Australia’s decision to end offshore processing in Papua New Guinea leaves those held within its offshore regime there for eight years in “limbo”, with refugees in Port Moresby saying: “Nothing will change for us.”
“The Australian government can say they are ending offshore processing,” one refugee, Ali, told Guardian Australia, “but there is no ending for us. This is just another game they play with our lives. We will still suffer.”
One hundred and twenty-four refugees and asylum seekers remain in PNG under Australia’s offshore processing regime.
On Wednesday the home affairs minister, Karen Andrews, announced that Australia would end its involvement in offshore processing in PNG, five years after the detention centre Australia ran on Manus Island was found to be illegal and ordered shut by the PNG supreme court. Australia paid $70m in compensation to those unlawfully detained there.
The refugees and asylum seekers now held in PNG – most in Port Moresby – have the option to transfer to Australia’s other offshore processing island, Nauru, before the end of the year; to stay in PNG permanently with purported access to citizenship and family reunification; or to stay temporarily in PNG while awaiting resettlement to the US under the US-Australia refugee swap deal.
Offshore processing remains Australian policy. Last month the country signed a new agreement with the island state of Nauru to continue offshore processing indefinitely.
Ali – the Guardian is choosing not to publish his surname – claimed asylum in Australia in 2013 and was forcibly removed to Manus Island detention in the same year. He had his refugee status formally recognised in 2015, meaning Australia is legally obliged to protect him and he cannot be returned to his home country.
“People right now are very, very upset and sad and frustrated,” he said from Port Moresby. “After eight years of waiting in a limbo situation, now we are hearing it will be another beginning of another limbo.
“We have the right to see our families, to be free, to live in a safe place. But there is no positive outcome for anybody here.”
Ali said New Zealand’s standing offer – to resettle 150 refugees from Australia’s offshore system every year – should be pursued by PNG, free from Australian interference: the Australian government has consistently rebuffed NZ’s offer.
“If PNG really wants to assist people find a third country where they will be safe, why don’t they start negotiating with New Zealand?,” he said. “The third country is sitting there waiting to help, why not allow them?”
In a letter to refugees and asylum seekers on Wednesday, PNG’s chief migration officer, Stanis Hulahau, said PNG would take over responsibility for supporting refugees and asylum seekers from 1 January.
Single refugees and asylum seekers would receive a weekly “support allowance” of 300 kina (A$116), as well as a 400 kina weekly food allowance. They would receive accommodation assistance, as well as transport to education and training facilities.
“You may want to settle in PNG and PNG can offer access to citizenship, long term support, settlement packages and family reunification,” the letter said. “[The] Immigration and Citizenship Authority (ICA) wants to understand what you need to settle in PNG and become a contributing member of the PNG community.
“ICA wants to know what will help you feel safe and be part of this nation. What do you need to support yourself and your family and build a life in PNG?”
Hulahau said a steering committee of prominent PNG leaders would meet refugees and asylum seekers. “This will help us understand what you need to remain in PNG and if you choose to settle, the supports for successful integration into the community.”
Ali said he did not believe the promises of support: “We were attacked in our accommodation recently, and the immigration department did nothing at all. The Australian people will continue to pay all this money but nothing will done to help us.”
David Manne, executive director of Refugee Legal, said Australia could not simply acquit itself of responsibility for the people it exiled offshore.
“Australia retains clear-cut legal responsibility for the future fate of people it forcibly sent to PNG, who it held there under arrangements it bankrolled and controlled, and who remain trapped and suffering. It cannot simply absolve itself of legal responsibility: it can’t transfer its obligations, legal or moral.”
Manne said those still held within Australia’s offshore scheme in PNG should be resettled in an appropriate third country, such as the US or New Zealand, or allowed to come to Australia
Sophie McNeill, Australia researcher at Human Rights Watch, said Australia’s offshore processing in PNG had caused “immeasurable suffering to thousands of vulnerable people seeking asylum”.
McNeill also urged the PNG government to accept New Zealand’s longstanding offer to resettle people from Australia’s offshore system.
The office of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees said it had consistently opposed policies where states sought to shift their protection responsibilities on to other countries – “typically developing nations where refugee protection standards are poor”.
“In the case of Australia, we have advocated too for its offshore arrangements to be ended and more compassionate approaches to be found. Yesterday’s development will achieve neither.”
A joint statement from Andrews and the PNG immigration minister, Westly Nukundj, said PNG would “assume full management of regional processing services … and full responsibility for those who remain” from 1 January 2022.
“Australia and PNG have been longstanding partners and regional leaders in the fight against maritime people smuggling and look forward to continuing this close cooperation into the future post-finalisation of the regional resettlement arrangement,” he said.
The Australian government has provided emergency loans totalling more than half a billion dollars over the last two years to support PNG’s ailing budget. PNG is expected to seek a similar amount again this year.
