachelor Degree in International Relations
Major in Diplomacy Studies
January 2017
i
PANEL OF EXAMINER
APPROVAL SHEET
The Panel of Examiners declare that the thesis entitled “The Practices
of Australia’s Immigration Policies to Encounter the Illegal Maritime
Arrivals in Strengthening Australia National Security (2001 – 2013)”
that was submitted by Cherrish Augianti majoring in International
Relations from the Faculty of Humanity was assessed and approved
to have passed the Oral Examinations on February 16th, 2017.
Drs. Teuku Rezasyah, M.A., Ph.D. (Chair - Panel of Examiner)
Natasya Kusumawardani, S.IP., MProfStuds (Hons) (Examiner I)
Hendra Manurung, S.IP., MA. (Thesis Adviser)
ii
THESIS ADVISER
RECOMMENDATION LETTER
This thesis entitled “The Practices of Australia’s Immigration
Policies to Encounter the Illegal Maritime Arrivals in
Strengthening Australia National Security (2001 – 2013)”
prepared and submitted by Cherrish Augianti in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Bachelor in International Relations
in the Faculty of Humanities has been reviewed and found to have
satisfied the requirements for a thesis fit to be examined. I therefore
recommend this thesis for Oral Defense
Cikarang, Indonesia, January 26th 2017
Recommended and Acknowledged by,
Hendra Manurung, S.IP., MA.
Thesis Adviser
iii
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
I declare that this thesis, entitled “The Practices of Australia’s
Immigration Policies to Encounter the Illegal Maritime Arrivals
in Strengthening Australia National Security (2001 – 2013)” is,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, an original piece of work that
has not been submitted, either in whole or in part, to another
university to obtain a degree.
Cikarang, Indonesia, January 26th 2017
Cherrish Augianti
iv
ABSTRACT
Title: THE PRACTICE OF AUSTRALIA’S IMMIGRATION POLICIES
IN ENCOUNTER THE ILLEGAL MARITIME ARRIVALS IN
STRENGTHENING AUSTRALIA NATIONAL SECURITY (2001 – 2013)
The issue of illegal maritime arrivals or asylum seekers have been categorized
as the global issues that happened in the human civilization due to intensify fear
of being threatened for their safety. Irregular migration has received much
attention and concerns among states and in the international communities. The
boat arrivals in Australia have been perceived as threat towards the Australian
national security, thus the government have seen the urgency to encounter the
illegal maritime arrivals through some security measures. The research will
analyze the policy making process of Australian policy as the Government’s
approach in dealing with Illegal Maritime Arrivals. The method used in this
research will be descriptive analysis. By using the theory of Societal Security by
Barry Buzan and Bridgman and Davis Policy Cycle to analyze the process of
policy formulation under the government of the four leadership term, the result
shows that the process of policy making on each of leadership have resulted
different outcomes towards the number of boat arrivals to Australian territory.
From that result then it will be analyzed on whether the Australian national
security was strengthen or not using the number of boat people arrivals to
Australian territory as the indicators.
Keywords: Illegal Maritime Arrivals, Public Policy, Australia, Immigration,
Policy Formulation.
v
ABSTRAK
Judul: PRAKTIK KEBIJAKAN IMIGRASI AUSTRALIA DALAM
MENGHADAPI KEDATANGAN MARITIM ILEGAL UNTUK
MEMPERKUAT KEAMANAN NASIONAL AUSTRALIA (2001-2013)
Isu Kedatangan Maritim Ilegal atau Pencari Suaka telah dikategorikan sebagai
masalah global yang terjadi di peradaban manusia karena keselamatan mereka
terancam di negeri asalnya. Irregular migrasi telah menerima banyak perhatian
dan kekhawatiran di kalangan negara-negara dan dan komunitas internasional.
Kedatangan perahu yang tidak sah telah dianggap sebagai ancaman terhadap
keamanan nasional Australia., sehingga pemerintah telah melihat urgensi untuk
menghadapi kedatangan maritim ilegal melalui beberapa langkah-langkah
keamanan. Penelitian ini akan menganalisis proses pembuatan kebijakan
Australia sebagai langkah-langkah pemerintah dalam mengangani kedatangan
maritim ilega. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah analisis deskriptif.
Dengan menggunakan teori Societal Security oleh Barry Buzan dan Bridgman
dan Davis Policy Cycle untuk menganalisis proses perumusan kebijakan
dibawah jangka waktu empat kepemimpinan (2001-2013). Hasil yang telah
didapatkan dari analisa setiap pembuatan kebijakan menghasilkan pengaruh
yang berbeda terhadap jumlah kedatangan perahu ke teritori Australia. Dari hasil
tersebut, kemudian dianalisis apakah kebijakan tersebut memperkuat keamanan
nasional Australia atau tidak dengan menggunakan jumlah kedatangan dari
manusia perahu ke Australia.
Kata Kunci: Kedatangan Maritim Ilegal, Kebijakan Publik, Australia, Imigrasi,
Pembuatan Kebijakan
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I would like to give my greatest gratitude and let all praise to my God,
Jesus Christ. For the countless blessings and His guidance to me every single
time in finishing this thesis.
I would like to give my highest gratitude to my family, for my dad, mom and my
sister. Thank you for the love, prayers and full support during my time making
this thesis, thank you for never underestimate me and thank you for raising me.
This thesis will not possible to be finished without your prayer and support.
Special thank you to Mr. Hendra Manurung, S.IP., MA. and Ms. Natasya
Kusumawardani S.IP., MProfStuds., as my thesis advisors. Thank you for being
a supportive mentor by giving me new insights during consultation and help me
with a bunch of useful materials for the research. It is a great honor to be advised
by both of Mr. Hendra and Ms. Natasya.
To my special friends, to IR big Families, to my UHU Komsel and to all my
friends in PresUniv, I also would like to send my greatest thank you for all of
your support during the hard making process of this thesis. To Ines, Dwi Chintya
and Fenni, thank you for always be with me and cheer me up when everything
seems complicated, thank you for being the most awesome best friends ever.
Thank you for Sandra, Hana, Ine, Tia for your willingness to share your room
for me so I can do my thesis. Thank you for the fun and sad moments of us that
coloring my university life even until now, my life couldn’t be this fun without
all of you. The last but not least, thank you for Beniah for always supporting me
from the start of this thesis until the end, thank you for reminding me not to give
up easily and always pray for me. At the end, thank you for all the people and
friends that also supporting me. Thank you and Gbu.
Cikarang, 26 January 2017
Cherrish Augianti
vii
Table of Contents
PANEL OF EXAMINER APPROVAL SHEET ................................................. i
THESIS ADVISER RECOMMENDATION LETTER .................................... ii
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ............................................................. iii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRAK .......................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ x
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER I ........................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
I.1 Background of the problem .................................................................... 1
I.2 Problem Identification ............................................................................ 5
I.3 Statement of the Problem........................................................................ 8
I.4 Research Objective .................................................................................. 8
I.5 Significance of Studies ............................................................................. 8
I.6 Theoretical Framework .......................................................................... 9
I.6.1 National Security: Societal Security ............................................... 9
I.6.2 The Bridgeman and Davis Policy Cycle ....................................... 12
I.7 Scope and Limitations of the Study ..................................................... 15
1.8 Research Methodology.......................................................................... 16
1.9 Thesis Outline ........................................................................................ 17
CHAPTER II ..................................................................................................... 19
Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) as a Non-traditional Threat to Australia
National Security ............................................................................................... 19
II.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 19
II.2 People Smuggling and Contemporary Forced Migration ................ 20
II.3 Illegal Maritime Arrivals in Australia ............................................... 27
II.4 The flows and transit routes of people smuggling to Australia ....... 30
II.4.1 Transit Countries .......................................................................... 31
viii
II.5 Push and Pull Factors of IMAs Intending to Australia .................... 39
II.6 Australia as the Destination Country for Illegal Maritime Arrivals
....................................................................................................................... 40
II.7 Chapter Summary ............................................................................... 44
CHAPTER III ................................................................................................... 46
Australia National Security Policy .................................................................... 46
III.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 46
III.2 Australia National Security: Preserving Border Integrity ............. 46
III.3 Australia Maritime Security .............................................................. 49
III.4 The Australia’s approaches to encounter the Illegal Maritime
Arrivals......................................................................................................... 51
III.4.1 Australia’s approaches to Indonesia as a transit country ....... 59
III.5 Policy shift in Australia to more restricted the unauthorized boat60
III.5.1 John Howard’s Leadership toward IMAs ................................ 62
III.5.2 Kevin Rudd’s Leadership toward IMAs ................................... 63
III.5.3 Julia Gillard’s Leadership toward IMAs .................................. 64
III.5.4 Tony Abbott’s Leadership toward IMAs .................................. 65
III.6 Australia as nation state and democratic state ................................ 66
III.7 Chapter Summary .............................................................................. 66
CHAPTER IV ................................................................................................... 68
The Analysis of the Policy Formulation of Australia National Security Policy
Approaches in Dealing with Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs)........................ 68
IV.1 The Policy Making Process of Australia’s National Security Policies
under John Howard’s Leadership (2001-2007) ........................................ 70
IV.1.1 The Tampa Incident .................................................................... 70
IV.1.2 Policy Formulation of Pacific Solution ...................................... 76
IV.2 The Policy Making Process of Australia’s National Security Policies
under Kevin Rudd’s Leadership (2007-2010 and 2013) .......................... 86
IV.2.1 The Disclosure of Detention Centers.......................................... 87
IV.2.3 The Shifting Policy in Kevin Rudd Second Leadership in 2013
................................................................................................................... 92
IV.3 The Policy Making Process of Australia’s National Security Policies
under Julia Gillard’s Leadership (2010 - 2013) ....................................... 93
ix
IV.3.1 Political Situation and Shifting of Framing .............................. 93
IV.4 The Policy Making Process of Australia’s National Security Policies
under Tony Abbott’s Leadership (2013 - 2015) ....................................... 97
IV.4.1 Militarization of Humanitarian Matter ..................................... 97
IV.4.2 Policy Formulation of Operation Sovereign Border ................ 98
IV.5 Chapter Summary ............................................................................ 105
CHAPTER V ................................................................................................... 108
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 108
V.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 108
REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 110
APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 123
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I.1 the incoming of IMAs to Australia from Parliamentary Library ... 3
Figure I.2 The Number of Migrants arrived by Sea (Parliament of Australia,
2016) ............................................................................................................... 5
Figure I.3 Bridgman and Davis Policy Cycle (Bridgman and Davis, 2000). 12
Figure II.1 Number of unauthorized arrivals by boat and air 1999-00 until
2011-12 (Parliament of Australia; MSWG; Department of Immigration and
Citizenship, Annual Report 2011-12) ........................................................... 29
Figure II.2 Major Countries of origin to Australia (Australian Government,
Department of Immigration and Border Protection) ..................................... 31
Figure II.3 Migration routes map of Southeast Asian migration routes. ...... 33
Figure II.4 Malaysia’s total Population of Concern based of country of origin
as of end October 2016 ................................................................................. 38
Figure IV.1The Bridgman and Davis Policy Cycle ...................................... 69
Figure IV.2 Attitudes to boat people and detention ...................................... 81
Figure IV.3 Bridgman and Davis policy framework under John Howard
government .................................................................................................... 86
Figure IV.4 Boat arrivals since 2008-2011 ...................................................91
Figure IV.5 Bridgman and Davis policy framework under Kevin Rudd’s
government .................................................................................................... 92
Figure IV.6 Bridgman and Davis policy framework under Julia Gillard’s
government .................................................................................................... 97
Figure IV.7 The successful of Coalition party in deterring the boat arrivals
..................................................................................................................... 104
Figure IV.8 Bridgman and Davis policy framework under Tony Abott’s
government .................................................................................................. 105
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table II.1 Population of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Indonesia and
Malaysia according to UNHCR Data in 2012............................................... 34
Table II.2 Indonesia’s total Population of Concern based of country of origin
as of 29 February 2016 (UNHCR Indonesia, February 2016) ...................... 36
Table II.3 Number of Deaths and Missing persons at sea from October 2001
to June 2012 .................................................................................................. 42
Table III.1 Nauru and Manus total caseloads from 2001-2008 .................... 55
Table IV.1 A.C. Nielsen: Two-Party Preferred Vote February-September
2001 ............................................................................................................... 79
Table IV.2 Number of unauthorized boat arrivals (DIAC Fact Sheet 7, 2004-
05) ................................................................................................................. 85
Table IV.3 Essential Report: Preference of political party based on treatment
of asylum seekers ........................................................................................ 101
Table IV.4 Essential Report: the performance rate of the Federal
Liberal/National Government in handling the issue of asylum seekers arriving
by boat ......................................................................................................... 103
Table IV.5 Comparison on the practices of all Governments ..................... 107
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
I.1 Background of the problem
Irregular undocumented migrants or so called as asylum seekers and
refugees are the classical problem that happened in the human civilization due
to intensify fear of being threatened for their safety. Threat might come from
many factors, includes from natural disasters or the conflict made by man that
occurs in the subject area. The rapid world population growth, environmental
condition and also political or security situation that do not support the safety
and secure continuity of life have driven thousands of people to move out from
their area of origin and seek for a better places.
Due to that reasons, asylum seekers and refugees become the main
concerns to international communities. This issues become part of the important
issues in International Relations. International relations are used to identify all
interactions between nation-states – sovereign, territorially bounded political
units. The interactions also involved non-state actors. The world of global
politics are diverse, it also includes international or trans-national organizations
(IGOs), regional organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
powerful multinational corporations (MNCs).1 Refugee and asylum seekers also
related with international relations issues, that most cases are binding with actors
and state boundaries and also with international law.
Irregular and forced migration continues to pose challenges for states
around the world. The large scale of forced migration movement in the beginning
was considered a domestic problem of the country, so it was first does not attract
much attention to the nations but then the refugee and asylum seekers problems
become widespread since the increasing number of people migrated from their
country of origin. The migration process already cross their boundaries and it is
considered to be a problem with human race. They tend to move from one place
1 Sutch, Peter and Juanita Elias. (2007). International Relations The Basics. USA: Routledge.
2
to another (states to another states). This issue pose challenges for certain
countries.
Since the very notion of a country was created, people have been forced
to leave their home countries. If we look from long time ago, the Israelites were
forced to leave from Egypt to the land of Canaan. The flow of refugees continues
until World War I in Europe, during the German invasion of Belgium, thousands
of civilians died in the war and the destruction of buildings led to a migration of
more than million people. In 1921, 1.5 million people from Russian fled to other
countries in Europe as a result of Russian revolution. The same situation also
experienced by the Jewish refugees of Germany in 1933, as a result of Nazi
ideology in Germany. In 1947, there are Punjab refugees who are from the Delhi
Indian people and Pakistani people. Another example, was also experienced by
the Palestinian refugees as a result of recognition of the state of Israel in 1948.2
There are many examples of refugee cases since the very beginning up until now.
The national security of Australia also can be threatened through the
illegal immigrants (so called as illegal maritime arrivals, or IMAs) that came to
Australian territory. The increasing numbers of Irregular immigrants, like
asylum seekers arriving by boat to Australia territory has led to stronger
deterrence policies by Australian government. Moreover, in 2012, there were
17,202 asylum seekers arrived in Australia by boat. It was very significant
increased from the 2,726 arrivals in 2009 and the 161 arrivals in 2008.3
2 Chalabi, Mona. (2013). What happened to history’s refugees?. From the Guardian website, Retrieved December 17, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2013/jul/25/what-happened-history-refugees#Israelites 3 Spinks, Harriet and McCluskey, Ian. (n.d.). Asylum seekers and the Refugee Convention. Retrieved October 7, 2015, from Parliament of Australia Web Site: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/AsylumSeekers
3
Figure I.1 the incoming of IMAs to Australia from Parliamentary Library4
Australia is considered to be one of the world’s major immigration nations.
Statistic shows since 1945 over 7.5 million people have settled in Australia5, The
asylum seekers and refugees are considered as the most vulnerable people in the
world. The flow of asylum seekers and refugees is currently not being seen as a
simple humanitarian issue from the international community. This phenomenon,
where people are forced to flee their home country because fear of persecution
has happened since the aftermath of World War I (1914-1918). At that time,
millions of people had fled or lost their homes because of war. Effectively, they
were the first refugees of the 20th century.6 The numbers of refugees were
increased dramatically during and after the World War II (1939-1945), as
millions more were forcibly displaced or resettled.7
4 Spinks, J.P. (2013). Boat Arrivals in Australia since 1976. Parliamentary Library Research Paper. Published by Parliament of Australia. Retrieved September 27, 2016 5 Phillips, Janet and Joanne Simon-Davies. (2016). Migration to Australia: a quick guide to the statistics. Retrieved October 31, 2016 from Parliament of Australia Website: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/Quick_Guides/MigrationStatistics 6 UNHCR. (2011). The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Switzerland: UNHCR. 7 UNHCR. (2016). History of UNHCR. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from UNHCR: http://www.unhcr.org/history-of-unhcr.html
4
The term of asylum seekers and refugee are often confused and used
interchangeably. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol are the
main international instrument of refugee law. UNHCR has using the Convention
as the tool to protect them. The convention clearly defines who is a ‘refugee’ is
and the kind of legal protection, other assistance and social rights he or she
should receive from the countries who have signed the document.
The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugee defines a
‘refugee’ as a person who “...owing to 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.”8
Under the government of Prime Minister Tony Abott, the Australian
government carried out the “Operations Sovereign Borders”. It was first
commenced on 18 September 2013 after the election of the Abott Government.
The operation is “a military-led, border security operation supported and assisted
by a wide range of federal government agencies.”9 This Operation Sovereign
Borders is an attempt to address issues surrounding people smuggling into
Australia by implementing a “zero tolerance” stance towards unlawful boat
arrivals in Australia.
Under the anti-smuggling law, asylum seekers arriving by boat that
entries to Australia territorial were sent to the detention camp in the Pacific
islands to be processed, hence there is no chance for asylum-seekers to stay in
Australia. Furthermore, in the sea they also carried out interception of ships
carrying asylum seekers. The military personnel forced the asylum seekers back
to their boats and pull it out to the sea.
8 UNHCR. (2010). Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Geneva: UNHCR. 9 Andrew Bottrell, P.L. (2013). Operation Sovereign Borders. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from Australia Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection Web Site: https://www.border.gov.au/about/operation-sovereign-borders
5
I.2 Problem Identification
Currently, Australia is having trouble with the border control and how to
handling asylum seekers who arrive by boat. Every year, the total of asylum
seekers coming to Australia by boat is increasing. In year 2012, 17.202 people
with 278 boats arrived in Australia. From January 2013 to 30 June 2013, a further
196 boats carrying a total of 13.108 people arrived at Australia territory.10
Figure I.2 The Number of Migrants arrived by Sea (Parliament of Australia,
2016) 11
The data shows that a number of asylum seekers is increasing each year.
They have come to Australia in hope to find a safer place where they can build
their future there. However, Australia has faced obstacles in the control of its
borders. The Australia government tried to control its borders with globalization
and the increased cross-border flow of trade, finance and population movement.
The increasing cross-border activities brought with an increase in the level of
transnational crime, including the illegal movement of drugs, arms and people
10 Spinks, J.P. (2013). Boat Arrivals in Australia since 1976. Parliamentary Library Research Paper. Published by Parliament of Australia. Retrieved September 27, 2016 11 Parliament of Australia. (2016). Retrieved 27 September 2016, www.aph.gov.au
6
(terrorists). In other way, all these activities has threatened the Australia’s
national security.
Australia has been received a lot of asylum seekers coming to its
territory. In 2015-2016, Australia accepted 13.750 people through its
humanitarian program and has committed to accepting an additional 12.000
refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq.12 Asylum seekers have endeavored to reach
Australia on boats from Indonesia, frequently paying expansive wholes of cash
to people smugglers. Hundreds have died because of the dangerous journey in
the sea. At its peak, around 18.000 people were arrived in Australia illegally by
sea. However, after the government introduced the new close border policy to
“stop the boats”, the numbers of asylum seekers coming by boat in significantly
decreased.13
The Australian government take the issue of illegal maritime arrivals as
a serious matter. Since 2001 afterwards, the Australian government under the
four Prime Ministers has established and announced some policies in regards to
combat the process of illegal maritime arrivals. The problem is, during the
migration from the country origin and the journey process, it deals with people
smugglers, which it is a criminal act. Not only that the journey to escape from
the country of origin to the destination country, in support of people smugglers,
is very dangerous. Many people who undertook this dangerous and irregular way
of entry by boat has died at the sea during the process of migration. This irregular
flow of asylum seekers by boat is very dangerous and also brought a raise in
numbers of people lost at sea. According to the data base from Monash
12 Doherty, Ben. (2016). Australia resettles only a sixth of promised Syrian refugee intake. Retrieved 28 September 2016, from The Guardian Website: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/02/australia-resettles-only-a-sixth-of-promised-syrian-refugee-intake 13 BBC News. (2016, August 3). Australia asylum: Why is it controversial?. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from BBC News Web Site: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28189608
7
University, approximately there are 1200 individuals died in open waters in a
journey to Australia during the government period of the Labor Party.14
To secure the Australian border and to protect the Australia’s national
security many policies are established under several Prime Minister. Under the
new elected Prime Minister Tony Abott, the Australia government started to
commence the Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB). Operation Sovereign
Borders is a military-led response to ‘combat people smuggling and protect
Australia’s borders’.15 It is a policy the Coalition took to the September 2013
federal election. The mission is to protect the Australian border and manage the
movement of people and goods across it and, by doing so, the aim is to make
Australia safer and more prosperous. The government says, its policies have
prevent people from die at sea also it have restored the integrity of its borders.
However, some opposition like the Refugee Council of Australia, Human Rights
Watch Australia, Amnesty Australia and Greens have delivered critics towards
the new policies and stated that it is damaging Australia’s relationship with
Indonesia.
To ensure and support the operation to work well, the OSB Joint Agency
Task Force (JATF) has been established to ensure a whole-of-government effort
to combat people smuggling and protect Australia’s borders.16
It is obvious that Australia have the national interest to protect its border
from illegal maritime arrivals. This fact lead to Australia to formulate security
policies in order to encounter this IMAs to prevent them to come to the
Australia’s border. One of the implementation of its security policy is the OSB
14 . Monash University. (n.d.). Australian Border Deaths Database. Retrieved 4 December 2016, http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/thebordercrossingobservatory/publications/australian-border-deaths-database/ 15 ASRC. (2013). Operation Sovereign Borders. Australia: Asylum Seekers Resource Center. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from https://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Operation-Sovereign-Borders-May-2014.pdf 16 Andrew Bottrell, P.L. (2013). Operation Sovereign Borders. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from Australia Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection Web Site: https://www.border.gov.au/about/operation-sovereign-borders
8
policy. Therefore, this research will analyze the policy making process of
Australia security policy.
I.3 Statement of the Problem
As have been elaborated above, the topic and question for this research
are defined as follow.
Topic: The Practices of Australia’s Immigration Policies to Encounter Illegal
Maritime Arrivals in Strengthening Australia National Security (2001-2013)
Question:
- How did the Australian government implement its immigration policies
to encounter the illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs) (2001-2013)?
I.4 Research Objective
This research will use the descriptive method in explaining the research
question. The objectives of this research will be:
1. To explain the Australia’s approaches to encounter the incoming
undocumented immigrants
2. To analyze the practices of Australia’s immigration policies to encounter
the illegal maritime arrivals in order to strengthen Australia national
security.
3. To analyze the result of the implementation of Australia’s immigration
policies to encounter the illegal maritime arrivals.
I.5 Significance of Studies
This research can give contribution or benefits in ways as follows.
1. To understand the national security of Australia.
2. To understand the Australia’s approaches in order to encounter the illegal
maritime arrivals.
9
3. To understand Australia’s immigration policies in strengthening
Australia national security.
4. To understand the practices of Australia’s immigration policies to
encounter illegal maritime arrivals.
I.6 Theoretical Framework
National security is clearly on of the important among the problems
facing humanity. The theory of security in this research mostly will be taken
from Barry Buzan’s book, People, States and Fear, which successfully gives a
very well explanation of the concept of security of a state that have the nature of
feeling insecure by the existence of others and also another book from Barry
Buzan, Security: A new framework for analysis that gives understanding about
the two important conceptual developments in the study of security: Barry
Buzan’s notion of sectoral analysis of security and Ole Waever’s concept of
‘securitization’.
The theories that suitable to explain and analyze this research regarding
the Australia’s policies as a security approaches to encounter the incoming
illegal maritime arrivals will borrow the concept of National Security: Societal
security by Barry Buzan and also the policy making process by Bridgeman and
Davis policy cycle.
I.6.1 National Security: Societal Security
Security as well as National security is one of the core concept in the
study of international relations. There is no a fix definition of security because
according to W.B. Gallie, security is defined as a contested concept.17 If State as
the referent object of security, there are many things that need to be secure by a
threat. Referent object is on object that is being threatened and need to be
protected.18 States have boundaries not only from their territorial areas, but also
17 Gallie, W.B., Black, M., et al. (1962). The importance of Language. New Jersey: Prentince-Hall. 18 Buzan, B. (2007). People, States & Fear An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. UK: ECPR Press.
10
can be from ideological realm.19 In the statehood, there are component parts that
are interlinked and also can be objects of security, which are “The idea of the
state, the physical base of the state and the institutional expression of the
state.”20 Each of the elements are the characteristic of a state. State must have a
physical base such as population and territory, they must also have governing
institution to control the physical base, and also there must be some idea or
ideology of the state which establishes its authority in the minds of its people.21
Buzan also points out five sectors in understanding and addressing
security. He argued security is not solely about military, but rather it have other
sectors. There are five sectors of security, which are military, political,
economic, societal and environmental. National security implies heavily that the
object of security is the nation. However, people rarely put the ‘nation’ itself into
discussion. There are plenty and vary definitions of nation defined by many
scholars, however there is one definition of nation as the base of all definitions,
which is identity. Identity defines an individual or community, further the term
identity also defines “the rights and expectations of an individual or a group
within a certain society.”22
Societal security is about the collectiveness and their identity. Buzan then
defines the societal security as “the sustainability within acceptable conditions
for evolution, of traditional patterns of language, culture and religious and
national identity and custom.”23 Whereas, the responsibility of a state is to
protect its people or the society from the external threats. Societal security is a
response to perception that society is under threat. The external threat can
destroy the national identity of a state. As Weaver emphasizes that societal
19 Buzan, B. (1983). People, states, and fear: The national security problem in international relations. Great Britain: Wheatsheaf Books LTD. 20 Ibid. Pp. 40. 21 Ibid. Pp. 40. 22 Saleh, Alam. (2010). Broadening the Concept of Security: Identity and Societal Security. Geopolitics Quaterly, 6(4), pp. 228-241. 23 Buzan, B. (1991). People, States and Fear: An agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Pp. 19.
11
security concerns about the threats towards a society’s identity.24 Thus, the
societal insecurity will emerge when communities feels that their identity is
being targeted or threatened by certain issue.25 That is when the society feel
insecure about their identity being shifted and changed by another ‘alien’
identity, and they will not live as the way they used to be (e.g. culture) because
of the composition of population.
As a response to the insecurity, the society can choose how they want to
react to the issue, which are react by themselves or they can choose to move this
problem to political or security agenda of the state. When they choose to move
their problem to the state agenda, then it will lead to state-oriented or lead to the
policy making. Migration, is one of the examples of threat to societal security,
and being responded by the state through legislation and border controls.26
By using societal security concept, it can explain how the issue of
undocumented immigrants, people smuggling and unauthorized boat are
perceived as a threat towards the Australian society and analyze how the
Australian government tried to implement its policies as their approaches in
dealing with irregular maritime arrivals. It has been the Australia national
interest to protect its border from anything that could threaten the national
identity. The approaches means in this research is the security approaches by the
Australian government to combat illegal maritime arrivals.
By using the societal security theory in the analysis combined with the
Bridgman and Davis Policy Cycle, it can explain how the government of
Australia find that the problem identified can threatened the Australian national
identity and therefore it contributes to the policy making in Australia.
24 Waever, Ole; Buzan, B., Kelstrup, Morten and Lemaitre, P. (1993). Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd. Pp. 25. 25 Buzan, B., Waever, O., Wilde, JD. (1998). Security: a new framework for analysis. London: Lynne Rinner Publishers. Pp. 119 26 Ibid. Pp. 119.
12
I.6.2 The Bridgeman and Davis Policy Cycle
This research also use the Bridgeman and Davis policy cycle concept
coming from Peter Bridgman and Glyn Davis, to analyses the implementation of
each Australian policy towards illegal maritime arrivals. The framework of the
analysis is presented below:
Figure I.3 Bridgman and Davis Policy Cycle (Bridgman and Davis, 2000) 27
The aim of the policy making mechanisms is to understand of how the
policies are made, who makes them and what influences are exerted from the
policies.28 The system of policy making model is not a formalistic or a rigorous
27 Bridgman, P. & Davis, G. (2000). Australian Policy Handbook, 2nd edition. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. 28 Everett, Sophia. (2003). The Policy Cycle: Democratic Process or Rational Paradigm Revisited?. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(2), pp. 65-70.
13
step by step process by government, yet the model is used to be interpreted as a
general, historically situated model of how policy making occurs. Quoting from
May and Wildavsky, they suggest that ‘it is wrong to see the policy cycle as a
strict set of procedures that followed in all cases’29:
“The policy cycle, in its usage here, does not refer to some
predetermined, definitive number of steps through which all policies must
inevitably done but refers instead to how, in thinking about the policy process,
one’s attention is drawn to beginnings, middles, and endings that may lead to
new beginnings.”30
The Bridgeman and Davis have elaborated its policy cycle model relate
with the Australian context as series of steps:
1. Identifying issues – this happens in two ways, first through the
interest group (e.g. Australian public) representation by telling
government their interest, or the need to change of the ineffective
existing policy
2. Policy analysis – gathered information, research, analysis to frame
policy options
3. Policy instruments – the tools to achieve the intended policy
outcomes. There is a need to consider several possible responses to
the problem.
4. Consultation – consultation is needed to give an input from both
public and expert. It generally presumed to take place both inside and
outside government. There is also coordination between the agencies
to ensure coherence of policy.
5. Decision – this is made through executive government and/or
Cabinet
29 Howard, Cosmo. (2005). The Policy Cycle: A Model of Post-Machiavellian Policy Making?. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(3), pp. 3-13. 30 May, J.V., and Wildavsky, A. (1978). The Policy Cycle. London: Sage.
14
6. Implementation – the implementation process of the policy through
legislation or programs
7. Evaluation – this stage is essential for government to measure the
effects of a policy.31
In Australia, the articulation of policy process model that developed by
Bridgman and Davis is claimed to be the most influential policy process model.32
Bridgman and Davis suggest that their cycle can be a useful tool to policy makers
to think about how to solve a problem. They argue the policy cycle approach:
“Argues that government is a process, not a set of institutions.
The cycle conveys the notion that ideas and resources are active
and moving in the process, that policy itself may go through
several iterations, and that the process does not finish when a
decision is made but carries through to the implementation and
evaluation of a policy.
Disaggregates what is a complex phenomenon into manageable
steps, thus allowing policy workers to focus on the different
issues and needs that arise in each phase of the cycle
Allows some synthesis of existing knowledge about public
policy, allowing learning and knowledge of the literature to be
considered as part of the overall sequence.
Is a useful description of the way in which policy is made, which
assists policy workers to make sense of policy development now
and in the past
Is normative in that it suggests an appropriate sequence for
approaching the policy task.”33
31 Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., and Davis, G. (2013). The Australian Policy Handbook. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. 32 Maddison, Sarah & Denniss, R. (2009). An Introduction to Australian Public Policy Theory and Practice. UK: Cambridge University Press. 33 Ibid. Pp. 86.
15
If input the process of public policy making and relate it to Australia’s
policies, the Bridgman and Davis Policy cycle used in this research will be as
follows.
In this context, this research try to analyze the implementation of
Australia’s national security policy as its security approach to deter the incoming
of illegal maritime arrivals to Australia’s territory. For the Identifying issue, is
the problem occurred in the environment, in this case is the incoming of illegal
maritime arrivals that shape the public opinion of Australia towards the boat
people. Then continue to Policy analysis, which the information that showing
the illegal maritime issue then is perceived as a threat towards the Australian
national security and it has influenced to the establishment of policies with the
aim to stop the boat people to Australia. By using the National Security: Societal
Security theory, this research try to analyze the Australian’s interest to protect
its borders relate with the illegal maritime arrivals as a threat toward the
Australian national security. In the process of policy instruments, the
government uses instruments they may include like amendment, the actors and
the capability of resources. In the Consultation and Coordination, the
Australian government tried to hold a meeting or making a coordination with
several unit it exist. The last step is the Decision, Implementation and
Evaluation, where in this step, this research will analyze the implementation of
the concerned policy. The Australian government try to solve the problem in the
form of decisions and policies to be implemented. These implementations are
then analyzed by the society and the environment to see the result and impact of
the policy implementation.
I.7 Scope and Limitations of the Study
As this research will examine the strengthening Australia national
security by establishing a cooperation with Indonesia as one of the transit
country of the illegal maritime arrivals that tend to go to Australia, the scope and
limitations of this research will be define by the Australia foreign policy analysis.
16
The time frame of this research will be limited from 2001 until 2013. The
2001 is the start year of this research because in this year Australia experienced
significance changes in its policy related to unauthorized boat arrivals. The year
2013 marked the establishment of the Operation Sovereign Borders policy which
is deemed as the most comprehensive and controversial response from Canberra
in facing boat arrivals. So this research will examine the Australia national
security policy during four term of leadership, starting from Prime Minister John
Howard, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and Prime
Minister Tony Abott.
1.8 Research Methodology
This research will use a qualitative method. The research method that the
writer uses is descriptive-analytical method to analyze the variables that
construct the title, hence the discussion able to provide well information and
details of the topic. To answer the research question and bringing the topic into
discussion, this thesis will use the primary sources for analysis coming from both
countries, Australia and Indonesia’s international mass media releases,
government web sites, the speech from the government officials, statement of
the government officials, official government documents obtained from annual
reports of both countries, UNHCR Indonesia official documents and related
journals or literature studies from international background to support the
theoretical framework.
This thesis will also uses books and internet search as the research
instrument. As discussed above in the background of study and identification
problem, the relations between Australia has experienced the high flow of illegal
maritime arrivals to Australia’s territory, hence, the thesis will refer to some
works related with Australia’s public diplomacy and its national security to
understand from the Australia perspective according to the concept of
International Relations. Therefore, to begin the analyses upon the variables, this
thesis will refer to primary sources, and other sources obtained from books,
journals and internet.
17
1.9 Thesis Outline
Chapter 1 – Introduction
The first chapter will introduce the issue being examined in this thesis. This
chapter will elaborate the background of the study, problem of identification,
significance of studies, theoretical framework, research methodology and scope
of limitations of the study. To say, this chapter is the basis and also the
foundation to begin the research.
Chapter 2 – Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) as a Non-traditional Threat
to Australia National Security
This chapter will start with the explanation of Illegal maritime arrivals in general.
Also this chapter will discuss the external factors influencing Australia security
perception by explaining the link between illegal maritime arrivals and threats
towards the national security in Australia that lead to Australia’s national
security policy. Also this chapter will explain more about the incoming IMAs to
Australia by boat, where do Australia’s refugee come from, the transit country,
destination countries, and also explain the pull and push factors that makes the
increasing number of forced migration and the people smuggling in Australia.
Chapter 3 – Australia National Security Policy
This chapter will be used to elaborate the Australia national security from 2001-
2013. This chapter will also examine the policy shift in Australia from a state
that takes a lot of asylum seekers and refugee to a country that restrict the
unauthorized boat to prevent more people come to the Australia territory. This
chapter also explain the Australia national security policy and its approaches that
settled those refugee and asylum seekers that coming to Australia before 2013.
It will elaborate the effect of leadership governmental era toward the decision
making of Australia’s domestic policy in regards to encounter the illegal
maritime arrivals.
18
Chapter 4 – The Analysis of the Policy Formulation of Australia National
Security Policy Approaches in Dealing with Illegal Maritime Arrivals
(IMAs)
This chapter is the core part of the whole research in which the discussion will
answer the research question in Chapter 1. This chapter will analyze how
Australia encounter the incoming irregular maritime arrivals to Australia
territory through the policy making process and the implementation of its
national security policy. The incoming Irregular immigrants from is giving an
impact towards the Australia national security and also population. The
incoming of IMAs also become a threat toward Australia’s national security,
therefore Australia see the urgency to securitized the issue and formulate the
policy as its approaches to encounter the illegal maritime arrivals. To analyze
the result on whether the policy has strengthen the Australian national security
or not, this research will use the objectives from Australian Defense White
Paper.
Chapter 5 – Conclusion
In the last chapter, all the discussions that are elaborated in this research will be
evaluated to show the Australia efforts to encounter the incoming Irregular
immigrants by the policy making process of Australia national security policy
approaches.
19
CHAPTER II
Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) as a Non-traditional
Threat to Australia National Security
II.1 Introduction
This chapter will explain and elaborate more about the Illegal Maritime
Arrivals (IMAs). On this chapter, it will start to elaborate and get to know the
definitions of IMAs and the definition of IMAs. By comprehend the definition
of IMAs and how is the process of people smuggling, we can see how is the
IMAs could become a non-traditional threat to Australia national security
In regards to the IMAs issue, this research will start to describe the
historical background of IMAs, when the first IMAs came to Australia. Besides
that, it is also important to get a better understanding about the forced migration
and people smuggling, and the smuggler business model.
This chapter will elaborate the flows of people smuggling to Australia,
the source countries, and the year that have a high peak of illegal maritime
arrivals that enter the territorial of Australia. During the journey from their home
country, these asylum seekers were usually dispatched by the smuggler to a
transit country.
To complete this research in regards to IMAs, this chapter will also
include the push and pull factors of the incoming of IMAs to Australia. It is
important to understand the push and pull factors of why these IMAs fleeing
from their country origin and what is the pull factors of these IMAs to start the
journey to Australia as the destination country.
Lastly, this chapter will end with the perspectives of Australia toward the
illegal maritime arrivals. The topic will discuss about how the perspective and
point of view of Australia toward the illegal maritime arrivals. From the
20
leadership point of view and the official government statements, this research
will find the possibilities of threat coming from this IMAs to Australia national
security.
II.2 People Smuggling and Contemporary Forced Migration
Illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs) is a term to refer ‘people who arrived
illegally by boat’.34 Illegal maritime arrivals also can be recognized as the people
smuggling. Before 1 January 2014, there are approximately 35,500 people in
Australia who arrived illegally by boat. IMAs is also known as boat people,
comprises of refugees and non-refugees alike, they travel together fleeing from
their homeland with the help of people smuggler. Usually, considering that every
asylum seekers and refugee is protected under the international law – which is
the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol – other type of forced
migrants, for example either economic problem or ecological migrant, took
advantage of asylum seeker system since they know that refugees and indirectly
asylum seekers are subject to exception of the strict immigration procedures.
Therefore, if there are boat people coming (asylum seekers) to one host country,
their identity is still doubted and questionable, are they really genuinely
persecuted in their home country.
To understand the difference between refugee and asylum seekers, the
United Nations of High Commissioner for Refugees, has defined the term
‘asylum seekers’ and ‘refugee’ through its 1951 Convention Relating to Status
of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. The term asylum seekers is “someone who
has applied for refugee status, but who has not yet received a decision on whether
he/she has been recognized as a refugee.”35 While, the term refugee can be
defined as:
34 Australian Government. ‘Illegal Maritime Arrivals’. Department of Immigration and Border Protection, retrieved December 5, 2016 http://www.ima.border.gov.au/ 35 Millbank, Adrienne. (2000). The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention. Research Paper Pariament of Australia, Retrieved December 7, 2016, http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf
21
“Any person who 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/her nationality and is unable, or
owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the
protection of that country.”36
The first wave of the incoming of IMAs or ‘boat people’ to Australia is
happened in the 1970s carrying people seeking for protection and asylum from
the aftermath of the Vietnam War. This event also become the first time the term
of ‘boat people’ entered the Australian language.37 This IMAs issue become the
global issue as irregular migration proses constitutes challenges to countries of
origin, transit countries, also to destination countries, and as well as challenges
for the migrants themselves.
The issue of IMAs is one of a major concerns for countries of origin,
transit and destination country, it is also a major concerns for global. In the year
2011, the data showed by United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs stated that “among 146 countries with data, three out of four
Governments viewed irregular migration in their countries as a major concern.
Governments of 22 of the 25 countries with the largest migrant stocks regarded
irregular migration as a major concern.” A growing number of Governments
start to address this illegal maritime arrivals issue more seriously by reforming
their immigration laws, promoting the return of irregular migrants and
implementing regularization programs.38 The growing number of governments
36 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugee. Published by United Nations. Retrieved December 7, 2016, http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf 37 J Phillips and H Spinks. (2011). Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. Commonwealth of Australia, Parliament of Australia. Retrieved December 5, 2016, http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.pdf 38 United Nations. (2013). International Migration Policies Government Views and Priorities. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations. Page 7, Retrieved December 7, 2016, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/InternationalMigrationPolicies2013/Report%20PDFs/z_International%20Migration%20Policies%20Full%20Report.pdf
22
that aware of this irregular migrants issue raise this issue to the global level and
put the issue into a debate.
According to United Nation Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
“Migrants in irregular situation are particularly vulnerable to discrimination,
exploitation and abuse.” Such people during the migration process could be in
danger situation of being exploited by crime organizations involved in human
trafficking and migrant smuggling. People smuggling and human trafficking is
a serious violation of human rights and it considered as a crime. The same
situation of danger also can be happened toward the asylum seekers and
refugees, although they are protected under the international law, they may also
face difficulties during the migration process, especially while waiting for their
refugee status being granted, it has become increasingly complicated process,
and it is also difficult and takes a really long time to find a third countries who
willing to receive refugees.39
To quantify the illegal maritime arriavals situation is often difficult to
obtain. It is resulting the information of estimates amount of irregular migration
is vary greatly from one source to another. For example, the International
Organization for Migration (IOM) has estimated that “10-15 percent of the
world’s 214 million international migrants in 2010 were undocumented.”40
Refugees and asylum seekers are the classical problems that happened in
the human civilization due to intensify of fear being threatened for their safety.
The threat might come from natural disasters or the conflict made by man. The
rapid world population growth, environmental condition and also political or
security situation that do not support the safety and secure continuity of life have
39 United Nations. (2013). International Migration Policies Government Views and Priorities. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations. Page 91, Retrieved December 7, 2016, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/InternationalMigrationPolicies2013/Report%20PDFs/z_International%20Migration%20Policies%20Full%20Report.pdf 40 Ibid. Page 91.
23
driven thousands of people to move out from their area of origin and seek for a
better places.
Most of the people who wants to flee and travel from their home country
to the destination country usually uses the service of people smugglers. In return,
they have to pay a huge amount of money. However, their effort to travel to
another country using the people smuggler is seen as a less acceptable. Many
governments have doubted their claim, even labeled them as a criminal because
smuggling a migrant means breaching the national border and moreover for
seeking help from people smuggler which is considered as an international
criminal group.
“The smuggling of migrants can endanger the lives or security of the
migrants involved”41, not only that the concern of international forums is the fact
that “there is a significant increase in the activities of organized criminal groups
in smuggling of migrants and other related criminal activities, which bring great
harm to the States concerned.”42 The people smuggling or ‘smuggling of
migrants’ is defined by the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land,
Sea and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against
Transnational Organized Crime as:
“The procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a
financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a
person into a State Party of which the person is not a national
or a permanent resident.”43
The emphasis is in the illegal crossing of national borders for material
benefit or profit. The purpose of the UN Protocol, which came force generally
on 28 January 2004 and in Australia on 26 June 2004, is to ‘prevent and combat
41 General Assembly. (2000). Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. A protocol from United Nations. 42 Ibid. P.1 43 Ibid. P.1.
24
the smuggling of migrants, as well as to promote cooperation among States
Parties to that end, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants’.44
Undocumented migration involves the process of persons entering a
country that is not their country of origin, without the proper authority. Therefore
the problem is when the undocumented migrants are assisted in this process of
entering a country by a third party or parties, it is generally referred as smuggling
or trafficking. However, the term smuggling and trafficking must not be
confused. They both have different meanings, smuggling is clearly about the
manner in which a person enters a country and with the involvement of a third
parties who assist them to entry the destination country. Meanwhile, trafficking
is a more complex concept, it requires consideration not only of the manner in
which a migrant entered the country but also their conditions, or whether the
migrant experienced tortures or sexual exploitation.45 So it is clear that this
activity is a criminal act. The migrants will pay some amount of money to the
smugglers to a promise destination. Thus the profit of this business comes from
the payment. In Australia, the majority of people who entered the territory are
smuggled rather than trafficked. Therefore, the focus of this discussion will be
on people smuggling.
People smuggler is the term to refer the person who is doing the
smuggling. To Australia, the people smuggling has been a key focus of a politic
debate on irregular migration since the late 1990s. The people smuggling is
already considered as a business. The smuggling business can be range from
short journey services to more comprehensive packages routing through several
transit point and also establishing a falsified documents to enable a person to
entry a destination country. Facilitating the unauthorized entry of a non-national
which undertaken for financial or other material gain is considered as migrant
44 Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air done at New York on 15 November 2000 [2004] ATS 11 (entered into force on 28 January 2004) (UN Protocol), art.2, Retrieved December 2, 2016, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/2004/11.html 45 Graycar and Tailby. (2000). People Smuggling: National Security Implications. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
25
smuggling in international law. The UN Protocol has mentioned requiring the
State Parties to criminalize such conduct.46 Under the UN Protocol in article 6,
State Parties must criminalize related conduct including:
o “The smuggling of migrants;”
o “Producing a fraudulent travel or identity document and also
procuring, providing or possessing such a document for the
purpose of enabling migrant smuggling” (if it is done to obtain a
financial or other material benefit)
o “Enabling a person who is not a national or a permanent resident
to remain in the State concerned without complying with the
necessary requirements for legally remaining there through the
use of fraudulent documentation or other illegal means” (if it is
done to obtain a financial or other material gain) and,
o “Organizing or directing other persons to commit an offence of
migrant smuggling.”47
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has
established a typology that describes the various roles involved in the people
smuggling process, based on several of such typologies developed by
researchers. The research describes that the roles of people smuggling that
involves are vary and the UNODC recognized that there are a range of actors
that performing the roles. However, the typology is not normative, depends on
the size or scale of the organization. The following is the brief summary of each
roles.
1. Coordinator or organizer. This role is recognized as the highest chain
of the organization and responsible for the operation. The
coordination has overall responsibility for the smuggling process,
46 Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air done at New York on 15 November 2000 [2004] ATS 11 (entered into force on 28 January 2004) (UN Protocol), art.6, Retrieved December 2, 2016, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/2004/11.html 47 Ibid. Art. 6.
26
and may direct other participants. They may work alone or work as a
part of a chain.
2. Recruiters. The recruiter is similar to sales person. They are
responsible for promoting the smuggling services and establishing
links between smugglers and those people wishing to be smuggled.
They also collect the fees for transportation. They may work with
more than one smuggler.
3. Transporters or guides. The transporter is the person usually a local
people that know the area well. They guide the asylum seekers and
accompanying them across borders. Irregular migrants or asylum
seekers may be handed from one guide to another for different stages
of their journey. Guides also may be affiliated with a larger network
or provide services on a contract basis.
4. Spotters, drivers, messengers and enforcers. They support the
operation by performing ad hoc jobs such as providing information
about police or border checks or keeping migrants under control
during an operation.
5. Service providers and other suppliers. They are the person who
provide services to the smugglers that related with the smuggling
process, later they will get paid a share the profits for their role. For
example, they may provide a means of transportation,
accommodation for irregular migrants and asylum seekers during the
journey, false identification or travel documents, or money transfer
services.
6. Others, they involved in people smuggling may include corrupt
public officials who accept bribes for facilitating the process and
those who knowingly perform legal services that nonetheless assist
people smugglers (for example, a taxi driver who transport asylum
seekers for a normal fee).48
48 Barker, C. (2013). The People Smugglers’ Business Model. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. Page 19. Retrieved December 5, 2016,
27
The smuggling process can be operate by land, air and sea. The
smuggling by sea is comparably smaller in number than any type, because the
number of people smuggled by boat is restricted only by the size of the boat
used. However, the smuggling by boat get more of attention by international
community that has claimed more death victims compared to air or land types of
smuggling.
II.3 Illegal Maritime Arrivals in Australia
The Australian government implement strict regulation for refugees and
asylum seekers, especially those who come by boat. Since 2001, the Australian
government used the term ‘Illegal Maritime Arrivals’ (IMAs) to refer the people
who come to the Australia territory by boat. The federal government has
announced publicly that it will make it illegal for asylum seekers who try to come
to Australia by boat. They have set the Migration Act which will be amended
“to ensure that asylum seekers who try to come to Australia by boat are forbidden
from the country for life”.49
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced in a joint press
conference in Sydney about its tough policy on controlling its borders will create
a harmonious multicultural society, he said “A generous humanitarian program,
a harmonious multicultural society depends on the Australian government being
in control of its borders.” The Prime Minister also added that, “it depends on the
Australian government sending a united and concerted answer to the people
smugglers that if they seek to bring people to Australia those passengers will
never settle in this country. That absolutely, unflinching, unequivocal message
has to be loud and clear.”50
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/2262537/upload_binary/2262537.pdf;fileType=application/pdf 49 Booth, Andrea. (2016). Government to introduce law banning ‘irregular maritime arrivals’ from Australia. From SBS Website, retrieved December 17, 2016, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/10/30/government-introduce-law-banning-irregular-maritime-arrivals-australia 50 Ibid.
28
Since 1992, in the Keating Government have introduced mandatory
detention for asylum seekers in 1992, there were continues debate on what to do
about the asylum boat that trying to reach Australia. Australia has tough policies
in dealing with asylum boat or illegal maritime arrivals. There are many critics
from human rights organizations think that the “stop the boats” policies are
inhumane. However, the Prime Minister Tony Abott keep maintain and continue
to work to prevent any IMAs coming to Australia. The Prime Minister Tony
Abott said, “But by comparison to our predecessors, we have been magnificently
successful and in being magnificently successful we have saved the lives of
hundreds of people who might otherwise have been expected to drown at sea.”51
The Australian government tried quantifying the extent of people
smuggling that illustrated in the graph below. It recorded the number of
unauthorized arrivals by air and boat for the years 1999-00 to 2011-12. It can be
seen that the number of boat arrivals is varied considerably over the period,
rather than arrivals by air which has been more stable, with the highest peak of
unauthorized arrivals by air and boat both in 2012-13.
51 Anderson, Stephanie. (2015). Explore the history of Australia’s asylum seeker policy. From SBS Website, retrieved December 17, 2016, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/explainer/explore-history-australias-asylum-seeker-policy
29
Figure II.1 Number of unauthorized arrivals by boat and air 1999-00 until 2011-
12 (Parliament of Australia; MSWG; Department of Immigration and
Citizenship, Annual Report 2011-12) 52
The arrivals numbers in Australia if compared to other destination
countries were relatively small. However, Australia has experienced the high
peak of boat arrivals before 2012-2013, first in years 1970s, when it was over
2,000 people arrived by boat in Australia over five year period and in 1999-2001,
it was around 12,000 people were arrived by boat over a three year period.53
52 J Phillips and H Spinks. (2011). Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. Commonwealth of Australia, Parliament of Australia. Retrieved December 5, 2016, http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.pdf ‘Statistics relating to Migrant Smuggling in Australia’, Migrant Smuggling Working Group (MSWG), ‘Statistics and other data’, The University of Queensland Australia Website, Retrieved December 5, 2016, https://law.uq.edu.au/research/our-research/migrant-smuggling-working-group/statistics-relating-migrant-smuggling-australia Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Annual Report 2011-12, Commonwealth of Australia, 2012, Retrieved December 5, 2016, https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/annual-reports/2011-12-diac-annual-report.pdf 53 Philiphs, Janet. (2015). Asylum Seekers and refugees: what are the facts?. Research Paper from Parliament of Australia. Retrieved December 6, 2016, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts#_ftn53
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Number of unauthorised arrivals by boat and air 1999-00 to 2011-12
Unauthorised boat arrivals Unauthorised air arrivals
30
II.4 The flows and transit routes of people smuggling to Australia
Most asylum seekers smuggled to Australia by boat are coming from the
Middle East or South Asia, in particular Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or Sri Lanka.
Those who’s travelling from the Middle East usually make a journey and their
way to Australia through South East Asia; “from Sri Lanka people are sometimes
brought directly, but otherwise also routed through South East Asia.
Australia is the primary destination country in the Asia Pacific region.
The first time migration by boat to Australia was occurred in the 1970s in the
aftermath of the Vietnam War. Since 1999s onwards, the majority arrivals of
people by boat has predominantly been from the Middle East, often these IMAs
people come in a larger number of arrivals than previous arrivals and mostly
with the help of people smuggler.54
The routes of people smuggling process are complex and involving
several transit points. Most of the immigrants come from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Sri Lanka and Myanmar (mostly Rohingya). Below is the figure established by
the Australian Government showing that in recent years Afghanistan has been
the major source of asylum seekers along with Iran, Iraq and Sri Lanka also being
significant.
54 UNODC. (2011). Smuggling of migrants by sea. Issue Paper, United Nations, page 18. Retrieved December 5, 2016, http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant-Smuggling/Issue-Papers/Issue_Paper_-_Smuggling_of_Migrants_by_Sea.pdf
31
Figure II.2 Major Countries of origin to Australia (Australian Government,
Department of Immigration and Border Protection) 55
II.4.1 Transit Countries
During the journey trip to Australia, the people smugglers usually
dispatch the IMAs to Malaysia and Indonesia as transit countries. Indonesia is
the key transit country to Indonesia. As we know, Indonesia is the closest
neighbor country to Australia, often these IMAs people use the fishing boats or
vessel from Indonesia to enters Australia territory. From the country of origin
mostly in the Middle East, generally migrants will travel via overland and by air
55 Hugo, G., George Tan and C. Jonathan. (2014). Indonesia as a Transit Country in Irregular Migration to Australia. Research Paper, Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Retrieved December 6, 2016, https://www.adelaide.edu.au/apmrc/research/completed/Indonesia_Transit_Country_IMtoA_Report.pdf
32
to reach Indonesia. After they arrived in Indonesia, usually they will be given a
visa on arrival in Indonesia which they overstay as they wait for an opportunity
to have the next journey to Australia by sea.
Once they arrived in Indonesia or Malaysia (departure location), many
of the migrants wait weeks or months to board the boats, which are often in a
poor condition; several have sunk before reaching Australian territory. Indonesia
and Malaysia are the main departure countries for the IMAs hoping to reach
Australia by boat.56 Besides that, the smugglers may provide and facilitate their
entire journey including travel to Indonesia using visa and document fraud.
Below is the migration routes map by the Human Rights Watch showing the
migration of Southeast Asian routes.
56 UNODC. (2013). Transnational Organized Crime in East Asia and the Pacific. Document from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Retrieved, December 21, 2016, https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/TOCTA_EAP_web.pdf
33
Figure II.3 Migration routes map of Southeast Asian migration routes.57
57 Farmer, Alice et al. (2013). Barely Surviving Detention, Abuse, and Neglect of Migrant Children in Indonesia. The map was designed by John Emerson from Human Rights Watch website. Retrived December 17, 2016, https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/06/23/barely-surviving/detention-abuse-and-neglect-migrant-children-indonesia
34
Indonesia and Malaysia are the major transit countries of IMAs that
hoping to reach Australia as their destination. Many people come from the
Middle East countries, including families and unaccompanied children, find
themselves compelled to take a risky journey to Australia by boat. They live with
the uncertainty for their future. From the source countries, often people
smugglers will take these IMAs to Indonesia or Malaysia as a transit countries
before they are finally continue to Australia. Mostly when they arrived in
Indonesia, they will find UNHCR to find protection and wait in Indonesia or
Malaysia until they received their status notification whether they considered as
a refugee or not. If yes, they will intend to go to Australia for the third country,
a place where they can build their future. The map shows the routes of migrants
that have intentions to go to Australia as a destination country.
Asylum
Seekers
Refugees Total Major countries of
origin
Malaysia 10,000* 85,900 95,900**
Burma, Sri Lanka,
Iraq, Afghanistan,
Somalia
Indonesia 3,781 1,140 4,921
Burma, Sri Lanka,
Pakistan, Iraq,
Somalia,
Afghanistan
Table II.1 Population of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Indonesia and
Malaysia according to UNHCR Data in 201258
58 JSR Asia Pacific. (2012). The Search: Protection Space in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia and the Philippines. Bangkok: Fr Bernard Hyacinth Arputhasamy SJ *UNHCR acknowledges that there are still a large number of asylum seekers that are unregistered. Whilst, their estimates are around 10,000 people **The UNHCR Malaysia country website indicates that as of January 2012 the total number of registered asylum seekers are refugees is some 97,000.
35
II.4.1.1 Indonesia
Indonesia is used as a transit country as it is an archipelago of many
islands which smuggler use as points of departure for sea smuggling journeys.
With more than 3,000 islands, it presents virtually unlimited opportunities to
enter Indonesia by boat without detection. Indonesia become the strategic
country for transit of the migration process, since those asylum seekers and
irregular migrants have Australia an intended final destination. Indonesia was an
important transit point, along with Malaysia and other parts of Southeast and
East Asia.59 The boat later will heading towards Christmas Island or Ashmore
Reef, both are the offshore Australian territories which geographically closer to
Indonesia than they are to Australia mainland.60
Indonesia meets almost all the requirement or defining characteristics of
a transit country. It is the world’s largest country by population, it has substantial
labour surplus. Malaysia and the Middle East are the significant origins of
immigrants to Indonesia as well as destination of emigrants. According to
UNHCR Indonesia, currently as of 29 February 2016, UNHCR Indonesia is
handling 6,269 caseloads of refugees and 7,560 caseloads of asylum-seekers,
making total of 13,829 individuals.61 Breakdown of total population of refugees
and asylum-seekers by country of origin in Indonesia is presented below.
Country Total Refugees Total Asylum-seekers
Afghanistan 3,056 3,859
Myanmar 795 244
59 Hugo, G., George Tan and C. Jonathan. (2014). Indonesia as a Transit Country in Irregular Migration to Australia. Research Paper, Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Retrieved December 6, 2016, https://www.adelaide.edu.au/apmrc/research/completed/Indonesia_Transit_Country_IMtoA_Report.pdf 60 UNODC. (2011). Smuggling of migrants by sea. Issue Paper, United Nations, page 19. Retrieved December 5, 2016, http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant-Smuggling/Issue-Papers/Issue_Paper_-_Smuggling_of_Migrants_by_Sea.pdf 61 UNHCR Indonesia. Indonesia Factsheet. February 2016. Retrieved December 21, 2016, http://www.unhcr.org/50001bda9.pdf
36
Somalia 459 762
Sri Lanka 319 294
Iran 312 331
Palestine 375 157
Pakistan 348 140
Iraq 223 689
Others 382 1,084
Total 6,269 7,560
Table II.2 Indonesia’s total Population of Concern based of country of origin as
of 29 February 2016 (UNHCR Indonesia, February 2016) 62
The process of the migrations are complex, however there are still large
number or people would take this opportunity. It has several elements which
become the reasons and background behind the movement of these IMAs using
Indonesia as a transit country with the intention of moving to Australia. Some of
the major features are as follows:
1. “There are strong family, community and agent networks linking
Malaysia and Indonesia which facilitate migration.
2. A strong ‘industry’ has developed with multiple stakeholder at a range
of levels ranging from the local to the international.
3. There are a multiplicity of sea routes and coastal embarkation an
disembarkation points in Malaysia and Indonesia.
4. There is complicity of government officials in the irregular migration in
both countries.
62 Ibid. P.1
37
5. Most of the movement especially irregular migration, involves maritime
journeys, much of it using erstwhile fishing boats and there is substantial
involvement of fishermen.”63
II. 4.1.2 Malaysia
Besides Indonesia, many people smuggled to Australia also pass through
Malaysia. Malaysia is very popular transit points in air based smuggling route.
Undocumented migration remains a substantial key issue, especially to
Malaysia. Johor is the place where many migrants entered and exited the country
in legal and illegal entry points.64
Malaysia’s first arrival of the boat people started after the fall of Saigon
on 1975 with Vietnamese people started to arrive in Malaysia territory. Soon
after that, they were arriving in large number and Malaysia became the
temporary home to more than 250,000 of these boat people. In Malaysia, these
IMAs were stayed in camps and had to wait several years even a very long time
for a durable solution that usually a resettlement in a third country. However,
different with Indonesia, these IMAs can earn money by working as a labor in
Malaysia. This because they do not receive a direct financial support for housing
and food from the UNHCR.65
Malaysia is not the party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its Protocol
and does not have a regulation system to regulate the asylum seekers and
therefore asylum seekers and refugees are deemed to be illegal immigrants by
law, although there is UNHCR in Malaysia, and UNHCR continually processes
their status of refugees. Like Indonesia, UNHCR give protection to those asylum
63 UNHCR Indonesia. Indonesia Factsheet. February 2016. Retrieved December 21, 2016, http://www.unhcr.org/50001bda9.pdf, p.7 64 Fairuzothman, Ahmad. (2016). The problem of Illegal immigrants. From New Straits Times Website. Retrieved December 20, 2016, http://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/01/123227/problem-illegal-immigrants 65 Hoffstaedter, Gerhard. (2012). Refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia the good, the bad and the unexpected. From the Conversation website. Retrieved December 20, 2016, http://theconversation.com/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-in-malaysia-the-good-the-bad-and-the-unexpected-8532
38
seekers and refugees by giving them a UNHCR papers or card as their assurances
so they will not be arrested by authorities nor departed to their home country.
Thus, UNHCR Malaysia takes the role for refugee protection in the country.66
Up until end of October 2016, Malaysia has hosted a total of 150, 669
refugees and asylum-seekers that already registered with UNHCR in Malaysia.
Below is the figure showing the total number of refugees and asylum seekers by
country of origin.
Figure II.4 Malaysia’s total Population of Concern based of country of origin as
of end October 201667
Although Malaysia is not a party of the refugee convention, Malaysia
always implemented its humanitarian assistance without compromising on its
sovereignty, integrity and security. However, the Deputy Prime Minister of
Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said that, there is a problem that
happened during the waiting period of these refugees to find a third country for
them to be resettled. It took years for UNHCR to find a third country making the
66 UNHCR Global Appeal 2012-2013. P. 212, retrieved December 20, 2016, http://www.unhcr.org/4ec23106b.pdf 67 Figures at Glance. UNHCR Malaysia. Retrieved December 21, 2016, http://www.unhcr.org.my/About_Us-@-Figures_At_A_Glance.aspx
Myanmar91%
Sri Lanka2%
Pakistan2%Yemen
1%Somalia
1%Syria1%
Iraq1%
Afghanistan1%
Palestine0%
Myanmar Sri Lanka Pakistan Yemen Somalia
Syria Iraq Afghanistan Palestine
39
existing population in Malaysia keep increasing. This has create economic,
political and security problems to the country.68
II.5 Push and Pull Factors of IMAs Intending to Australia
The high influx of IMAs to Australia during several years from 2001 to
2013 are influenced by several factors. Factors that made the increasing number
of asylum seekers in Indonesia can be categorized into two factors; Push factor
and Pull factor. From the first time boat arrived in Darwin in April 1976 until
1999, Australia has experienced three wave of asylum seekers.69 The push and
pull factors will explain the causes of migration. The push and pull model for
the explanation consists of a number of negative or push factors in the country
of origin that cause people to move away, in combination with a number of
positive or pull factors that attract migrants to a receiving country.70
The push factors of these IMAs include such elements as “economic,
social and political hardships in the poorest parts of the world”. While the pull
factors include the “comparative advantages in the more advanced nation-
states”.71 They are looking for a richer countries as a place for them to start their
life again. That is the push and pull factors that make these IMAs start their
journey to leave the home country. Combinations of push and pull factors would
then determine the size and direction of flows.
The reasons and dynamics behind the smuggling of migrants from West
and South Asia are complex, they intend to claim for asylum upon reaching their
68 Draft of Statement by HE. Dato Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia at the Plenary session of the High-Level Meeting on Large Movement of Refugees and Migrants, New York, 19 September 2016. Retrieved 20 December 2016, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/events/ga/documents/2016/trusteeship/malaysia.pdf 69 J Phillips and H Spinks. (2011). Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. Commonwealth of Australia, Parliament of Australia. Retrieved December 20, 2016, http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.pdf 70 European Communities. (2009). Push and Pull Factors of International Migrations. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications for European Communities, p. 3-6. 71 International Migration Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, Special Silver Anniversary Issue: International Migration Assessment for the 90’s. (Autumn, 1989), pp. 606-630, http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jborocz/apbjimr.pdf
40
destination. The IMAs came from South and West Asia region, usually intend to
go to Australia and Canada for their destination countries. “Both these countries
host large diaspora communities and this, along with the strong social supports
they offer, makes them attractive destination countries for asylum seekers”.72
II.6 Australia as the Destination Country for Illegal Maritime
Arrivals
Apparently the migrant smuggling by sea is one of the most dangerous
type of smuggling for the migrants concerned, because more deaths occurring at
sea than through irregular land or air travel.73 There are two possible means of
entry to Australia’s territory, first is by sea or air. The danger of the smuggling
process at sea or the irregular maritime travel to Australia is very clear, there
were lot of deaths has occurred in the Mediterranean Sea. According to ACBPS
and DIAC data, since 2001, there were 964 passengers have died (or gone
missing, presumed dead) on irregular maritime journey. The table below shows
the occurrence of boat incident that has caused hundreds of people died or
missing.74
Date Boat Name
Estimated
deaths/
missing persons
Incidents Details
19-10-01 SIEV X 352 Foundered vessel off Indonesia, 352
missing presumed drowned
72 UNODC. (2013). Transnational Organized Crime in East Asia and the Pacific. Document from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Retrieved, December 21, 2016, https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/TOCTA_EAP_web.pdf 73 ‘The Smuggling of Migrants by Sea’, UNODC. 74 Australian Government. (2012). Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers. Retrieved 21 December 2016, http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/thebordercrossingobservatory/files/2015/03/expert_panel_on_asylum_seekers_full_report.pdf
41
8-11-01 SIEV 10 2 Foundered vessel, 2 confirmed
deceased
15-04-09 SIEV 36 5 Explosion on boat near Ashmore
Reef, 5 deceased, multiple casualties
10-09 Unknown 103
Alleged missing vessel, all
passengers missing presumed
drowned
1-11-09 SIEV 69 12 Foundered vessel, 12 confirmed
deceased
9-05-10 SIEV 143 5
5 passengers missing presumed
drowned after abandoning vessel
north of Cocos Islands
11-10 Unknown 97
Alleged missing vessel, all
passengers missing presumed
drowned
15-12-10 SIEV 221 50
Foundered Vessel off Christmas
island, 30 deceased, up to 20 missing
presumed drowned
1-11-11 N/A 30
Foundered vessel off the coast of
southern Java, Indonesia, 8 confirmed
deceased, 22 unaccounted for
presumed drowned
17-12-11 N/A 201
Foundered vessel off the coast of
central Java, Indonesia, 103
confirmed deceased, 98 missing
presumed drowned, 49 rescued
42
1-02-12 N/A 11 Foundered vessel off Johor, Malaysia,
11 confirmed deceased
21-06-12 N/A 92
Foundered vessel north east of
Christmas Island, 17 confirmed
deceased, up to 75 unaccounted for
presumed drowned, 110 rescued
27-06-12 N/A 4
Foundered vessel north of Christmas
Island, 1 confirmed deceased, 1-3
unaccounted for (the range is due to
some passengers claiming they saw
two crew members ‘get away’ when
the boat started taking on water, that
is, two of the unaccounted for may not
have perished), 130 rescued.
Total 964
Table II.3 Number of Deaths and Missing persons at sea from October 2001 to
June 201275
As mentioned before, the boat arrivals to Australia are dominated by a
few key nationality groups, primarily Afghan Hazaras, Iranian, Iraqi and Sri
Lankan nationals. The high number of particular migrating to Australia by boat
demonstrates that the expertise of the people smuggler in source, transit and in
destination countries to move a large numbers of group of people through the
region.
75 Australian Government. (2012). Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers. Retrieved 21 December 2016, http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/thebordercrossingobservatory/files/2015/03/expert_panel_on_asylum_seekers_full_report.pdf
43
“Australia is a multicultural country, which has developed as an
immigration society since its foundation in 1782”76 Australia’s refugee and
asylum seekers policies have been changes in recent years, as a response to an
increase in the number of illegal maritime arrivals arriving in Australia by boat.
The government of Australia has agreed to tackle this IMAs problem and
attempted to address this issue through deterrence-based policies. Australia has
undergo two categories process of humanitarian program which are offshore and
onshore refugees. The offshore refugees are those whose refugee claims being
processed overseas and come to Australia for resettlement. While, the onshore
refugees are those recognized within Australia territories.77
The Australian’s perceptions on refugee and asylum seekers changes
after the Tampa incident in 2001. In that period, the Migration Act required those
who arrived illegally by boat to Australia are help in detention until a positive
decision was made to grant them protection. Since then, Australia effectively
divides refugees into “good” and “bad”. The good refugees are selected through
an orderly humanitarian process and have entitlements, and those who wait
patiently in refugee camps outside Australia. On the other hands, the bad
refugees are categorized as “boat people” and the “queue jumper”.78
The Australian government have fueled fears that asylum seekers are
posing a threat not only to the integrity of Australia’s borders, but to the national
fabric as a whole. The asylum seekers’ claim to seek refugee status were doubted
as they have sought help from the “criminal” and not following the normal
refugee processing.79 Mr. Turnbull announced the certainty to deter boat people
76 Migraciokutato. (2016). The Australian Model or the island country’s answer to asylum and migration challenges of the past decades. From Migration Research Institute, retrieved 4 January 2017, http://www.migraciokutato.hu/en/2016/11/29/the-australian-model/ 77 Karlsen, Elibritt and Janet Phillips. (2011). Seeking Asylum: Australia’s humanitarian program. Canberra: Department of Parliamentary Services. Retrieved 21 December 2016, http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/seekingasylum.pdf 78 Mares, Peter. (2002). Reporting Australia’s asylum seeker “crisis”. From Australian Policy Online Website. Retrieved 21 December 2016, http://apo.org.au/resource/reporting-australias-asylum-seeker-crisis 79 McAdam, Jane. (2013). Australia and Asylum Seekers. International Journal of Refugee Law Vol. 25 No. 3 pp.435-448. Published by Oxford University Press. http://ijrl.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/3/435.full.pdf+html
44
to Australia, “You should not underestimate the scale of the threat. These people-
smugglers are the worst criminals imaginable. They have a multibillion-dollar
business. We have to be very determined to say no to their criminal plans”, he
said.80 These IMAs are deemed to pose a threat toward the national security and
national identity. Also the representations of asylum seekers and refugees has
create a concern toward the national integrity. Even, their representations as
embodying a threat to national security, is being labeled as embodying and
symbolizing deviance.81
The governments after Howards have followed his step with the aim to
stop the boats. The policies produced including the mandatory detention laws,
the excision of external territories from the migration zones, offshore processing,
introduction of temporary protection visas, and border security measures. The
government has implemented restricted rules since 2001 to eradicate the people
smuggling.82 Additionally, Australia also attempts to increase its cooperation
with other countries (bilateral and regional), such as countries of origin and
transit countries through regional measures, such as Bali Process.
II.7 Chapter Summary
The issue of illegal maritime arrivals is one of the major concerns in the global
community, it involves the countries of origin, transit and destination country.
Apparently, each year the total number of asylum seekers in increasing and thus
it created awareness among states. Ever since the first wave of boat people
coming to Australia, the issue of IMAs is put into the debate, discussing on how
to address this issue.
80 Palazzo, Chiara. (2016). Boat people face lifetime ban from Australia. From the Telegraph Website. Retrieved 20 December 2016, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/boatpeople-face-lifetime-ban-from-australia/ 81 Pickering, Sharon. (2001). Common Sense and Original Deviancy: News Discourses and Asylum Seekers in Australia. Journal of Refugees Studies Vol. 14, No. 2 2001, http://statecrime.org/data/2011/10/pickering2001a.pdf 82 More elaborations and explanations in Chapter III.
45
The government wanted to stop the boat people, since it was perceived as threat
by public opinion and the Government. The migration process also a dangerous
journey, because the people could be in danger situation of being exploited by
crime organization. People smuggling and human trafficking is considered as a
crime and a serious violation of human rights. During the migration process
usually they transit in Indonesia and Malaysia with the intention to go to
Australia as the destination country. The incoming of illegal maritime arrivals to
Australia is driven by the push and pull factors.
46
CHAPTER III
Australia National Security Policy
III.1 Introduction
This third chapter will discuss about the Australian national security in
general and continue to Australia’s national security in preserving border
integrity. On this part, this research will find the Australia’s national interest in
security, by explaining the Australia national security and maritime security.
Preserving border integrity is one of the Australia’s national interests and
the goal in its national security. This chapter will describe more about the the
eight pillars of the Australia’s approach to national security. The next sub-
chapter will also describe about the Australian maritime security that will explain
more about illegal maritime arrivals are perceived as a threat to the Australia’s
border.
The next sub chapter, this research will explain the Australia’s effort and
approaches to encounter illegal maritime arrivals. It describes the Australia
national security policy through agreements and policies that have been made by
the Australia from 2001-2013 in regards to combat the illegal maritime arrivals.
Also this research will explain the policies and approaches from the perspectives
of four Prime Minister of Australia, which are John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Julia
Gillard and Tony Abott.
III.2 Australia National Security: Preserving Border Integrity
What is National Security? According to the Australia’s National
Security Strategy, the overall security of a nations is usually “linked to economic
stability, resource sufficiency, good governance and social cohesion. The
Australia in the Asian Century White Paper also recognizes that on an
international scale, there needs to be consideration of the collective economic
and political security of the region, the human security of individuals in the
47
region, the security supply for food and energy, and the security of the natural
system. All of these factors are considered by government.”83
The national security has a broad and evolving concept. The national
security concerned and linked with how and we do to the environment. How we
shape the environment, and how we prevent and prepare for threats to our
sovereignty, people, assets, infrastructure and institutions does have correlation
with the outcomes of our national security and it is very important to be
discussed. The national security also connected with how we respond to such
threats, and recover from any event which may occur.
In accomplishing its national security responsibilities, the Australia’s
agencies focus on its defense, intelligence, diplomatic, development, law
enforcement and border security capabilities. Its agencies are work closely to
build partnership with the states and territories and, increasingly, business and
the wider community. There are many Australian agencies to support the vision
and objectives of Australia’s national security and it is included as the
Australia’s capabilities. The Australia’s national security capabilities have often
played an important role in responding to other threats that could affect the safety
and security of citizens.84
Australia does not underestimate the potential threats towards its national
security. Therefore Australia has made plan and strategies to fulfill its vision and
objectives in terms of national security. To secure the future of Australia and
keep its people prosperous some efforts are made. Australia established the
National Security Strategy (the Strategy) which provides a comprehensive
framework for Australia’s national security efforts, and sets priorities for the
next five years.85 Other strategic documents were also made to support this
83 Australian Government. (2013). STRONG AND SECURE A Strategy for Australia’s National Security. Canberra: The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Document from Website: www.dpmc.gov.au 84 Australian Government. (2013). STRONG AND SECURE A Strategy for Australia’s National Security. Canberra: The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Page 5. Document from Website: www.dpmc.gov.au 85 Ibid. Page vi.
48
strategy, such as the Defence White Paper and the National Security Capability
Plan.
In the Australia’s national security strategy, it stated that Australia’s
vision is for “a unified national security system that anticipates threats, protects
the nation and shapes the world in Australia’s interest. This vision also supported
by four of national security objectives:
1. To protect and strengthen our sovereignty
2. To ensure a safe and resilient population
3. To secure our assets, infrastructure and institutions
4. To promote a favorable international environment
Australian government also sets its fundamental approach to national
security. It describes the eight pillars of the Australia’s approach to national
security:
1. Countering terrorism, espionage and foreign interference.
2. Deterring and defeating attacks on Australia and Australia’s interests.
3. Preserving our border integrity
4. Preventing, detecting and disrupting serious and organized crime.
5. Promoting a secure international environment conducive to
advancing Australia’s interests.
6. Strengthening the resilience of Australia’s people, assets,
infrastructure and institutions.
7. The Australia-United States Alliance.
8. Understanding and being influential in the world, particularly the
Asia-Pacific.86
The Australia’s security capabilities enable the government’s approach
to the current national security environment as aligned with the National Security
Strategy’s pillars above. Knowing and understand of what capabilities
86 Australian Government. (2013). STRONG AND SECURE A Strategy for Australia’s National Security. Canberra: The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Document from Website: www.dpmc.gov.au
49
Australia’s have allows the government to consider what tasks it can perform to
manage national security risks and pursue opportunities in Australia’s national
interest.
III.3 Australia Maritime Security
After the Tampa incident in 2001, the Australia’s national security has
been transformative and also the national security challenges continue to evolve.
The illegal maritime arrivals is one of the non-traditional national security
challenges facing Australia up until now. “Australia’s national objective for
maritime security is to deter or prevent illegal activity from occurring in
Australia’s maritime jurisdiction and where necessary to interdict and enforce
Australian laws.”87
Australia has strong economic and national interests in maintaining
security within and beyond Australian waters. The incoming of any illegal
arrival of people makes the Australia’s national interests are threatened. Hence,
the Australian Government has responsibility for the lawful and orderly entry of
people into Australia, along with ensuring that only those foreign nationals who
are appropriately are allowed to stay in Australia territory.88
The security threats to Australia’s national interests within its maritime
jurisdiction are diverse. There are eight maritime security threats according to
Australia Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection, they
are:
- Illegal maritime arrivals
- Illegal exploitation of natural resources
- Illegal activity in protected areas
87 Australian Government. (2013). Guide to Australian Maritime Security Arrangements. Canberra: Australian Border Protection Command. 88 Australian Government. (n.d.). Eight maritime security threats. Retrieved November 1, 2016, from Australia Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection Website: https://www.border.gov.au/australian-border-force-abf/protecting/maritime/command/eight-maritime-security-threats
50
- Marine pollution
- Prohibited imports and exports
- Compromise to biosecurity
- Piracy, robbery or violence at sea
- Maritime terrorism.89
Those are threats that has been recognized by Australia government. The
Maritime Border Command’s operations are assigned to counter those eight civil
maritime security threats within Australia’s vast maritime environment. Border
security has become one of the key means of Australia’s national security by
which the sovereignty and security of powerful nation-states is projected.
Illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs) is categorized as one of the threats of
Australia’s maritime security. The Australian government has working closely
to prevent the incoming of IMAs to its territory for the security purposes and to
keep the sovereignty integrity. There are many activities that happened in the
border, for example trades and shipping, therefore Australia has strong national
interests to keep its border safe from any possibly security threats. It is necessary
for Australia and agencies to work together in an effective way to manage those
threats that pose the highest risk.
One of the Australia’s eight key pillars of national security activities is
“preserving Australia’s border integrity”, this strategy emphasizes the
importance of “enhanced regional engagement and effective partnerships with
stakeholders, labelling them as two of the three key five-year priorities.”90
Maritime security according to Australia’s perspective is very important.
Through partnership and making cooperation with other countries to prevent and
counter the security threats is very necessary for Australia.
89 Ibid. 90 Australian Government. (2013). Guide to Australian Maritime Security Arrangements. Canberra: Australian Border Protection Command.
51
The term ‘security threats’ is defined as “an action that has potential to
cause consequences adverse to Australia’s interests.”91 Security threats to
Australia could result in outcomes adverse to Australia’s national interests and
are likely to result in criminal prosecution of the perpetrators.
According to the former Prime Minister Tony Abott, he has said that the
asylum problem is a ‘national emergency’. In Abott’s opinion, the national
emergency involves the “tens thousands of irregular maritime arrivals and
hundreds of deaths at sea under the Labor government.”92
After the Tampa incident in 2001, Australia has implemented a more
restricted rules and tightened policies toward the boat people and asylum
seekers. In the present text, the term asylum seekers and refugees are different.
Asylum seekers refer to those who not yet determined as a refugee, further when
using the term ‘boat people’, it refers to the asylum seekers who arriving by boat.
III.4 The Australia’s approaches to encounter the Illegal
Maritime Arrivals
Before 2013, the term to that used to describe people who arrived
illegally by boat to Australia’s territory is called Illegal Maritime Arrivals
(IMAs). The migration amendment (Unauthorized Maritime Arrivals and Other
Measures) Regulation 2013, amended that “arrival anywhere in Australia by
irregular maritime means would not provide individuals with a different lawful
status than those who arrive at an excised offshore place.”93
The first of wave of immigration in Australia happened in 1940. After
that in 1990s, the increasing number of asylum seekers fleeing from the Middle
91 Ibid. Page 9. 92 Laughland, Oliver. (2013). Is the asylum problem a ‘national emergency’, as Tony Abott says?. From the Guardian website. Retrieved December 6, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/26/asylum-seekers-national-emergency-abbott 93 Department of Immigration and Border Protection Australia, ‘Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Regulation 2013’. Retrieved December 6, 2016, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2013L00878/Explanatory%20Statement/Text
52
East and Sri Lanka have changed the political condition in Australia. The Tampa
incident in 2001 become the starting point of the implementation of a series of
restrictive policies regards of IMAs during the John Howard governmental era.
The changes was triggered by the high influx of asylum seekers coming to
Australia’s territory and their journey is often organized by people smuggler lead
to question of how to deal with asylum seekers or unauthorized boat. This
remains one of the most important debates in Australia.94
Australia keeps developing its policies and immigration regulations since
there were many asylum seekers came to Australia. However, Australia cannot
work alone to combat the IMAs without seeing and mapping the effect of nations
surrounding. Australia needs to have a good relations with neighboring countries
in Asia Pacific region which became a transit point for these IMAs. The
importance of Australia to have cooperation with its neighboring countries could
bring the urgency of this irregular migration issue at the regional level. A good
cooperation with neighbor country and enhance the regional cooperation could
be very functional to increase Australia’s national security and actualize
Australia’s national interest.95
The Tampa Incident in 2001 became the turning point in Australia of the
establishment series of restricted policies toward IMAs. It is during the John
Howard’s leadership, when the problems of irregular maritime occurred.
“Subsequent international law enforcement co-operation, maritime interdiction
measures and changes to migration law have been credited with the decline,
almost to zero, in irregular maritime arrivals since 2001.”96
94 ‘Australia’s Immigration History’, from National Maritime Museum. Retrieved December 6, 2016, http://waves.anmm.gov.au/Immigration-Stories/Immigration-history 95 R. R.Aj Rizka. (2015). The Impact of Australian Policy on Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMA) Toward Current Relation of Australia-Indonesia. from Pusat Penelitian Politik, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia. Retrieved December 6, 2016, http://ejournal.lipi.go.id/index.php/jpp/article/viewFile/528/336 96 Guilfoyle, Douglas. (2009). Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea. USA: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 204.
53
The problem started in August 2001, there were 433 asylum-seekers
were rescued by Captain Arne Rinnan from their shrinking boat and sheltered
them on his freighter, the MV Tampa. The problem in this issue is when
Australia refused to take 433 asylum seekers, which mostly came from
Afghanistan. Since then, the Australian government established the Pacific
Solution. It was from the John Howard’s governmental era. The Pacific Solution
is the response of the government toward a rising number of boat arrivals in
2001, where those asylum seekers on unauthorized boats – or so called as illegal
maritime arrivals (IMAs) – that came to Australian territory were intercepted
and transferred to offshore processing centers on Nauru and Manus Island in
Papua New Guinea by the Australian navy.97
With the establishment of Pacific Solutions, it will enable the
government to restrict the boat to enter the migration zone of Australia for
asylum seekers and giving resettlement for those who already received their
refugee status. This policy became the pioneer of the offshore processing
centers, it is “the term used to describe the arrangements by which Australia
government sends people seeking asylum who arrive by boat to either Nauru or
on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea (PNG), where their refugee claims are
determined.”98 The offshore processing was first introduced in September and
October 2001 by the Australian government. Australia is the only country that
uses other countries to process refugee claims.99 This process and policy is
claimed to be the right policy to demolish the people smuggler’s business model,
as by doing the offshore processing it will “removing the financial incentive to
send boats to Australia” and ensuring that those who arrive by boat will gain the
same amount of advantages over others.100 The Australian government
introduced three new Acts compromising the ‘Pacific Solution’: “the Border
97 Phillips, Janet. (2012). The ‘Pacific Solution’ revisited: a statistical guide to asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. 98 ‘Australia’s offshore processing regime’. Refugee Council of Australia. Retrieved 26 December 2016. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/getfacts/seekingsafety/asylum/offshore-processing/briefing/ 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid.
54
Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Act 2001; the Migration
Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Act 2001; the Migration
Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Act
2001”. The Pacific Solution also comprised giving the Temporary Protection
Visa (TPV) for the IMAs or the unauthorized arrivals of asylum seekers to
Australia.101
Figure III.1 Map showing the Australia’s migration zone102
This is the table showing the total caseloads in Nauru and Manus Island,
along with their nationality and status of refugees in 2001-2008.
Nationality Returned
Voluntarily
Resettled
refugees
Resettled
non-
refugees
Deceased Total
Afghan 420 329 36 1 786
101 McAdam, Jane and Kate Purcell, “Refugee Protection in the Howard Years: Obstructing the Right to Seek Asylum”, Australian Year Book of International Law Vol. 27, 2008, pp. 87-113. 102 Phillips, Janet. (2012). The ‘Pacific Solution’ revisited: a statistical guide to asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
55
Bangladeshi 4 3 7
Burmese 1 7 8
Iranian 15 3 1 20
Iraqi 24 623 37 684
Pakistani 6 2 1 9
Palestinian 21 21
Sri Lankan 4 84 88
Stateless 4 4
Turkish 8 2 10
Total 483 1075 78 1 1637
Table III.1 Nauru and Manus total caseloads from 2001-2008103
During the year 2010 until 2014 there were a transition dynamics of the
Australian governmental era that effecting on the IMAs’ policies. From the John
Howard’s governmental era, the Australian government switched from the reign
of the Labor party led by Julia Gillard (June 2010-June 2013), Kevin Rudd
(January 2010-June 2010; June 2013-September 2013), up under the leadership
of the Liberal party by Tony Abbott (September 2013-September 2015). During
the four leadership eras the Australian government has tackled the IMA’s issue
with several policies.104
During the leadership of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, there are several
changes toward the policy regarding the IMAs. The Australian government in
103 Data from Phillips, Janet. (2012). The ‘Pacific Solution’ revisited: a statistical guide to asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. 104 R. R.Aj Rizka. (2015). The Impact of Australian Policy on Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMA) Toward Current Relation of Australia-Indonesia. from Pusat Penelitian Politik, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia. Retrieved 6 December, 2016, http://ejournal.lipi.go.id/index.php/jpp/article/viewFile/528/336
56
2008-2009 under the first Kevin Rudd leadership, have implemented the less
restricted approach toward the IMAs, by accentuating several aspects such as,
humanity, justice and integrity as the policy platform and approach to tackle the
issue of the IMAs. Under the Kevin Rudd leadership, they have done several
approaches, such as the termination of the Pacific Solution, abolition of the
Temporary Protection Visa, and made a revision of Australia’s detention system
by introducing the New Direction in Detention Policy, to restore the integrity of
Australia’s immigration system. Even during the time of the Kevin Rudd’s era,
the term ‘illegal’ toward the asylum-seekers has been avoided.105
However, the policy that continued by Julia Gillard has created a rising
number of IMAs in 2010 to Australia. It is reported that the total number of IMAs
has reached to 6555 people in 2010, which it has increased 100% if compare to
the total number of IMAs in last year.106 The failures of Julia Gillard’s
approaches in tackling the issue of IMAs has weaken her image and credibility
as a Prime Minister and the leader of Labor Party. It is feared that it will
contributes to the image of the Labor Party’s performance and impact on the
Labor’s vote at the federal election in mid-2013. Therefore, the next Prime
Minister, Kevin Rudd after replacing Julia Gillard in June 2013, has announced
more restricted and tough policy toward the IMAs. It is the effort of the Labor
Party to bring back the trust of the Australian public and increase the image of
the party by attract public sympathy of Australia to give the image that the Labor
government has also sought to halt the flow of IMAs to Australia.107 The issue
of IMAs has effecting the political constellation in the internal of Labor party.
The second leadership of Kevin Rudd in Australia has affected a tougher
deterrence measures and policy towards the IMAs. During his leadership, the
new policy that he created were, first sending all IMAs (without exception) to
105 Ibid. Page 72. 106 Janet Phillips and Harriet Spinks. (2011). “Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976”. Retrieved 26 December 2016, http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.pdf. 107 Janet Phillips. Research Paper Series: A Comparison of Coalition and Labor government asylum policies in Australia since 2001. Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament of Australia. Canberra: Parliamentary Libarary, 2014. P. 5.
57
the offshore processing center to be processed their status and resettlement. The
next policy also established by Julia Gillard as a response towards the increasing
number of unauthorized people movements, which is the Regional Protection
Framework. Julia Gillard believes that “building a sustainable regional
protection framework is the most effective way to address irregular
migration.”108
However in 2013, after there were an increasing number of IMAs again
to Australia and a domestic politic conflict happened, the new Prime Minister,
Tony Abbott from the Liberal Party has implemented more tougher and
restrictive policy towards IMAs and to control the border of Australia. Several
significant approaches during Tony Abott’s era is the changes term of “Irregular
Maritime Arrivals” become “Illegal Maritime Arrivals”, also “Department of
Immigration and Citizenship” has changed to “Department of Immigration and
Border Protection”. This changes was firstly proposed by Minister of
Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, and officially it was
approved by Tony Abbott. This real changes also become one of the
government’s approaches and as a symbolic statement that depicting the
insecurity of Australia against IMAs which are vulnerable to people smuggling
and human trafficking. This is also affirm the interest of Australian government
to combat people smuggling and to stop the boat to Australian territory.109
Another restrictive policy by Tony Abbott is Operation Sovereign
Borders (OSB) policy. These policies has created a stigma that IMAs is illegal
and therefore part of a crime. The OSB policy is aligned with the Australia’s
national interest which is much prioritized to combat the issue of IMAs. As
108 The Australian. “Julia Gillard’s speech to the Lowy Institute on Labor’s mew asylum-seeker policy for Australia”, 6 July 2010. Retrieved 26 December 2016, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/politics/julia-gillards-speech-to-the-lowy-institute-on-labors-new-asylum-seeker-policy-for-australia/news-story/5ffb94b349ee46e1778da4ca67c3fed2 109 R. R.Aj Rizka. (2015). The Impact of Australian Policy on Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMA) Toward Current Relation of Australia-Indonesia. from Pusat Penelitian Politik, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia. Retrieved 6 December, 2016, http://ejournal.lipi.go.id/index.php/jpp/article/viewFile/528/336
58
mentioned above, the Illegal maritime arrivals is one of the recognized threat for
Australia’s maritime threat. As in the Guide to Australian Maritime Security
Arrangements (GAMSA) have defined the term ‘security threat’ as “an action
that has potential to cause consequences adverse to Australia’s interests”.110
The OSB policy is one of the most significant approaches of Australia
in dealing with IMAs. The OSB was implemented because of the Coalition
government emphasized that Australia is in the situation of national emergency
because of the Australia’s borders are threatened because of the incoming of
IMAs to Australia’s territory. The OSB is a “military-led border security
operation aimed at combating maritime people smuggling and protecting
Australia’s borders.”111 (Australian Government) OSB Policy was established in
18 September 2013 and has been reported to be successfully reduced the number
of illegal maritime ventures to Australia and prevented deaths at sea. The OSB
policy has prevented all asylum seekers to be resettled in Australia, even they
have been granted as a refugee. On 18 November 2014, the Prime Minister for
Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, also announced that the
Australian government will no longer be accepting refugees from UNHCR office
in Jakarta who registered there after 1 July 2014. Furthermore, the annual
refugee intake from Indonesia will be reduced from 600 to 450 in the year 2014-
2015.112
Along with the establishment of the OSB policy, the government also
reinforce again the Temporary Protection Visa and Regional Offshore
Processing Centre in Christmas Island and with neighbor countries, which are
110 Australian Government. (2013). Guide to Australian Maritime Security Arrangements (GAMSA). Canberra: Australian Border Protection Command. 111 ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’. Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Retrieved 26 December 2016, http://www.osb.border.gov.au/ 112 Paul Farrell. (2014). Asylum seekers registered with UNHCR in Indonesia blocked from resettlement. From the Guardian Website, retrieved 26 December 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/18/asylum-seekers-registered-with-unhcr-in-indonesia-blocked-from-resettlement
59
Nauru and Manus Islands as the main mechanisms in processing the IMAs. The
Australian government also implement the ‘turn back boat’ policy.
All of these unilateral policies established by the Australian government
are basically in contrast with the Australian’s foreign policy principle, which is
the good international citizenship.113 This principle already being adopted by
Australian government since 1990, which emphasizing the Australia’s
responsibility that already ratified several international conventions related with
international issues as well as play an active role in addressing global issues,
including the human rights conventions and Convention on the Status of
Refugees.114 However, the Australian government in this case have did the best
it had to do to deter the unauthorized boat arrivals to Australia.
III.4.1 Australia’s approaches to Indonesia as a transit country
The first cooperation between Australia and Indonesia regarding to
people smuggling and encounter the IMAs is the Bali Process on People
Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime (Bali
Process) in 2002. In regards to encounter the illegal maritime arrivals, the
bilateral relations between Australia and Indonesia also have been strengthened
through the signing of The Lombok Treaty in 2006. Efforts made by Australia
government to reduce the number of asylum seekers to reach the Australia’s
territory does not stop there. Australia’s aid also given to Indonesia which
distributed through International Organizations for Migration (IOM). This aid
was given in order to support the implementation of these programs, which are
the Regional Cooperation Arrangement (2001) and the Management and Care
of Irregular Immigrants Projects (2007).115
113 R. R.Aj Rizka. (2015). The Impact of Australian Policy on Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMA) Toward Current Relation of Australia-Indonesia. from Pusat Penelitian Politik, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia. Retrieved 6 December, 2016, http://ejournal.lipi.go.id/index.php/jpp/article/viewFile/528/336 114 Ibid. P. 2. 115 Center for Migration Studies, “Immigration Control Beyond Australia’s Border”, 2014. Retrieved December 6, 2016, http://cmsny.org/immigration-control-beyond-australias-border/
60
The bilateral relationship with Indonesia after the Tampa incident in
2001 succeeded to muffle the conflict post the Tampa incident. As Indonesia is
rising, in terms of security and strengthening national security Indonesia is not
only a neighbour country, rather Australia also has seen Indonesia as a strategic
partner. One of Australia’s efforts and lobbying to raise the awareness of
Indonesia of the threat of IMAs has been succeed by the emergence of Joint
declaration on Addressing Irregular Movement of Persons in 2013.116 It is one
of Indonesia’s initiative and important step forward for the handling of asylum
seekers because it succeeded to formulate a joint agreement to address the
conditions that lead to people smuggling and human trafficking.117
III.5 Policy shift in Australia to more restricted the unauthorized
boat
Australia has been known in the global community for being tough on
unauthorized boat, especially IMAs. However, at the beginning Australia has
welcomed many asylum seekers and refugees to its territory until the Tampa
Incident. In 2001, the number of asylum seekers on boat arrivals to Australia
have been significantly increased. The Tampa Incident became the turning point
in Australia of the establishment series of restricted policies toward IMAs. The
total number of entry of which is increasing in each year, cause Australia made
the issue of IMAs as one of the problem to be prioritized. In the year 2013, it is
predicted not less than 3,000 of boat people trying to reach Australia’s territory
by boat per month. The country of origin mostly are coming from the Middle
East, such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan.
116 ‘Jakarta Declaration on Addressing Irregular Movement of Persons’, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013, Retrieved December 6, 2016, http://www.kemlu.go.id/id/berita/siaran-pers/Pages/Jakarta-Declaration-on-Addressing-Irregular-Movement-of-Persons.aspx 117 W. Fathiyah. (2013). Konferensi Pencari Suaka Hasilkan Deklarasi Jakarta. From VOA Indonesia Website. Retrieved December 6, 2016, http://www.voaindonesia.com/a/konferensi-pencari-suaka-hasilkan-deklarasi-jakarta/1733801.html
61
Figure III.2 Labor’s record: 48,300 illegal boat arrives since 2007118
Figure III.3 Number of persons arriving illegally by boat from 2007-2013119
Since 2001 until 2013, Australia have been led by four Prime Ministers.
Each of them have different types of leadership and policies in facing the illegal
maritime arrivals. There are several policies similarities and differences between
both parties (the Coalition Party and Labor Party). Both have the similarities in
118 ‘The Coalition’s Operation Sovereign Borders Policy’, Liberal Party. Retrieved 26 December 2016, http://sievx.com/articles/OSB/201307xxTheCoalitionsOSBPolicy.pdf 119 Ibid.
251037
5668 4949
8311
25541
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Number of persons arriving illegally by boat
62
their agreement to implement tough deterrence policies to stem the flow of IMAs
boats to Australia.
III.5.1 John Howard’s Leadership toward IMAs
The John Howard’s asylum-seekers policy was influenced by the influx
of boat people from the Tampa Incident. Under the John Howard’s government
was the starting point that changed the face of Australia’s immigration policy.
On 2001, the Norwegian ship, which is called The Tampa, had rescued a group
of asylum seekers from their leaky boat. And its captain was attempted to bring
them to Australia. However, John Howard determined to prevent them to enter
the Australian territory. So during the John Howard’s government there are
several policy, there are the Pacific Solution was born, along with the Offshore
Processing Centre in Nauru and Manus Island and also give Temporary
Protection Visa for the IMAs.
Under the Pacific Solution, there were many islands were excised from
the Australia’s migration zone. The excision is part of the Pacific Solution in
hope to prevent those IMAs to enter the Australia’s territory. Those IMAs who
came by boat will directly transferred to the offshore camps. John Howard in his
statement in September of 2001, stated that the need of protecting the Australian
border from unauthorized arrival referring to the act of terrorism in the United
States, he stated:
During the John Howard’s government, according to ministerial press
release noted that “a total of 1637 people had been detained in the Nauru and
Manus facilities between 2001 until 2008, including 786 Afghans, 684 Iraqis and
88 Sri Lankans. Also 70% of them were resettled to Australia or other countries.
Of those, around 61% (705 people) were resettled in Australia.”120
120 Phillips, Janet. (2012). The ‘Pacific Solution’ revisited: a statistical guide to asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
63
III.5.2 Kevin Rudd’s Leadership toward IMAs
Kevin Rudd has become the Prime Minister of Australia twice. The Rudd
government commenced on 3 December 2007 until 24 June 2010 and re-elected
again by the Labor Party in 2013 and served for a second time as PM of
Australia. During the first period of Kevin Rudd’s government, he immediately
abolished the Pacific Solution. Because at that time, the government under the
Labor government in 2008-2009 tried to solve the issue of IMAs with
accentuating several aspects such as, humanity, justice and integrity as the policy
platform. He also abolished the Temporary Protection Visa, introduced the New
Direction in Detention Policy. Also during his governments, the using the term
‘illegal’ for IMAs is avoided.121 However, after they implemented those
regulation the number of IMAs are increasing in the time of Julia Gillard’s era.
Therefore, the Labor Party tried to change its policies to prevent the incoming of
IMAs and stop the boats.
In summary, the second time of Kevin Rudd’s government in June 2013,
he was reinstated and announced more tougher measures with the following
significant changes to Australia’s asylum seeker policy, they are:
1. “All asylum seekers or IMAs (without exceptions) who travelled to
Australia by boat with no valid visa would be sent to offshore for
processing and resettlement.
2. Those found to be refugees would not be resettled in Australia
3. Otherwise, people who is not granted the refugee status or found not to
be refugees would be returned to their home country (or a country where
they had a right of residence) or held in a transit facility indefinitely and
121 McAdam, Jane and Kate Purcell, “Refugee Protection in the Howard Years: Obstructing the Right to Seek Asylum”, Australian Year Book of International Law Vol. 27, 2008, pp. 87-113.
64
4. Australian Federal Police would pay rewards of up to $200,000 for
information leading to the arrest and conviction of people organizing
people smuggling ventures to Australia.”122
III.5.3 Julia Gillard’s Leadership toward IMAs
Julia Gillard was elected to become the Australian Prime Minister from
24 June 2010 to 27 June 2013. During her leadership, at first Julia Gillard have
continued to implement the previous policy from the former Prime Minister,
Kevin Rudd, to solve the issue of IMAs. However, the number of IMAs that
coming to Australia by boat is keep increasing.
The failure of the policy, made the Labor Party and Julia Gillard then
committed to strict the measures toward the IMAs’ issue, which at first she was
hesitant to take a firm stand on immigration policy. Then Gillard change the
policy and agreed to take a more tougher approach in dealing with IMAs, she
“called for a fight not against the refugees, but against the smugglers who take
them through international waters and intended to stop the boats before
departure, thus undermining the network of smugglers”123 (quoting from the
Migration Research Institute)
Julia Gillard attempted to create a cooperation with other countries to
solve this problem, since this is considered as a global challenge, therefore could
only be solved globally through a Regional Cooperation. She then urged to
establish a Regional Cooperation with the Pacific countries and the UNHCR.
With this approach, Julia Gillard believed that it can bring a huge setback for the
human smuggling business, since less people would risk the expensive and
122 Janet Phillips. Research Paper Series: A Comparison of Coalition and Labor government asylum policies in Australia since 2001. Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament of Australia. Canberra: Parliamentary Libarary, 2014. P. 5. 123 Migraciokutato. (2016). The Australian Model or the island country’s answer to asylum and migration challenges of the past decades. From Migration Research Institute, retrieved 4 January 2017, http://www.migraciokutato.hu/en/2016/11/29/the-australian-model/
65
dangerous trip knowing that they would most likely will not get a positive
response to their application to be resettled in Australia.124
III.5.4 Tony Abbott’s Leadership toward IMAs
During the Tony Abott’s governmental era, he has implemented several
approaches toward the IMAs. He is very strict towards the IMAs. One of the new
‘stop the boat’ policy is Operation Sovereign Border. According to SBS News,
there are four key points of the Abott government’s asylum-seeker policy, they
are:
1. “Use of boat turn-backs to stop asylum seekers from entering Australian
waters.
2. Offshore detention and processing: asylum seekers transferred to centers
on Nauru or PNG’s Manus Island
3. No boat arrival resettlement in Australia policy: resettlement deals in
place with countries such as Papua New Guinea and Cambodia
4. Tight control of information: government officials rarely comment on its
maritime security matters. With Tony Abott saying that, they haven’t felt
the need to broadcast what government is doing on a moment-by-
moment basis.”125
The OSB policy appears to be successful to stop the boat and have
stopped the illegal maritime arrivals coming to Australia. According to the
data in the first sixth months of 2013 there are 13,108 people arrived by boat
(it was still under the Labor government), while during the first half of 2014
after the implementation of OSB policy there were no boat arrivals to
Australia (it was under the Coalition government).126
124 Gillard, Julia. (2010). Moving Australia Forward. Speech to the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney 6 July. Retrieved 4 January 2017, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/news-and-media/multimedia/audio/moving-australia-forward 125 Stephanie Anderson. (2015). Explore the history of Australia’s asylum seeker policy. From SBS media release, retrived 26 December 2016, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/explainer/explore-history-australias-asylum-seeker-policy 126 Kent, Jonathan. (2014). The Politics of Australian Asylum and Border Policy: Escaping the Duelling Paradigms. Retrieved 4 January 2017, http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/regarding-
66
III.6 Australia as nation state and democratic state
In responding the case of boat people, Australia has to choose between
domestic obligation to protect its border and guarding the national security or
international obligation to protect the refugees. As liberal and democratic states,
some features influencing the choices made.
First, is its position as a democratic state, as a democratic states, the
government is chosen by the public to be the representative of their interest,
hence public opinion is very important and it is giving a great influence on the
policy making process. The government at the end will see that follow the
majority of people’s interest to imply for more restrictive policy towards the
asylum seekers is the appropriate approach.
Second, is Australia position as a nation state. According to Barry Buzan,
nation is defined as people with same ethnicity, language, or culture, while others
define nation as people sharing territory and loyalty to same state.127 Nation is
defined as a community built upon similar traits, hence the arrivals of something
“difference” will be perceived as threat. To Australia, state has big role in
determining national identity.128 The incoming of boat people is perceived as
threat towards the Australia national identity.
III.7 Chapter Summary
It is already the Australian’s objective in preserving the border integrity
and protect the Australian sovereignty. According to Australian maritime
security, the issue of illegal maritime arrivals is categorized as one of the
Australian maritime threat. The incoming of any illegal arrival are perceived as
threat towards the Australian national security. Hence, the Australian
rights/2014/10/15/the-politics-of-australian-asylum-and-border-policy-escaping-the-duelling-paradigms/ 127 Buzan, B., Waever, O., Wilde, JD. (1998). Security: a new framework for analysis. London: Lynne Rinner Publishers. 128 Kymllcka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
67
Government has the responsibility to implement strict measures in order to
protect its border from the external threat.
Australia have implemented several approaches to encounter these IMAs issue.
From the first Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, until Tony Abbott, they have
established and implemented policies in order to prevent boat people to come or
stay in Australia mainland. Australia have to choose between the domestic
obligation and international obligation. The Australian strict policies mostly
influenced by some features, first Australia as a democratic country, where
public opinion is playing an important role in the process of decision making.
Second, Australia as a nation state, where Australia have fear of illegal maritime
arrivals and perceived as threat.
68
CHAPTER IV
The Analysis of the Policy Formulation of Australia
National Security Policy Approaches in Dealing with
Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs)
This research already explain the all about the Illegal Maritime Arrivals
(IMAs) as a non-traditional threat to Australia national security in the Chapter II
and how is the Australia national security policy in dealing with IMAs with a
more detailed explanation about the policy shift in Australia national security
policy to encounter the issue of IMAs from each Prime Minister from 2001 until
2013 in Chapter III.
In this chapter, the writer will analyze how is the implementation of
Australia national security policy approaches in dealing with illegal maritime
arrivals using the concept and theory of National Security and Bridgeman and
Davis Policy Cycle to analyze the public policy process and how the Australian
government implement its policies.
The policy can be formulate first because of the existence of problems.
After the problem has been identified, there will be a formulation of the policy,
the implementation and the output of the policy.129 Through the policy making
process theory we can identify the policy process of Australia in dealing with
illegal maritime arrivals. Below is the public policy process model to describe
and give understanding aspects of policy making process.
129 Fischer, Frank, Gerald J. Miller and Mara S. Sidney. (2007). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis Theory, Politics, and Methods. USA: Taylor and Francis Group.
69
Figure IV.1The Bridgman and Davis Policy Cycle130
The breaking up of the policy process into a sequential stages has been
very important to help the researcher in building a theory of policy studies and
as a tool in directing research about policy. Althaus et al., in the book ‘The
Australia Policy Handbook’, have stated “good policies are meaningless unless
implemented. Policy analysts must consider implementation needs early in the
development of a proposal”.131 The policy making in Australia is very similar to
the process model developed by Bridgman and Davis.
Unauthorized boat and illegal maritime arrivals is one of the problem for
Australia’s national security. The incoming of illegal maritime arrivals are
perceived as a threat to Australia’s national security. From the historical
background that explained in Chapter 3, it shows the shifting policies and public
opinion of Australia towards the unauthorized boats. After the third wave of boat
130 Maddison, Sarah and Richard Denniss. (2009). An Introduction to Australian Public Policy Theory and Practice. United States: Cambridge University Press. 131 Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2013). The Australian policy handbook. Allen & Unwin.
70
arrivals in 1999, the refugee issues become more important and heavily
politicized. The government’s approaches through policies towards the boat
people and with the roles of media had shaped the public opinion towards the
illegal maritime arrivals or the boat people as a threat to Australia national’
security.
The negative opinion expressed by Australian public towards the boat
arrivals issue was not spontaneously happened. There was historical background
for the past 25 years the trend of the public opinion has been slowly and growing
to current stance and it has been used by the government to implement its asylum
seekers policies.132
IV.1 The Policy Making Process of Australia’s National Security
Policies under John Howard’s Leadership (2001-2007)
John Howard became the Australian Prime Minister from 11 March 1996
until 3 December 2007. He is the 25th Prime Minister of Australia.133 John
Howard won the third time by defeating the opposition, Kim Beazley from the
Australian Labor Party on 10 November 2001.134 During his leadership in
responding the Tampa incident became an important case to the subsequent
Australia’s tough immigration policies, especially on asylum seekers and
refugees.
IV.1.1 The Tampa Incident
The Pacific Solution was firstly commenced by John Howard in 2001
prior to the Tampa incident. During his term, the issue of boat people, border
protection and national security was very important. The first initiation to
safeguards the Australian border and national security by Howard was heighten
132 Betts K. (2001). Boat people and public opinion in Australia. People and place, Vol. 9(4), pp. 34-38. 133 National Archieves of Australia. ‘Aistralia’s Prime Minister, John Howard’. Retrieved 16 Jauary 2017, http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/howard/ 134 The Australian Politics. ‘Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007)’. Retrieved 7 January 2017, http://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/howard
71
immediately after the 11 September 2001 terrorism attack in United States.135
The issue came to underpin the classification of a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ refugees. A
good refugee is a term to describe a ‘genuine’ refugees, which has resettled in
Australia from camps and patiently waits for resettlement through offshore
humanitarian program, and those who is arriving spontaneously by boat to the
territory of Australia, has been categorized as ‘illegals’, ‘queue jumpers’, and
‘unauthorized arrivals’.136
The policy to control the asylum seekers that came by boat already
existed since the Keating government established the Migration Amendment Act
1992, which introduced the mandatory detention for asylum seekers. The
increasing number of asylum seekers arriving by boat since 1999 had the
government worried for the possibility of collapsing detentions system in
Australia. The keep increasing number of unauthorized arrivals made the
government had difficulties in deporting the rejected asylum seekers to their
home countries made the number of people in detention being in a maximum
capacity.137
The Tampa incident became the first problem occurred and it brings
inconvenience of the public and the government with the situation. Apparently,
the increasing number of asylum seekers prior to the Tampa incident, had
become the hot issue in that time, especially during the election. Meanwhile, the
fear of the public affected by the terrorist attack of 9/11 in United States has
impacted harshly towards the boat people, which most of whom are Muslims.
The international humanitarian issue then became an Australian security crisis,
when the negative public opinion towards the increasing number of illegal
maritime arrivals was combined with the fear of Muslim extremist after the
terrorist attacks in the US. It was automatically shaped the public behavior
135 McAdam, J., and Purcell, K. (2008). Refugee Protection in the Howard Years: Obstructing the Right to Seek Asylum. Australian Year Book of International Law Vol. 27. 136 Ibid. 137 Nethery, A., Brown, BR., & Taylor, S. (2012). Exporting Detention: Australia-funded Immigration Detention in Indonesia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 26(1), by Oxford University Press.
72
towards the illegal maritime arrivals. The issue had become increasingly noticed
and used by the government to gain electoral vote.138 In the speech of Prime
Minister John Howard’s election campaign in 2001 had confirmed the
Australia’s hardline stance towards the illegal maritime arrivals:
“It is also about having an uncompromising view about the fundamental
right of this country to protect its borders. It’s about this nation saying to the
world we are a generous open hearted people taking more refugees on a per
capita basis than any country except Canada. We have a proud record of
welcoming people from 140 different nations. But we will decide who comes to
this country and the circumstances in which they come.”139
The media’s attention at the time was attracted heavily to the boat arrivals
issue. The media when the Tampa incident occurred have shaped the public
opinion towards the illegal maritime arrivals. Weeks after the Tampa incident,
the media have used the term ‘floods’ or ‘waves’ of refugees to describe and
represent unauthorized arrivals as a threat to the integrity of the Australia as a
nation-state.140 The media’s role in shaping the Australian’s opinion has been
successful. Australia is a liberal democratic country, so it does makes the policy
formulation was very influenced by the majority of public opinion. The
recognition from its people is a very fundamental legitimacy. In policy
formulation, media is playing a critical role, it can help to set an agenda, which
then it will adopted and dealt with by politicians, policy makers, and other actors.
Media also have contribution in the policy making process.141
The issue of Tampa incident has become the turning point of refugee
policy in Australia. The subsequent government have applied strict policies
138 ABC Lateline. (2001). Asylum seekers still key election issues. Retrieved 8 January 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2001/s404650.htm 139 John Howard’s 2001 federal election speech. Retrieved 8 January 2016, https://museumvictoria.com.au/immigrationmuseum/discoverycentre/identity/people-like-them/the-white-picket-fence/john-howards-2001-federal-election-policy-launch-speech/ 140 Leach, M. (2003). “Disturbing practices: dehumanizing asylum seekers in the refugee “Crisis” in Australia, 2001-2002. Refugee, 21(3), pp. 25-33. 141 Cook, FL., Tyler, T., et al. (1983). Media and Agenda Setting: Effects on the Public, Interest Group Leaders, Policy Makers, and Policy. Public Opinion Quaterly, Vol. 47, p. 16-35.
73
regards to unauthorized boat arrivals. Following the Tampa incident, John
Howard proposed the Pacific Solution which was also supported by the Labor
Party. Under the implementation of Pacific Solution there were several decisions
were made by John Howard.
IV.1.1.1 Offshore Processing Center
One of the implementations during the Pacific Solution is the offshore
processing center. The government have been discussed and released its
measures on how the best way to deal with asylum seekers issue in the short,
medium and long term.142 The offshore processing center is the place for their
refugee status being processed. It is also where the detention center takes place.
The offshore processing is one of the short-term measure proposed by the
government. It is the practice of the removal or transferring asylum seekers to
third countries in the Pacific while their refugee claims are determined.
During the Tampa incident, there was a confusion on where the asylum
seekers should be taken after being intercepted by the Navy vessel. Indonesia as
the nearest port to take the asylum seekers back, however Indonesia refuses to
take them back and also with Norway as the flag states of MV Tampa. At that
time, Australia refused to take the asylum seekers to the Christmas island or any
place in Australia’s territory, so Australian government tried to negotiate with
other Pacific countries, such as East Timor, Kiribati, Fiji, Palau, Tuvalu, Tonga,
and France (in relation to French Polynesia).143 However, at the end only Nauru
and Papua New Guinea that declared to take those asylum seekers for processing
and have signed the agreements with Australian government in September and
October 2001. The Australian government have signed an Administrative
Agreement for that matter on 10 September 2001 and then renewed with a MOU
on 11 December 2001 for Nauru to take and hosting other future asylum seekers
142 Phillips, J. (2012). The ‘Pacific Solution’ revisited: a statistical guide to the asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island. Parliamentary Library. Retrieved 8 January 2016, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/PacificSolution#_ftn1 143 Commonwealth of Australia. (2002). Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident. Report, Canberra, pp 295-299.
74
for processing. Also another agreement was established with the government of
Papua New Guinea (PNG) in the Manus Island on 11 October 2001 to hosting
and accommodate more asylum seekers. It was one of the regulations proposed
by John Howard in order to provide a circuit breaker to the high influx of
unauthorized boat arrivals to Australia.144
From 2001 until September 2003 there were total 1544 asylum seekers
(mostly from Afghanistan and Iraq) were accommodated in the Nauru and
Manus Island processing centers. The population in April 2002 in the processing
centers on Nauru and Manus Island at that time was 1511 people. It included 125
women, 213 children and 30 unaccompanied minors on Nauru. Also in Manus
Island there were 65 women and 125 children.145 All the operation costs for the
processing centers in Manus and Nauru are covered by Australian government.
The Australian government also offered to increased aid to PNG and Nauru in
exchange for this arrangements. Around 150 people of the whole asylum seekers
from the Tampa incident was also sent to New Zealand for processing, and the
remainder was sent to Nauru and Manus Island.146
IV.1.1.2 Operation Relex
Operation Relex is a military force of Australia under the Australia
Defense Force (ADF) under the new border protection regime. Since 3
September 2001, the Australian Defense Force have expanded its role with the
main priority in the area of unauthorized boat arrivals. The name of the operation
is then called as Operation Relex.147
144 Phillips, J. (2012). The ‘Pacific Solution’ revisited: a statistical guide to the asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island. Parliamentary Library. Retrieved 8 January 2016, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/PacificSolution#_ftn1 145 Commonwealth of Australia. (2002). Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident. Report, Canberra, pp 295-299. 146 Phillips, J. (2012). The ‘Pacific Solution’ revisited: a statistical guide to the asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island. Parliamentary Library. Retrieved 8 January 2016, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/PacificSolution#_ftn1 147 Commonwealth of Australia. (2002). Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident. Report, Canberra, pp 295-299.
75
Operation relex is the first operation and the new role held by the ADF
to handle the unauthorized boat arrivals entry to Australia. The Operation Relex
involved a large scale of Australian border protection operations and particularly
the nature of the assets deployed. The strategic aim of the establishment of
Operation Relex was an augmentation of the Government’s new border
protection policy, which is to “prevent, in the first instance, the incursion of
unauthorized vessels into Australian waters such that, ultimately, people
smugglers and asylum seekers would be deterred from attempting to use
Australia as a destination.”148
The area where the operations took place was quite extensive, it includes
from Christmas Island to Ashmore. The Operation Relex was mainly operated
by the naval forces, under the direct command of Rear Admiral Smith (a
maritime commander).149 This military operation even used the aircraft to guide
Australian Navy intercepting the boat people on the high seas. Operation Relex
was operated for four months and successfully intercepted twelve unauthorized
boats.
IV.1.1.3 Excision of Australia’s Migration Zone
Under Australian law, the asylum seekers who arrived on Australia’s
outer island will be no longer apply for visa. On 26 September 2001, the
Australian government started applying the Migration Amendment Act 1958
(Excision of Migration Amendment Zone). Under this new amendment, some of
the Australian outer islands, such as Christmas Islands, Ashmore and Cartier
Islands, and Cocos (Keeling) Islands were defined to be “excised offshore
places”. Thus, those islands and also the Australian mainland were excised from
the migration zone. The migration zone is any place in Australia where a person
who arrived in Australian territory without a valid visa, or so called as without
148 Parliament of Australia. ‘Chapter 2 – Operation Relex’. Retrieved 16 January 2017, http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/maritimeincident/report/c02 149 Transcript of Evidence. Certain Maritime Incident (CMI) 403.
76
lawful authority or boat people, can propose for making a valid visa under the
lawful authority of Australian government.150
As Australian government applied the new amendment, some of
Australia’s outer territory were removed from the migration zone. Therefore the
people arriving at the Australian border will no longer can make a valid visa
application or want its asylum status to be processed in the Australian mainland.
This new amendment was an attempt to stop the unauthorized boat to come to
Australia and seek asylum.
IV.1.2 Policy Formulation of Pacific Solution
If the Pacific Solution can be analyzed using the Bridgeman and Davis
policy cycle theory of policy making:
a. Identifying Issues
The problem identification as the background of this policy
would be the prior to the Tampa Incident in 2001. The policy formulation
also have been supported by the Liberal Coalition Party that strongly
oppose the incoming of illegal maritime arrivals. The issues of arrivals
of asylum seekers by boat had been long worrying the public since the
first arrival of people in 1976. Since the late 1999s, the arrivals of boat
people had been increased with lot of people on board and with the help
of people smuggler. This issue has attracted the Australian government
attention to formulate a new policy to encounter this problem. Under
John Howard government, the incoming of unauthorized boat people to
Australian mainland was perceived as a threat towards Australian
national security
150 Phillips, Mellisa. (2013). Out of sight, out of mind: excising Australia from the migration zone. From the Conversation Website. Retrieved 24 January 2017, https://theconversation.com/out-of-sight-out-of-mind-excising-australia-from-the-migration-zone-14387
77
b. Policy Analysis
The policy analysis would be the Securitization process of Pacific
Solution. From the concept of National Security by Barry Buzan and
from the realist perspective, the referent object of this issue is the state
whose security should be protected from the internal and external threat.
The concept of security has been expanded as the changing global
political environment and has come to include societal security. The
approach of the Barry Buzan of societal security can examine the social
construction of security and threats. From the societal security, the
referent object will be the collective identities, or the nations and cultural
identities.151 Threats to the collective identities will lead to the creation
of ‘us’ and ‘them’.
The framing of an issue as an existential threat through a ‘speech
act’ that requires exceptional dealings and urgent political priority is
called as securitization. During the John Howard government, the use of
language by John Howard in relation to the Tampa Incident was very
powerful and giving great implication towards how the Government
chose to deal with the issue and how the issue became the main
discussion and concern within the Australia society. Some of the
statements or ‘speech act’ by John Howard has clearly representing
where the asylum seekers or boat people are then considered as a threat
to Australia’s sovereignty or national security. As he claimed,
“We’re arguing for the right that any country has to decide
who comes here and the circumstances in which they will
come”152,
And in another interview:
“Our position remains that we do not have a legal obligation
to take these people..., the ship does not have our permission
to enter Australian water.., and every country has the right
151 Buzan, B., Waever, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lyne Rienner. 152 Howard. (2001). Allan Jones Interview, Radio 2UE. Retrieved 25 January 2017, http://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/australia-transcript-prime-minister-interview-radio-2ue-illegal-immigrants
78
to refuse entry to the vessel of another country of course. It’s
fundamental to a nation’s sovereignty, a nation’s control of
its borders.”153
From the speech and the statements by John Howard, it is clear and
understood that the Tampa Incident was considered as an urgency that
required to be securitized.
In political discourse, Australia’s law and order, health, economic
stability, and growth have been portrayed as under threat from IMAs,
who are condemned for not having progressed through the appropriate
immigration and resettlement channels, ultimately leading to their
construction as outsiders. Therefore, there is the urgency from the
government to control the arrivals of IMA, as PM John Howard declared,
‘We (The Australian people and Government) should decide who comes
to this country and the circumstances in which they come’. This research
found that the Australian government and the public have negative
perception of those travelling by boat. They have the perceptions that
these groups of IMAs needs to be monitored and controlled. How the
Government labelled them as illegals, and by using ‘we’ in the statement
of John Howard is constructing an image of a collective Australian
people, which includes the public and the government, and also there is
‘other’ to which this is directed to IMAs.154
Further, the securitization was more legitimized by the terrorist
attack in United States on 11 September 2001. That situation further
exacerbated Australian’s fear towards asylum seekers and many opted to
support the government policy to tighten the border. The people after the
Tampa Incident, also more became increasingly sided with
National/Liberal Coalition Party.
153 Howard. (2001). In Jerermy Cordeaux Interview, Radio 5DN. Retrieved 25 January 2017, http://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-12010 154 Rowe, Elizabeth and O’Brien, E. (2014). ‘Genuine’ refugees or illegitimate ‘boat people’ : political constructions of asylum seekers and refugees in the Malaysia Deal debate. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 49(2), pp 171-193.
79
Survey Coalition (%) ALP (%)
February 44 56
March 41 59
April 40 60
May (4-6) 44 56
May (25-27) 43 57
August (10-12) 47 53
September (21-23) 57 43
Table IV.1 A.C. Nielsen: Two-Party Preferred Vote February-September 2001 155
The government also implemented the Border Protection Act that
contained a number of clauses with aim to smoothen government actions in
deterring arrivals of boat people and changing their perception of Australia
being soft touch. The Border Protection Act was formulated under a
“privative clause”, meaning that it cannot be challenged or appealed against
or called in question in any court.156 With the Border Protection Act 2001
and the Migration Amendment Act 2001 (The Excision from Migration
Zone) has authorized the government to deploy the use of force against the
asylum seekers.
c. Policy Instruments
For the policy instrument, the tool for achieving the outcomes of
the policy would be the military forces capability. The military forces of
Australia and Australian navy capability has been enhanced to secure the
155 Clune, David. (2002). Back to the Future? The November 2001 Federal Election. Australian Parliamentary Review, 17(1), pp. 3-16. 156 Watson, S.D. (2009). The Securitization of Humanitarian Migration: Digging moats and sinking boats. Abingdon: Routledge.
80
Australian border. The policy was conducted by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM) that managed the offshore processing
facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea.157
This issue also directly associated with the role of
Commonwealth agencies, including the Australian Defense Force,
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs,
Coastwatch and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Also the flow
of information about the incident (both at the time of the incident and
subsequently) to the Federal Government in the form of written and oral
reports, photographs and other images can be categorized as the policy
instruments.158
d. Consultations
The consultation of making this policy would be the input coming
from outside and inside the government. This is the part where the policy
is formulated through persuasion and political bargain and how the input
of the public. The visible part of this stage would be the polls opinion
regards to the policy and the speech act thrown by the government on
regards of the Tampa and asylum seekers. The public opinion in regards
the Tampa Incident is clearly they worried of the keep increasing number
of boat people that came to Australia territory. Opinion poll data show
that boat arrivals have always been a threat and concern to the Australian
public. From the Societal Security, the opinion poll can show how the
Australian public response to the John Howard’s policy and how they see
illegal maritime arrivals.
157 Phillips, J. (2012). The ‘Pacific Solution’ revisited: a statistical guide to the asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island. Parliamentary Library. Retrieved 8 January 2017, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/PacificSolution#_ftn1 158 Commonwealth of Australia. (2002). Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident. Report, Canberra, pp 295-299.
81
By the late 1970s, there were some polls were conducted as the
Australian response towards the boat people. The majority shows their
concern and mostly wanted that Australia set limitation number of
asylum seekers to stay in Australia. After the Tampa Incident, the polls
began to show up. All of the polls shows that the majority of Australians
supports on the Government’s plan and decision to prevent the boat
people, especially the people on board the Tampa landing in Australia’s
mainland and similar high level of concern of future arrivals to Australia
territory.159 The figure below showing the polls of the Australian towards
the boat people and detention in 2001 that conducted by A.C. Nielsen
between 31 August and 2 September.
Figure IV.2 Attitudes to boat people and detention160
From this polls, showing that the Australian majority support the
Howard’s decision to refuse entry to the Tampa. The policy also
159 Betts, K.J. (2001). Boat People and public opinion in Australia. People and Place, 9(4), pp. 34-48. 160 A.C. Nielsen Issues Report, 3 September 2001, the summary data pulished in The Age, the question is: ‘in general, which of the following statements best describes your view on how Australia should deal with the asylum seekers? Should Australia detain them in camps until their application is heard?’.
71
21
8
Detain them in camps until their application is heard
Allow them to live in the community until their application is heard
Don't know
82
supported by the opposition to implement the detention center in the third
countries.
The polls is needed to show the response from the Australian
public. From the polling, it shows the support from the Australian public
towards the Government’s policy. In this case, the John Howard’s
decision to combat illegal maritime arrivals with the concept of Societal
security is allign. From the polls, the majority attitudes of the public
wants that IMAs to be detained in camps, not allowing them to stay in
the community, proved that they may have that fear to those IMAs that
could bring threats to Australia as a nation-state.
e. Coordination
Several coordination was made before implementing the Pacific
Solutions. In this regard, the government have made communications
across departments, sectors and levels of government and the result was
announced to the public. The coordination is very important to avoid
misunderstanding and to ensure consistency in the implementation of the
policy. The formal consultation and coordination also have been made
with several third countries (Kiribati, Fiji and Palu, Tuvalu, Tonga and
France) and finally reached the agreement with Nauru and New Zealand
to take all of the people aboard the vessel for processing their protection
claims. Later on 10 October 2001, the Prime Minister made a further
agreement with the government of PNG which agreed to launch a
processing center for illegal maritime arrivals.161
f. Decision
The decision of Pacific Solution was commenced by John
Howard after seeing the majority of public opinion to refuse the entry of
161 Chapter 10 – Pacific Solution: Negotiations and Agreements. From Parliament of Australia Website. Retrieved 24 January 2017, http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/maritimeincident/report/c10
83
Tampa to Australia territory. The support also come from the Coalition
Party to establish the Pacific Solution.
g. Implementation
The Pacific Solution first implemented in 2001 until 2007 under
John Howard leadership. This policy is implemented after the
government had negotiations and coordination with third countries. After
the agreement has been signed, there are two countries who agreed to
take those asylum seekers for processing, they are Nauru Island and
Manus Island (PNG). In Nauru, the offshore processing to process the
protection claims were some assessed by the representatives of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), while
others were evaluated by the Australian government. While in PNG the
claims were evaluated by the Australian government.162
The policy was supported from both of the Coalition Party and
Labor Party. The strategies of Pacific Solutions consisted of the excision
of Australian outer islands from migration zone, the Australia Defense
Force commenced the Operation Relex to intercept unauthorized boat
coming to Australia territory, and the establishment of offshore
processing centers in Nauru and Manus Islands while their status was
being assessed.
The implementation of the policy was also supported by the
public, the data shows that 74 percent of Australians support how the
John Howard handling the issue of boat people.163 The media also have
the role in shaping the Australian’s view and being strict on asylum
seekers.
The majority of the asylum seekers that accommodated in Manus
and Nauru were coming from Afghanistan and Iraq. Between 2001 and
September 2003 during the elevation of asylum seekers, there were a
162 DIMIA. (2005). Offshore Processing Arrangements. Fact Sheet 76, from DIMIA Website 163 Betts, K.J. (2001). Boat People and public opinion in Australia. People and Place, 9(4), pp. 34-48.
84
total of 1544 asylum seekers were accommodated in the offshore
processing center, with the high peak of population in February 2002
which is 1515 people.164 The total population in the Processing centers
in Nauru and Manus Island was 1511. In Nauru, the population included
125 women, 213 children and 30 unaccompanied minors.165 While in
Manus Island, there were 65 women and 125 children.166
The policy was made in order to solve the problem and resulting
an intended outcomes. The outcome of the policy was then will be
evaluated using the Australian White Policy. After the implementation
of Pacific Solution, it shows the decreasing number of arrivals after 2001.
The table below showing the data of unauthorized boat arrivals from
DIAC. (The table of Nauru and Manus caseloads by SIEV in the
Appendix)
Year Number of arrivals
2000-01 4137
2001-02 3649
2002-03 0
2003-04 82
2004-05 0
2005-06 50
164 Ruddock, P (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Inigenous Affairs). (2003). Numbers in offshore processing centers continue to fall. Media Release, retrieved 24 January 2017, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2FYMDA6% 165 Select Committee in a Certain Maritime Incident, Report. 166 Spinks, H. (2011). Tampa: ten years on. FlagPost, Parliamentary Library. Retrieved 24 January 2017, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2011/August/Tampa_ten_years_on
85
2006-07 94
Table IV.2 Number of unauthorized boat arrivals (DIAC Fact Sheet 7,
2004-05) 167
h. Evaluation
The evaluation is needed to see the policy to assess the whether
the policy has succeed in achieving the objectives or the national interest
of the country. To analyze the result of the implementation of Pacific
Solution, the objectives will refer from the Australian Defence White
Paper 2000. In the Defence White Paper 2000, stated that one of the
Australia’s priority tasks for the Australian Defence Forces is the defense
of Australia. The approaches to gain that objectives is shaped by three
principles: “First, Australia committed to not rely on other countries’
combat forces and promote self-reliance; Second, Australia needs to be
able to control both air and sea approaches to the Australia’s continent or
a maritime strategy; Third, although Australia’s strategic posture is
defensive, but Australia would seek to attack hostile forces as far from
the Australia’s shores as possible (proactive operations).”168
The illegal immigration and people smuggling is included as the
Non-Military Security Issues faced by Australia and possess challenge
and threat according to Australian Defence White Paper 2000. Referring
to the objectives and interest of Australia, the Pacific Solution has
succeed to protect the Australian borders from the unauthorized boat
arrivals and thus protect the Australian border. However, the cost spent
by Australia to execute and implement the offshore detention center was
very high. The cost to run the offshore detention centers on Manus and
Nauru Island.169
167 DIAC Fact Sheet 7, “Managing the Border”, Immigration compliance, 2004-05, Chapter 4, DIAC; Parliamentary Library Data. http://resources.oxfam.org.au/filestore/originals/OAus-PriceTooHighAsylumSeekers-0807.pdf 168 The Australian Defence White Paper 2000, pp. XI. 169 Anderson, Stephanie. (2015). Cost of offshore detention centers on Nauru, Manus Island blows out by $100 million: Immigration Department annual report. From ABC News Website.
86
All these streams will produce a new public policy, with the process
securitization in the policy analysis stream.
Figure IV.3 Bridgman and Davis policy framework under John Howard
government
IV.2 The Policy Making Process of Australia’s National Security
Policies under Kevin Rudd’s Leadership (2007-2010 and 2013)
Kevin Rudd became the Prime Minister of Australia and was in office
firstly in 3 December 2007 – 24 June 2010 and re-elected again in 27 June 2013
Retrieved 25 January 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-07/cost-of-offshore-detention-blows-out-by-100m/6920196
Evaluation
Decreasing number of IMAs
ImplementationImplemented in 2001-2007 Offshore processing center
Excision of Australia's Migration Zone Operation Relex
Decision
Pacific Solution
Coordination
Formal coordination with third countries
Consultations
Changing in public opinion
Policy Instrument
Military forces capability
Policy Analysis
Speech act against IMAs (Societal Security)
Identifying Issue
Tampa Incident Increasing number of IMAs
87
– 18 September 2013 replacing Julia Gillard. Kevin Rudd was the former Prime
Minister from the Australian Labor Party.170
The Australian Labor Party at that time was successfully defeated
Howard’s government from Liberal/National Coalition which had been in power
for nearly twelve years. However, in 10 April 2001, the ALP and Kevin Rudd
were going through some problems that led to the driving out of Kevin Rudd as
the Prime Minister.
IV.2.1 The Disclosure of Detention Centers
After winning the election on 2007, the ALP under the leadership of
Kevin Rudd tried to find different method and approach from the previous Prime
Minister John Howards, including with the matter of boat people. The fact shows
that in 2007, at that time the issue of boat people were rarely been debated and
received less attention because boat arrivals was almost non-existent. It was
apparent, at that time Kevin Rudd wanted to desecuritized the issue and
implement a more humane, justice and accentuating integrity approach. The
Immigration Minister Chris Evans described it as a more compassionate
approach.171
The changes that was made by Kevin Rudd is the abolition of Pacific
Solutions. The abolition also ending the offshore processing centers of asylum
seekers in Nauru and Manus Island and removing the temporary protection visa
arrangements and give a permanent visa for staying in Australia – which then it
was critized by the previous Minister said that it was a ‘shameful and wasteful
chapter in Australia’s immigration history’.172 The government under Kevin
170 From Australian Politics Website. (2016). Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Retrieved 25 January 2016, http://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/rudd 171 ABC News. (2008). Sweeping changes to mandatory detention announced. From ABC News Website. Retrieved 27 February 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-07-29/sweeping-changes-to-mandatory-detention-announced/456652 172 Karlsen, E. (2010). Developments in Australian refugee law and policy 2007-10. Research Publication from Parliament of Australia Website. Retrieved 25 January 2017, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/RefugeeLaw#_ftn6
88
Rudd also introduced the New Direction of Detention Policy on 29 July 2008,
which mentioned that people would be detained as a ‘last resort’, rather than
standard practice. All unauthorized arrivals would be detained on arrival for
identity, health and security checks.173 The then Minister for Immigration and
Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans announced the New Direction in Detention
Policy, which he stated would ‘fundamentally change the premise underlying
detention policy’.174
If seen from the Societal Security perspective, during the Rudd’s
Government, the public and government still felt threatened by the incoming of
illegal maritime arrivals to the Australia’s mainland. That because under Kevin
Rudd, the government still implementing the detention centers for those illegal
maritime arrivals who pose threat towards the community.
For the process of Coordination between the government, there are two
Bills that proposed in 2009 in regards for this policy changes, firstly the
Migration Amendment (Immigration Detention Reform) Bill 2009 which would
support the implementation of the Government’s new detention policy and
formally introduce discretionary detention into the Migration Act. Secondly, the
Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Bill 2009 which would
introduce a formal statutory regime for processing asylum claims that may
engage Australia’s non-return obligations under various international human
rights treaties. However, neither of these Bills had been debated before
Parliament was prorogued in July for the 2010 Federal election and have
accordingly now lapsed.175
173 Phillips, J. and Spinks, H. (2013). Immigration detention in Australia. Canberra: Parliamentary Library. 174 Evans, C. (2008). New Directions in Detention – Restoring Integrity to Australia’s Immigration System. Speech delivered at the Centre for International and Public Law Seminar, Australian National University, Canberra, 29 July 2008), https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/forgotten-children-national-inquiry-children-immigration-detention-2014/appendix-1#fn641 175 Karlsen, Elibritt. (2010). Developments in Australian refugee law and policy 2007-10. From Parliament of Australia Website. Retrived 27 February 2017, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/RefugeeLaw
89
After the abolishment of Pacific Solutions, a ministerial press release
noted that there were a total of 1637 people that had been detained in Manus and
Nauru Island during 2001-2008, it was including 786 Afghans, 684 Iraqis and
88 Sri Lankans. Of whom the 70% (or 1153 people) were resettled to Australia
and other countries. While of those who already resettled, there were around
61% (or 705 people) were resettled in Australia.176
As mentioned before, the cost of running the detention center was very
expensive, it cost more than $100 million to pay for the detention on Manus and
Nauru Island and give a huge burden for the taxpayers.177 Later the government
announced that the future boat arrivals would be moved to Christmas Islands.
The removal of Pacific Solution have received a positive feedback and support
from the NGOs and Refugees advocates, congratulating him for caring about
human rights of those fleeing persecutions. However, the implementation
approach of Kevin Rudd had brought consequences. During one year, in late
2008, after the policy changes being implemented, the number of boat arrivals
began to increased, a total 23 boats had arrived carrying 985 asylum seekers.
Soon after that, the detention centers once again was fully occupied by asylum
seekers.178
The pressure of the Labor government and Kevin Rudd have been
increased because the concern over the increasing number of boat arrivals and
also along with some increasingly deadly boat accidents have led Kevin Rudd to
find more tougher policies from his previous humane policies. On 13 August
2009, there was an explosion of boat (recognized as SIEV 36) near Ashmore
176 Evans, Chris (Minister for Immigration and Citizanship). (2008). Last refugees leave Nauru. Media release. Retrieved 25 January 2017, http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/67564/20081217-0001/www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2008/ce08014.html 177 Anderson, Stephanie. (2015). Cost of offshore detention centers on Nauru, Manus Island blows out by $100 million: Immigration Department annual report. From ABC News Website. Retrieved 25 January 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-07/cost-of-offshore-detention-blows-out-by-100m/6920196 178 Phillips, J. and Spinks, H. (2011). Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. Commonwealth of Australia, Parliament of Australia. Retrieved 25 January, 2017, http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.pdf
90
Reef carried around 50 asylum seekers. The report stated five asylum seekers
were confirmed to be deceased while many were treated for injury.179
The Labor government was blamed for the events. The opposition party
criticized the soft policy implemented by the Labor government, like Sharman
Stone, the Opposition’s spokeswoman for Immigration said, the people
smuggler have took advantage of government’s soft policies, that resulting the
increasing number of unauthorized boat arrivals to Australia. She said before the
soft touch policy was implemented, Australia have received very few boats
arrivals, however after the new policy lifted the government now have received
more than 2000 people in Christmas Island.180 That incidents has caused the
significant damage to Rudd’s electorate popularity, the credibility of Rudd’s
governments also have been decreased because its policy in abolished the Pacific
Solutions was failed. By ending the tough policies by John Howard on illegal
maritime arrivals, Mr. Rudd has giving a message to people smugglers that
Australia is open for business.181 This marked the shifting changes of Rudd’s
immigration policy from soft policies to tougher policies. The policy formulation
of New Direction of Detention Policy did not achieved the intended outcome,
because the boat arrivals is significantly increased in 2008-2009 after the
implementation of the soft policy.
179 Coady, David. (2010). Sailor ignored order, SIEV 35 inquest told. From ABC News. Retrieved 25 January 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-01/sailor-ignored-order-siev-36-inquest-told/316876 180 Sharman Stone Interwiew. (2009). In Lateline Interview with Leigh Sales. Retrieved 25 January 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2720701.htm 181 The Spectator Australia. (2010). Reverse Course. From the Spectator Website. Retrieved 25 January 2017, http://www.spectator.co.uk/2010/03/reverse-course/
91
Figure IV.4 Boat arrivals since 2008-2011182
The disclosure of pacific solution have been supported by NGOs and
other human rights organization. However, the abolishment of the Pacific
Solutions led to many problems, such as the increasing number of boat arrivals
to Australia, the full capacity of detention centers in Christmas Island and also
there were many incidents happened with the SIEV (many people died during
the journey), which it could not achieve the first aim and objectives of the
Australian priority to protect the border of Australia.
The practices of immigration policy under Kevin Rudd seen from
Bridgman and Davis Policy cycle will be elaborate in this figure below.
182 Philips, J. (2014). Boat arrivals in Australia: a quick guide to the statistics. Parliamentary Library Research Paper. Retrieved 25 January 2017, http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/parliamentarylibrary_boatarrivalsandboatturnbacksinaustraliasince1976_sep_2015.pdf
2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of boats 7 60 134 69
Number of people 161 2726 6555 4565
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Number of boats Number of people
92
Figure IV.5 Bridgman and Davis policy framework under Kevin Rudd’s
government
The practice of policy making under Kevin Rudd’s first leadership was
not reach the intended outcomes, which is the decreasing number of arrival to
Australia. During the coordination process, the discussion between the
Parliament was not really successful, because the proposed Bills were not put
into discussion. However, the result of the New Direction of Detention Policy
under Kevin Rudd has resulted the increasing number of IMAs.
IV.2.3 The Shifting Policy in Kevin Rudd Second Leadership in 2013
The Kevin Rudd governments end in 2010 because of the clash within
the Labor Party and he was re-elected again in 2013 as Prime Minister of
Australia ousting the Julia Gillard. During his first leadership, he abolished the
Evaluation
Increasing number of boat arrivals
Implementation
Removing Pacific Solution Detention centers move to Christmas Island
Decision
Abolishing Pacific Solution New Direction of Detention Policy
Coordination
Proposed 2 Bills, however neither had been debated in the Parliament
Consultation
There is not much consultation
Policy Instrument
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Policy Analysis
Positive feedback from the NGOsAgreed that unlawful non-citizens could pose a
threat to the community
Identify Issue
Implement more humane approach Big cost of running the detention center
93
Pacific Solutions, by removing the offshore processing centers in Manus and
Nauru Islands and instead change the processing center to Christmas Island.
However, the excised of Australia territory from migration zone was still
retained. The second term of Kevin Rudd’s leadership have changed to tougher
policies. In 2008, people’s attention and concern in regards to immigration was
quite low. The concern about immigration issue began to rise again in 2009 and
reached the peak in 2010.183
During the second term of Rudd’s leadership in 2013, the government
have reintroduced the offshore detention centers that previously was already
abolished. The Labor Party government started to implement more tougher
policies by sending all the illegal maritime arrivals to the Pacific countries, in
Manus (PNG) or Nauru Island for processing their claim and with no chance for
them to be resettled in Australia even if their granted status as a refugee, instead
they will be resettled in Papua New Guinea.184 The hard policies decision follows
the rise of boat people and people smuggler to Australia. In 2013, it was stated
that the people smugglers have sent more than 15,000 people to Australia. The
other reason behind these tough policies also there were more than 800 people
died since 2009 during the journey to Australia using Indonesia as a transit
country.185
IV.3 The Policy Making Process of Australia’s National Security
Policies under Julia Gillard’s Leadership (2010 - 2013)
IV.3.1 Political Situation and Shifting of Framing
Julia Gillard was inaugurated as the 27th Prime Minister of Australia
from 2010 – 2013 replacing Kevin Rudd under the Labor Party government.
During her time as a Prime Minister, the situation of the politics was still
183 Phillips, J. and Spinks, H. (2013). Immigration detention in Australia. Canberra: Parliamentary Library. 184 Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Act 2013. 185 Hume, N. (2013, July 19). Kevin Rudd slams door on ‘boat people’ asylum seekers. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/7e167abe-f053-11e2-929c-00144feabdc0
94
overwhelmed with the issue of boat problem. She also endured the task to bring
back the image of the Labor Party, as the failure of the previous policy had made
the credibility and the image of the Labor Party was decreasing. Thus she tried
to expand the detention center by finding other countries to build an offshore
processing center, including East Timor, but failed.186
During Gillard’s government, she was mainly focused on establishing
Regional Protection Framework and also the shifting attention from the illegal
maritime arrivals to the people smugglers. She stated that the main problem was
not the asylum seekers, but the people smuggler.
“I believe it is very important, if we do see more boats, to separate
in the community’s mind, in all of our minds, the problem of seeing
more boats from the people who are on those boats. It is not in my
mind a question of blaming the people who are on those boats.” 187
From Gillard’s statement, she clearly sees the problem to the community
is not coming from the illegal maritime arrivals, but from the people smugglers.
From the Societal security concept, during the Gillard’s government the external
threat towards the Australian national identity is the people smuggler.
In 7 May 2011, an attempt has been made by Julia Gillard to discourage
boat arrivals and people smuggling by making an agreement between Malaysia
and Australia. Under the agreement, the Australian was supposed to send 800
unauthorized boar arrivals in exchange for 4000 refugees to Australia over four
years.188 This proposal came to be known as “Malaysian Solution”.
In examining the policy making process, Malaysian Solution can be an
example showing that every stage of the policy making process in Bridgman and
Davis is important. As we know, the ever since the 2009-2011 Australia have
186 Phillips, J. and Spinks, H. (2013). Immigration detention in Australia. Canberra: Parliamentary Library. 187 Hasmath, R. (2013). Deterring the ‘Boat People’: Explaining the Australian Government’s People Swap Response to Asylum Seekers. Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Working Paper No. 103. University of Oxford. 188 Phillips, J. and Spinks, H. (2013). Immigration detention in Australia. Canberra: Parliamentary Library.
95
experienced a new wave of boat arrivals, with 263 boat carrying 13.864 asylum
seekers. Additionally, there are 14 boat incidents had claimed thousands of live
was died in the sea. The condition then provoked the government and opposition
to bring the border protection into debate.
As Gillard became the PM of Australia, Galaxy Poll held survey for the
Herald Sun in July 2010, asking: ‘Overall do you approve or disapprove of Julia
Gillard getting tough on asylum seekers?’ to this questions the responds are: 63%
approved, 26% disapproved and 11% were uncommitted.189 It is shows that the
public opinion wanted for Gillard to be able to show stricter and tougher policy
measure from her predecessor. From the Societal Security concept, the respond
from the public opinion during the Gillard’s government shows that the public
are still seeing that IMAs is a threat to their country, because the majority still
disagree with the incoming of IMAs to stay in Australia, because they perceived
the massive migration to Australia will threatened the Australian identity.
When discussing the Malaysian Solution and the need for solution
regarding IMAs, Julia Gillard declared that “We (the Labor Government) are
doing our best to protect the values that Australians hold dear.”190 This statement
reveals that Gillard perceived those who come to Australia by boat as a potential
risk to Australian ideals and values. The analysis demonstrates that many
Parliamentarians sometimes portray IMAs as outsiders because they are
regarded as posing a danger to the values of ‘good’ Australians and their national
identity. The Australian identity is constructed as dominant and good, while
contrasted against the foreign and ‘bad’, the asylum seeker arriving by boat.191
On 31 August 2011, the Australian High Court ruled against the
‘Malaysia Solution’, because they doubted on the legality of offshore processing
189 Galaxy Poll for the Herald Sun, July 2010, in Monash University-Inventory of Survey, https://www.monash.edu/mapping-population/public-opinion/surveys/inventory-of-surveys/asylum 190 Rowe, Elizabeth and O’Brien, E. (2014). ‘Genuine’ refugees or illegitimate ‘boat people’ : political constructions of asylum seekers and refugees in the Malaysia Deal debate. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 49(2), pp 171-193. 191 Ibid. Page 4.
96
entirely.192 The problem is, Malaysian is not a signatory of the 1951 Convention,
therefore the asylum seekers who were to be sent to Malaysia would have had
no legal protection from further prosecution. The proposal contravened the
Section 198a of the Australia Migration Act, which authorises the removal of an
“offshore entry person” to another country where the minister has declared that
country to be suitable for the processing of asylum applications. However,
because Malaysia is not a signatory of the 1951 UN Convention, thus the
minister had made his agreement on the basis of a non-legally-binding
agreement. That is why, the High Court held that the decision was invalid.193
Gillard had attempt to amend the Migration Act to reverse the High Court
decision. The bill proposed in 2012 by Independent Rob Oakeshott, would
amend Migration Act to allow designation of any country as offshore processing
as long as it is party to the Bali Process. The bill had been passed in lower house,
but was eventually stopped in Senate when the Coalition and the Greens joint
forces in opposing the bills.194
However, the policy of Malaysian Solution was also failed in the
implementation. The High Court had declared that the Malaysia Solution is
invalid. The failure happened in the stage of consultation and coordination.
Because Malaysia is not a signatory of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol,
therefore the Malaysian government does not bound by formal obligation to
provide refugee protection outlined under Australia’s Migration Act.195
192 Philips, J., and Spinks, H. (2013). Immigration detention in Australia. Parliament of Australia. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/Detention#_Toc351535445 193 Davis, Fergal. (2011). The failure of Australia’s ‘Malaysia Solution’ is a positive step for refugees. From the Guardian Website. Retrived 28 February 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/04/australia-failure-malaysia-solution-refugees 194 Ireland, Judith. (2012). Asylum seeker bill passed by lower house. From The Sydney Morning Herald Website. Retrieved 28 February 2017, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seeker-bill-passed-by-lower-house-20120627-2129x.html 195 Thompson, J. (2011). High Court scuttles Malaysia swap deal. From BBC News, retrived 25 January 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218
97
Below is the application of Bridgman and Davis policy cycle
framework in analyzing Australia-Malaysia People Swap arrangement.
Figure IV.6 Bridgman and Davis policy framework under Julia Gillard’s
government
IV.4 The Policy Making Process of Australia’s National Security
Policies under Tony Abbott’s Leadership (2013 - 2015)
IV.4.1 Militarization of Humanitarian Matter
Operation Sovereign Border (OSB) Policy was established in July 2013
by Tony Abbott as the Prime Minister of Australia. Operation Sovereign Border
policy was commenced by the government as the response of the increasing
number of boat arrivals during the year 2013. OSB policy is an operation to
Evaluation
There is no evaluation because it was failed to be implement
Implementation
Failed to be implemented
DecisionThe High Court declared the Malaysian
Solution is invalidMalaysia is not the party of 1951
Convention
Coordination
Proposed an agreement with Malaysia Failed in the Parliament lobbying
Consultation
The majority of public opinion to implement tougher policy
Policy Instrument
The Parliament of Australia
Policy Analysis
Pressure from public opinion
Identify Issue
Resurgence of boat arrivals People smuggling
98
encounter the illegal maritime arrivals and to secure the Australia’s border using
the military force.196 The government has flagged the issue of border protection
against people smuggling as national emergency. The operation was surrounded
by secrecy, as the there was no further detail information (such as the tactics,
operational instruction, posture, deployment, timing and occurrence) other than
the idea of an operation to intercept any boat. All of the information was kept by
the government until the establishment of OSB policy.197
IV.4.2 Policy Formulation of Operation Sovereign Border
Operation sovereign border policy had been introduced by
Liberal/National Coalition since July 2013 as part of the campaign to gain the
government leadership seat. It was commenced right after the Tony Abbott was
inaugurated as the Australian Prime Minister.
a. Identify Issue
More than a decade after the Tampa Incident, the problem of
illegal maritime arrivals was more present in Australian politics. There
are already around 50,000 people have arrived in the period 2008-2013
to Australia.198 The increasing number of asylum seekers was very high
in 2013. This high influx of illegal maritime arrivals to Australia in 2013,
have intensify the public awareness and hence become the background
problem of the formulation of OSB policy.
196 Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection. ‘Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB)’. Retrieved from http://www.osb.border.gov.au/en/Operation-Sovereign-Borders 197 ABC News. (2016). Operation Sovereign Borders the First Six Months. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-26/operation-sovereign-borders-the-first-6-months/5734458 198 Hughes, P. And Nummi, A. (2014). Beyond operation sovereign borders a long-term asylum policy for Australia. Research Paper. Retrieved 25 January 2016, https://cpd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Final-Policy-Paper-Beyond-Operation-Sovereign-Borders-03.06.14.pdf
99
b. Policy Analysis
In this part, the process of securitization can be examined through
Tony Abbott’s speech act towards the asylum seekers or illegal maritime
arrivals. The powerful speech and statements by Tony Abbott have its
impact towards the public opinion towards the boat people and succeeded
in shaping the boat people as a threat. In regards of the speech act of Tony
Abbott, several term had been used as rhetoric in the implementation of
this policy, such as “illegal maritime arrivals” (used to be called
“irregular maritime arrivals”).199 Tony Abbott also used the term “war”
and “national emergency” against people smuggling. The term “war” is
usually to describe armed conflict, and by using that term Abbott wanted
to imply that those people smugglers with their unseaworthy boats were
possessing threat that could harm the national security.
The government then have implemented a strict rule to control
who can come the territory and who cannot. The government also plan
to develop systems to share biometric data with other nations in order to
detect high-risk individuals before they enter the country. These practices
of deterrence at the territorial edge of the state construct political identity
of IMAs as the ‘illegal’, and as threat to national security and to national
identity.200
The use of speech by the government have evoked the Australian
people as the legitimate inhabitants of the nation and construing one
segment of the community as the legitimate whole community, while
construing the ‘other’ as an individual who threatens the ‘Australian way
of life’ and Australian sense of identity. Those IMAs are described as a
threat to the ‘Australian way of life’, blamed for contributing to a rise in
crime and other social problems, described as ‘economic migrants’ who
are taking advantage of social benefits or taking away jobs from the local
199 Hall, B. (2013). Minister wants boat people called illegals. From The Sydney Morning Herald Website. Retrieved 25 January 2017, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/minister-wants-boat-people-called-illegals-20131019-2vtl0.html 200 De Silva, Mary L. (n.d.). Shaping the Grammar of Security. Retrieved 7 March 2017, http://homiletic.net/index.php/ameriquests/article/viewFile/3968/1991
100
population, and are responsible for shifting the racial composition of
Australia and diluting its cultural identity.201
c. Policy instrument
The policy instrument of OSB policy would be the military force
that will be the important tool to make this policy works well and achieve
the intended outcomes. This policy was commenced by Joint Agency
Task Force and the Department of Immigration also the part of the actors
that implementing the policy. (The operational structures of OSB Policy
will be in the Appendix 1.1)
d. Consultation
The consultation part is where the public opinion came in as an
input to the governments. Public opinion and media is playing a critical
role in the policy making process and the securitization process.
Therefore, knowing what the public want and think is very important.
The table below shows polls from Essential Report on the importance of
asylum seeker issue in deciding party preference for Federal Election.
Total Vote
Labor
Vote
Lib/Nat
Vote
Greens
The most important issue 7% 6% 8% 4%
One of the most important issues 28% 27% 31% 34%
Quite important but not as important
as other issues
35% 40% 36% 33%
Not very important 16% 16% 16% 19%
201 Shulman, S. (2002). Challenging the civic/ethnic and west/east dichotomies in the study of nationalism. Comparative Political Studies, 35(5), 554-585.
101
Not at all important 8% 7% 8% 9%
Don’t know 6% 4% 1% 1%
Table IV.3 Essential Report: Preference of political party based on treatment of
asylum seekers202
Also according to the Essential Report in 11 March 2013,
conducted polls in regards to immigration issues, asked ‘which of the
following issues are you most concerned about?’, there are three options,
first the issue of ‘asylum seekers by boat’, second ‘arrival of foreign
workers under short term visas’ and ‘overall increase in Australia’s
population’. The result was the issue of asylum seekers ranked first, short
term entry of foreign workers ranked second and increase in population
ranked third.203
From the polls above, it shows the pressure towards the
Liberal/National Party from the public opinion to create more tough
policy was very high and also regarding the 2013 Federal election the
asylum seekers issue became the first priority issue debate.
e. Coordination
There is not much coordination between the parliamentary before
the establishment of the OSB policy, because after Tony Abbot was
elected the OSB policy was immediately being implemented and also
because the secrecy of the implementation. As many media and how the
speech act of Abbott have succeed in shaping the public opinion of
Australian towards the illegal maritime arrivals, thus the issue of the
rising asylum seekers became immediately politicized and securitized.
202 Essential Report, 2013, retrieved 25 January 2017, https://www.monash.edu/mapping-population/public-opinion/surveys/inventory-of-surveys/asylum 203 Essential Report, 11 March 2013, retrieved 25 January 2017, https://www.monash.edu/mapping-population/public-opinion/surveys/inventory-of-surveys/immigration
102
f. Decision
The decision of the securitization process resulting the Operation
Sovereign Border policy, that was believed that this policy could stop
and deter the illegal maritime arrivals and to protect the Australian border
from the internal and external threat.
g. Implementation
The OSB policy brings several measures, which are:204
- Turning back boats, including giving a financial support to the third
countries and transit countries to intercept asylum seekers departing
their shores
- Intercepting all SIEVs that coming from Sri Lanka and arranging for
the immediate return of all the people onboard regardless their
asylum seeker status
- Increasing the capacity of the offshore processing centers in Manus
and Nauru Islands, and do not give chances for the those people in
offshore processing centers to be resettled in Australia, even if their
refugee status is genuine
- Purchasing some tools like vessels (such as orange lifeboats) to deter
and turning back all asylum seekers whose boats are unseaworthy.
h. Evaluation
In polls conducted by Essential Report in 4 March 2014, with the
questions “how would you rate the performance of the Federal
Liberal/National Government in handling the issue of asylum seekers
arriving by boat?” the table below shows the polls:
204 Asylum Seekers Resource Center. (n.d.). Operation Sovereign Borders. Retrieved 25 January 2017, https://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Operation-Sovereign-Borders-May-2014.pdf
103
Survey Total Liberal/National
Voters
Good 39% 72%
Neither good nor
poor
18% 14%
Poor 28% 20%
Table IV.4 Essential Report: the performance rate of the Federal
Liberal/National Government in handling the issue of asylum seekers
arriving by boat205
The ABC News reported, after six month of implementation, the
Operation Sovereign Border policy have giving significant progress in
stopping the boats and having an impact towards the people people
smugglers. It is reported that, there were 13,108 individuals arrived by
boat in the first six month, after the implementation there were no boat
arrivals during the first half of 2014.206
205 Essential Report, 4 March 2014, retrieved 25 January 2017, https://www.monash.edu/mapping-population/public-opinion/surveys/inventory-of-surveys/asylum 206 ABC News. (2014). Operation Sovereign Borders the First Six Months. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-26/operation-sovereign-borders-the-first-6-months/5734458
104
Figure IV.7 The successful of Coalition party in deterring the boat
arrivals207
From the result of polls and data it is clear that the
implementation of OSB policy is successful in countering the people
smuggling and illegal maritime arrivals.
Below the practices of immigration policy under Tony Abbot
using the Bridgman and Davis policy cycle framework.
207 Ibid.
105
Figure IV.8 Bridgman and Davis policy framework under Tony Abott’s
government
IV.5 Chapter Summary
The practices of immigration policy in Australia from 2001-2013 was
different from time to time depend on how the former Prime Ministers seeing
and handle the problem. From the Bridgman and Davis policy cycle framework,
it can analyze how the government of Australia’s approach in dealing with illegal
maritime arrivals. Also using the theory of Societal Security, to see the IMAs as
threat towards the society as a whole. The practices and results of each four
leaderships using Bridgman and Davis Policy Cycle are reviewed as follows.
Evaluation
Decreasing number of IMAs to zero arrival
Implementation
Stopping the boats Intercept all SIEVIncreased capacity of offshore processing
Purchasing some tools
Decision
Operation Sovereign Border Policy
Coordination
Not much coordination because of the secrecy
ConsultationThe majority of public opinion to
implement tougher policyBecome the first priority issue debate
Policy Instrument
The Joint Agency Task Force
Policy Analysis
Tony Abott's speech act
Identify Issue
Resurgence of boat arrivals (until 2013) People smuggling
106
John Howard Kevin Rudd Julia Gillard Tony Abott
Identify Issue -Tampa
Incident
-Increasing
number of
IMAs
Implement
more
compasionate
approach
-Resurgence of
Boat arrivals
(IMAs)
-People
smuggling
-Resurgence of
IMAs until
2013
-People
smuggling
Policy Analysis Speech act
against IMAs
-Support from
the NGOs
-Agreed that
IMAs could
pose a threat to
the community
Pressure from
public opinion
Tony Abott’s
speech act
Policy
Instrument
Military forces
capability
The
Department of
Immigration
and Citizenship
The Parliament
of Australia
The Joint
Agency Task
Force
Consultation Changing in
public opinion
There is not
much
consultation
The majority of
public opinion
to implement
tougher policy
-The majority
of public
opinion to
implement
tougher policy
-The issue
become the
first priority
debate
107
Coordination Formal
coordination
with third
countries
Proposed 2
bills, however
neither had
been debated in
the Parliament
-Proposed an
agreement with
Malaysia
-Failed in the
Parliament
Lobbying
Not much
coordination
because of the
secrecy
Decision of the
policy
Pacific
Solution
New Direction
of Detention
Policy
The High
Court declared
the Malaysian
Solution is
invalid
Operation
Sovereign
Border Policy
Implementation -Offshore
processing
center
-Excision of
Australia’s
migration zone
-Operation
Relex
-Removing
Pacific
Solution
-Detention
centers move
to Christmas
Island
Failed to be
implemented
-Stopping the
boats
-Intercept all
SIEV
-Increased
capacity of
offshore
processing
-Purchasing
some tools
Evaluation
Decreasing
number of
arrivals, with a
slight increased
in 2003-04
Increasing
number of
arrivals
There is no
evaluation
Decreasing
number of
IMAs to zero
arrivals
Table IV.5 Comparison on the practices of all Governments
108
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
V.1 Conclusion
The problem of illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs) is one of the
international problems that has received much attentions and concerns by many
countries around the world. The issue of illegal maritime arrivals have been put
into debated by many countries, trying to find the best solutions to counter this
problem, including Australia. The rapid world population growth, environmental
condition and also political or security situation that do not support the safety
and secure continuity of life have driven thousands of people to move out from
their area of origin and seek for a better places.
Australia have experienced fluctuations on boat arrivals to Australian
mainland. The majority of these IMAs tried to reach Australia as their destination
country and started the journey from the help of people smugglers. From the
concept of societal identity, the existence of boat people is perceived as threat
towards the Australian National Security, afraid that the national identity can be
replaced by the new external identity. Hence, the Australian government have
seen the urgency to stop the boats from entering the Australian territory. Started
from the John Howard’s leadership until Tony Abbott’s leadership era tried to
formulate policies to encounter the illegal maritime arrivals.
From John Howard’s leadership, the policy making process of Pacific
Solution was successful in dealing with illegal maritime arrivals. Where using
the number of arrivals as the indicator, the Pacific Solution have succeeded in
decreasing the number of boat arrivals to Australia from 2001-02 until 2002-03.
However, there was a slight increased from the next year in 2003-04.
During the leadership of Kevin Rudd and Gillard, the government was
failed to achieve the intended outcomes. As the abolishing of the Pacific Solution
by Kevin Rudd instead inviting the people smugglers to send more people to the
109
Australian territory. The increasing number of people smuggling and boat people
have led the shift of changes from the soft policy to the hardline policy. The
more tough policy was back implemented during the Julia Gillard and Kevin
Rudd’s second term. Kevin Rudd had failed to abolished the Pacific Solution
since the implementation and the outcomes did not meet the Australian main
objective which to strengthen Australia national security but succeed to bring
back the previous policy of offshore detention centers. Also Julia Gillard was
failed in formulating the Malaysia Solution in the step of Coordination.
Lastly, the high influx of illegal maritime arrivals was happened again in
2013. During the Tony Abbott government, the Operation Sovereign Border
policy was successfully formulated and implemented by the government, as the
result of the implementation have seen to decrease the number of arrivals in
Australia.
In conclusion, to formulate a policy is not automatically or instantly
happened. Instead, it takes some steps to be done. Each step is very important in
the policy making process. The use policy cycle is to ease the process of policy
making. The policy formulation can be failed if one of the stages is not done or
if the aim is unclear.
110
REFERENCES
Book
Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2013). The Australian Policy
Handbook. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Australian Government. (2013). Guide to Australian Maritime Security
Arrangements. Canberra: Australian Border Protection Command.
Australian Government. (2013). Guide to Australian Maritime Security
Arrangements (GAMSA). Canberra: Australian Border Protection
Command.
Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2000). Australian Policy Handbook, 2nd Edition.
Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Buzan, B. (1983). People, States, and Fear: The National Security Problem in
International Relations. Great Britain: Wheatsheaf Books LTD.
Buzan, B. (1991). People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International
Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. London: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Buzan, B. (2007). People, States & Fear An Agenda for International Security
Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. United Kingdom: ECPR Press.
Buzan, B., Waever, O., & Wilde, J. d. (1998). A New Framework for Analysis.
London: Lynne Rienner Publisher.
European Communities. (2009). Push and Pull Factors of International
Migrations. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications for European
Communities .
Fischer, F., Miller, G., & Sidney, M. (2007). Handbook of Public Policy
Analysis Theory, Politics, and Methods. USA: Taylor and Francis
Group.
Gallie, W., Black, M., & et al. (1962). The importance of Language. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Guilfoyle, D. (2009). Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea. USA:
Cambridge University Press.
111
JSR Asia Pacific. (2012). The Search: Protection Space in Malaysia, Thailand,
Indonesia, Cambodia and the Philippines . Bangkok: Fr Bernard
Hyacinthh Arputhasamy SJ.
Maddison, S., & Denniss, R. (2009). An Introducion to Australian Public
Policy Theory and Practice. UK: Cambridge University Press.
May, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1978). The Policy Cycle. London: Sage.
Ole, W., Buzan, B., Kelstrup, M., & Lemaitre, P. (1993). Identity, Migration
and the New Security Agenda in Europe. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.
Sutch, P., & Junita, E. (2007). International Relations The Basics . USA:
Routledge.
Taliby, G. a. (2000). People Smuggling: National Security Implications.
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Watson, S. D. (2002). The Securitization of Humanitarian Migration: Digging
Moats and Sinking Boats. Abingdon: Routledge.
Journal
Betts, K. J. (2001, December). Boat people and public opinion in Australia.
People and Place, 9(4), 34-48.
Clune, D. (2002). Back to the Future? The November 2001 Federal Election.
Australasian Parliamentary Review, 17(1), 3-16.
Cook, F. T. (1983). Media and Agenda Setting: Effects on the Public, Interest
Group Leaders, Policy Makers, and Policy. Public Opinion Quaterly,
47, 16-35.
Everett, S. (2003). The Policy Cycle: Democratic Process or Rational Paradigm
Revisited? Australia Journal of Public Administration, 64(3), 65-70.
Hasmath, R. (2013). Deterring the ‘Boat People’: Explaining the Australian
Government’s People Swap Response to Asylum Seekers. Centre on
Migration, Policy and Society, Working Paper No. 103, 1-22.
Howard, C. (2005). The Policy Cycle: A Model of Post-Machiavellian Policy
Making? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(3), 3-13.
112
Leach, M. (2003). Disturbing practices: dehumanizing asylum seekers in the
refugee “Crisis” in Australia, 2001-2002. Refugee, 21(3), 25-33.
McAdam, J. (2013). Australia and Asylum Seekers. International Journal of
Refugee Law, 25(3), 435-448. Retrieved from
http://ijrl.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/3/435.full.pdf+html
McAdam, J., & Purcell, K. (2008). Refugee Protection in the Howard Years:
Obstructing the Right to Seek Asylum. Australian Year Book of
International Law, 27, 87-113.
Nethery, A. B. (2012). Exporting Detention: Australia-funded Immigration
Detention in Indonesia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 26(1).
Pickering, S. (2001). Common Sense and Original Deviancy: News Discourses
and Asylum Seekers in Australia. Journal of Refugees Studies, 14(2).
Retrieved from http://statecrime.org/data/2011/10/pickering2001a.pdf
Saleh, A. (2010). Broadening the Concept of Security: Identity and Societal
Security. Geopolitics Quaterly, 6(4), 228-241.
Special Silver Anniversary Issue: International Migration Assessment for the
90's. (1989). International Migration Review, 23(3), 606-630. Retrieved
from http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jborocz/apbjimr.pdf
Report
Australian Government . (2000). Australian Defence White Paper 2000.
Canberra: Australian Government Department of Defence.
Australian Government. (2012). Annual Report 2011-12. Department of
Immigration and Citizenship. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Retrieved from
https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/annual-
reports/2011-12-diac-annual-report.pdf
Australian Government. (2012). Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers.
Australian Government. Retrieved from
http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/thebordercrossingobservatory/files/201
5/03/expert_panel_on_asylum_seekers_full_report.pdf
Australian Government. (n.d.). Chapter 2 – Operation Relex. Retrieved from
Parliament of Australia:
113
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/For
mer_Committees/maritimeincident/report/c02
Australian Government. (2013). Migration Amendment (Unauthorised
Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Regulation 2013. Retrieved
from Department of Immigration and Border Protection Australia:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2013L00878/Explanatory%20
Statement/Text
Barker, C. (2013). The People Smugglers' Business Model. Canberra:
Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/2262537/u
pload_binary/2262537.pdf;fileType=application/pdf
Commonwealth of Australia. (2001). Chapter 10 - Pacific Solution:
Negotiations and Agreements. Retrieved from Parliament of Australia:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/For
mer_Committees/maritimeincident/report/c10
DIAC . (2004-05). DIAC Fact Sheet 7 “Managing the Border”, Immigration
compliance. Retrieved from Parliamentary Library Data:
http://resources.oxfam.org.au/filestore/originals/OAus-
PriceTooHighAsylumSeekers-0807.pdf
Essential Report. (2013, March 11). Inventory of Australian Public Opinion
Survey: Immigration. Retrieved from Monash University:
https://www.monash.edu/mapping-population/public-
opinion/surveys/inventory-of-surveys/immigration
Essential Report. (2014, March 4). Inventory of Australian Public Opinion
Survey: Asylum. Retrieved from Monash University:
https://www.monash.edu/mapping-population/public-
opinion/surveys/inventory-of-surveys/asylum
General Assembly. (2000). Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by
Land, Sea and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention
Against Transnational Organized Crime. New York: United Nations.
Hughes, P., & Nummi, A. (2014, May). Beyond Operation Sovereign Borders:
A Long-term Asylum Policy for Australia. Centre for Policy
Development.
114
Philips, J. (2015). Asylum seekers and refugees: what are the facts?
Parliamentary Library Research Paper. Canberra: Parliament of
Australia.
Philips, J. (2015). Boat arrivals and boat ‘turnbacks’ in Australia since 1976:
a quick guide to the statistics. Canberra: Parliament Library.
Philips, J., & Simon-Davies, J. (2016). Migration to Australia: a quick guide to
the statistics. Retrieved from Parliament of Australia:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/Quick_Guides/MigrationStatisti
cs
Phillips, J. (2012). The ‘Pacific Solution’ revisited: a statistical guide to
asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island. Canberra:
Parliament of Australia.
Phillips, J. (2014). Research Paper Series: A Comparison of Coalition and
Labor government asylum policies in Australia since 2001. Canberra:
Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament of Australia.
Phillips, J., & Spinks, H. (2013). Immigration detention in Australia. Canberra:
Parliamentary Library.
UNHCR. (2010). Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Geneva: UNHCR.
UNHCR. (2011). The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and
its 1967 Protocol. Switzerland: UNHCR.
UNODC. (2011). Issue Paper: Smuggling of migrants by sea. Vienna: United
Nations.
Websites
ABC Lateline. (2001). Asylum seekers still key election issue. Retrieved from
ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2001/s404650.htm
ABC News. (2008, July 30). Sweeping changes to mandatory detention
announced. Retrieved from ABC News:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-07-29/sweeping-changes-to-
mandatory-detention-announced/456652
115
ABC News. (2016). Operation Sovereign Borders the First Six Months.
Retrieved from ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-
26/operation-sovereign-borders-the-first-6-months/5734458
Anderson, S. (2015, November 7). Cost of offshore detention centres on Nauru,
Manus Island blows out by $100 million: Immigration Department
annual report. Retrieved from ABC News:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-07/cost-of-offshore-detention-
blows-out-by-100m/6920196
Anderson, S. (2015). Explore the history of Australia's asylum seeker policy.
Retrieved from SBS Website:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/explainer/explore-history-australias-
asylum-seeker-policy
ASRC. (2013). Operation Sovereign Borders. Australia: Asylum Seeker
Resource Centre. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from
https://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Operation-
Sovereign-Borders-May-2014.pdf
Australia’s offshore processing regime. (n.d.). Retrieved from Refugee Council
of Australia:
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/getfacts/seekingsafety/asylum/offsho
re-processing/briefing/
Australian Government. (2013). STRONG AND SECURE A Strategy for
Australia’s National Security. Canberra: The Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet. Retrieved from www.dpmc.gov.au
Australian Government. (n.d.). Eight maritime security threats. Retrieved from
Australia Government Department of Immigration and Border
Protection Website: https://www.border.gov.au/australian-border-force-
abf/protecting/maritime/comman
Australian Government. (n.d.). Illegal Maritime Arrivals. Retrieved from
Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border
Protection: http://www.ima.border.gov.au/
Australian Government. (n.d.). Operation Sovereign Borders. Retrieved from
Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border
Protection : http://www.osb.border.gov.au/
Australian Human RIghts Commission. (2008). The Forgotten Child: National
Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (2014). Retrieved from
116
Australian Human Rights Commission:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/forgotten-children-
national-inquiry-children-immigration-detention-2014/appendix-
1#fn641
BBC News. (2016, August 3). Australia asylum: Why is it controversial?
Retrieved September 28, 2016, from BBC News:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28189608
Ben, D. (2016, September 1). Australia resettles only a sixth of promised
Syrian refugee intake. Retrieved from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/02/australia-
resettles-only-a-sixth-of-promised-syrian-refugee-intake
Booth, A. (2016). Government to introduce law banning 'irregular maritime
arrivals' from Australia. Retrieved from SBS Website:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/10/30/government-introduce-
law-banning-irregular-maritime-arrivals-australia
Center for Migration Studies. (2014). Immigration Control Beyond Australia’s
Border. Retrieved from Center for Migration Studies:
http://cmsny.org/immigration-control-beyond-australias-border/
Chalabi, M. (2013, July 25). What happened to history's refugees? Retrieved
from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2013/jul/25/wh
at-happened-history-refugees#Israelites
Coady, D. (2010, January 25). Sailor ignored order, SIEV 36 inquest told.
Retrieved from ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-
01/sailor-ignored-order-siev-36-inquest-told/316876
DIMIA. (2005, May 23). Offshore Processing Arrangements. Retrieved from
DIMIA Website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051025182708/http://www.immi.gov.au/f
acts/76offshore.htm
Elibritt, K. (2010, October 18). Developments in Australian refugee law and
policy 2007–10. Retrieved from Parliament of Australia:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/RefugeeLaw#_ftn6
Elibritt, K., & Philips, J. (2011). Seeking Asylum: Australia's humanitarian
program. Canberra: Department Parliamentary Services. Retrieved
117
from
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/seekingasylum.pdf
Evans, C. (2008, February 8). Last refugees leave Nauru. Retrieved from
Senator Chris Evans Minister for Immigration Citizenship:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/67564/20081217-
0001/www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-
releases/2008/ce08014.html
Fairuzothman, A. (2016). The problem of illegal immigrants. Retrieved from
New Straits Times Website:
http://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/01/123227/problem-illegal-
immigrants
Farmer, A., & et al. (2013). Barely Surviving Detention, Abuse, and Neglect of
Migrant Children in Indonesia. Retrieved from Human Rights Watch
Website: https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/06/23/barely-
surviving/detention-abuse-and-neglect-migrant-children-indonesia
Farrell, P. (2014). Asylum seekers registered with UNHCR in Indonesia
blocked from resettlement. Retrieved from The Guardian Website:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/18/asylum-
seekers-registered-with-unhcr-in-indonesia-blocked-from-resettlement
Fathiyah, W. (2013). Konferensi Pencari Suaka Hasilkan Deklarasi Jakarta.
Retrieved from VOA Indonesia Website:
http://www.voaindonesia.com/a/konferensi-pencari-suaka-hasilkan-
deklarasi-jakarta/1733801.html
Fergal, D. (2011, September 4). The failure of Australia's 'Malaysia Solution'
is a positive step for refugees. Retrieved from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/04/australia-
failure-malaysia-solution-refugees
Gillard, J. (2010, July 6). Moving Australia Forward (Speech to the Lowy
Institute for International Policy in Sydney). Retrieved from Lowy
Institute: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/news-and-
media/multimedia/audio/moving-australia-forward
Hall, B. (2013). Minister wants boat people called illegals . Retrieved from
The Sydney Morning Herald Website : http://www.smh.com.au/federal-
politics/political-news/minister-wants-boat-people-called-illegals-
20131019-2vtl0.html
118
Hoffstaedter, G. (2012). Refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia the good,
the bad and the unexpected. Retrieved from The Conversation Website:
http://theconversation.com/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-in-malaysia-
the-good-the-bad-and-the-unexpected-8532
Howard, J. (2001). Allan Jones Interview, Radio 2UE. (A. Jones, Interviewer)
Retrieved from , http://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/australia-
transcript-prime-minister-interview-radio-2ue-illegal-immigrants
Howard, J. (2001, August 29). Interview with Jeremy Cordeaux, Radio 5DN.
(J. Cordeaux, Interviewer) Retrieved from
http://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-12010
Hugo, G., Tan, G., & Jonathan, C. (2014). Indonesia as a Transit Country in
Irregular Migration to Australia. Department of Immigration and
Border Protection. Retrieved from
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/apmrc/research/completed/Indonesia_Tran
sit_Country_IMtoA_Report.pdf
Hume, N. (2013, July 19). Kevin Rudd slams door on ‘boat people’ asylum
seekers. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/7e167abe-f053-
11e2-929c-00144feabdc0
Ireland, J. (2012, June 27). Ayslum seeker bill passed by lower house.
Retrieved from The Sydney Morning Herald :
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seeker-
bill-passed-by-lower-house-20120627-2129x.html
John Howard’s 2001 federal election speech. (2001). Retrieved from Museum
Victoria Website:
https://museumvictoria.com.au/immigrationmuseum/discoverycentre/id
entity/people-like-them/the-white-picket-fence/john-howards-2001-
federal-election-policy-launch-speech/
Karlsen, E. (2010, October 18). Developments in Australian refugee law and
policy 2007-10. Retrieved from Parliament of Australia:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/RefugeeLaw
Kent, J. (2014). The Politics of Australian Asylum and Border Policy:
Escaping the Duelling Paradigms . Retrieved from
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/regarding-rights/2014/10/15/the-politics-
of-australian-asylum-and-border-policy-escaping-the-duelling-
paradigms/
119
Laughland, O. (2013). Is the asylum problem a ‘national emergency’, as Tony
Abott says? Retrieved from The Guardian website:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/26/asylum-seekers-
national-emergency-abbott
Mares, P. (2002). Reporting Australia's asylum seeker "crisis". Retrieved from
Australian Policy Online Website: http://apo.org.au/resource/reporting-
australias-asylum-seeker-crisis
Migraciokutato. (2016). The Australian Model or the island country’s answer
to asylum and migration challenges of the past decades. Retrieved from
Migration Research Institute:
http://www.migraciokutato.hu/en/2016/11/29/the-australian-model/
Migrant Smuggling Working Group (MSWG). (n.d.). Statistics relating to
Migrant Smuggling in Australia. Retrieved from The University of
Queensland Australia: https://law.uq.edu.au/research/our-
research/migrant-smuggling-working-group/statistics-relating-migrant-
smuggling-australia
Millbank, A. (2000). The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Retrieved from Research Paper Parliament of Australia:
http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2013). Jakarta Declaration on Addressing
Irregular Movement of Persons. Retrieved from Ministry of Foreign
Affairs: http://www.kemlu.go.id/id/berita/siaran-pers/Pages/Jakarta-
Declaration-on-Addressing-Irregular-Movement-of-Persons.aspx
Monash University. (2010, July). Galaxy Poll for the Herald Sun. Retrieved
from Monash University-Inventory of Survey:
https://www.monash.edu/mapping-population/public-
opinion/surveys/inventory-of-surveys/asylum
Monash University. (n.d.). Australian Border Deaths Database. Retrieved
from Border Crossing Observatory:
http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/thebordercrossingobservatory/publicati
ons/australian-border-deaths-database/
National Archieves of Australia. (n.d.). Australia’s Prime Minister, John
Howard. Retrieved from Prime Ministers Website:
http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/howard/
120
National Maritime Museum. (n.d.). Australia’s Immigration History. Retrieved
from National Maritime Museum Website:
http://waves.anmm.gov.au/Immigration-Stories/Immigration-history
P.L., A. (2013). Operation Sovereign Borders. Retrieved from Australia
Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection:
https://www.border.gov.au/about/operation-sovereign-borders
Palazzo, C. (2016). Boat people face lifetime ban from Australia. Retrieved
from The Telegraph Website:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/boatpeople-face-lifetime-
ban-from-australia/
Parliament of Australia. (2016). Home. Retrieved from Parliament of Australia:
www.aph.gov.au
Rizka, R. R. (2015). The Impact of Australian Policy on Illegal Maritime
Arrivals (IMA) Toward Current Relation of Australia-Indonesia. Pusat
Penelitian Politik, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia. Retrieved
from http://ejournal.lipi.go.id/index.php/jpp/article/viewFile/528/336
Ruddock, P. (2003). Numbers in offshore processing centres continue to fall.
Canberra: Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id
%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2FYMDA6%22
Spinks, H. (2011, August 22). Tampa: Ten years on. Retrieved from
Parliament of Australia Web Site:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2011/August/Tampa_ten_years_on
Spinks, H., & McCluskey, I. (n.d.). Asylum seekers and the Refugee
Convention. Retrieved from Parliament of Australia:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/AsylumSeekers
Spinks, J. P. (2011). Boat Arrivals in Australia since 1976. Parliamentary
Library Research Paper. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. Retrieved
September 27, 2016, from
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.pdf
Stone, S. (2009, October 21). Sharman Stone discusses the asylum seeker
debate. (L. Sales, Interviewer)
121
The Australian. (2010, July 6). Julia Gillard’s speech to the Lowy Institute on
Labor’s mew asylum-seeker policy for Australia. Retrieved from The
Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/politics/juliagillards-speech-
to-the-lowy-institute-on-labors-new-asylum-seeker-policy-for-
australia/news-story/5ffb94b349ee46e1778da4ca67c3fed2
The Australian Politics. (n.d.). Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007).
Retrieved from The Australian Politics Website:
http://australianpolitics.com/executive/pm/howard
The Coalition’s Operation Sovereign Borders Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved from
Liberal Party:
http://sievx.com/articles/OSB/201307xxTheCoalitionsOSBPolicy.pdf
The Spectator Australia. (2010, March 31). Reverse course. Retrieved from
The Spectator Website: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2010/03/reverse-
course/
Thompson, J. (2011, September 6). High Court scuttles Malaysia swap deal.
Retrieved from ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-
31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218
UNHCR. (n.d.). Global Appeal 2012-2013. Geneva: UNHCR. Retrieved from
http://www.unhcr.org/4ec23106b.pdf
UNHCR Indonesia. (2016). Indonesia Factsheet. Jakarta: UNHCR. Retrieved
from http://www.unhcr.org/50001bda9.pdf
UNHCR Malaysia. (n.d.). Figures at Glance. Retrieved from UNHCR:
http://www.unhcr.org.my/About_Us-@-Figures_At_A_Glance.aspx
United Nations. (2013). International Migration Policies Government Views
and Priorities. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/po
licy/InternationalMigrationPolicies2013/Report%20PDFs/z_Internation
al%20Migration%20Policies%20Full%20Report.pdf
United Nations. (2013). International Migration Policies Government Views
and Priorities. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York:
United Nations. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/po
licy/InternationalMigrationPolicies2013/Report%20PDFs/z_Internation
al%20Migration%20Policies%20Full%20Report.pdf
122
United Nations. (2016). Draft of Statement by H.E. Dato Sri Dr. Ahmad Zahid
Hamidi. High-Level Meeting of Large Movement of Refugees and
Migrants, (pp. 1-3). New York. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/events/ga
/documents/2016/trusteeship/malaysia.pdf
UNODC. (2013). Transnational Organized Crime in East Asia and the Pacific:
A Threat Assessment. Bangkok: United Nations. Retrieved from
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-
analysis/Studies/TOCTA_EAP_web.pdf
Walker, T. (2011, November 25). The High Court decision on the Malaysian
Solution. Retrieved from ABC News:
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/11/23/3374312.htm
123
APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1 OSB Joint Agency Task Force Structure208
208 ABC News. (2014). Operation Sovereign Borders the First Six Months. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-26/operation-sovereign-borders-the-first-6-months/5734458
