Latest report from the ASRC
Australia’s policy of offshore detention has been one of the most controversial aspects of its immigration and asylum system over the past two decades. People who arrived by boat seeking asylum were sent to processing centres outside mainland Australia such as Manus Island in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, rather than allowing them to have their claims assessed on Australian soil. This process is also called “externalization”. https://externalizingasylum.info/offshore-processing-in-australia/.
A recent report from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) provides an up to date inisight into the living conditions for refugees currently detained on Nauru. Based on interviews with 78 of the approximately 91 people seeking asylum currently living on Nauru, the report found:
- 99% cannot afford enough food
- 68% rarely or never have access to fresh fruit, vegetables or meat
- 82% do not have easy access to clean drinking water
These aren’t isolated statistics, they point to a system that continues to deny people the basic necessities needed to live with dignity. For the full report, https://asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ASRC26-Hungry-For-Freedom-vFINAL.pdf
People previously detained on Nauru: Transitory Refugees: Closer to home, those who arrived in Australian waters by boat after the arbitrary date of July 19, 2013, were told they would never be permanently settled in Australia, even if their claims for refugee status were successfully processed offshore. A video was made in 2025, highlighting protests in support of refugees in Australia without a pathway to permanency, was made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aaAtnGTdxY . In 2026, the situation is still the same. One more year in limbo.
This group of refugees are still regarded as “transitory”. Their only options were:
- Staying on Nauru or Manus Island prior to these detention centres closing, or
- Returning to their country of origin, or
- Moving to a third country such as the United States or New Zealand if they were accepted.
Those who were later transferred to Australia for medical reasons are the people for whom advocates across Australia are lobbying for their right to a pathway to permanency in Australia. Across Australia, there are still 700 “transitory” refugees suffering in this limbo. Many were children in Nauru but have grown up in Australia. Advocacy groups such as the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) are leading this call for compassion. You can join the ASRC in taking action: https://action.asrc.org.au/let-them-stay-for-good .
Background to Offshore processing: The Pacific Solution (2001–2007)
Offshore processing began in 2001 under the Howard Government ,following the arrival of the Norwegian freighter Tampa, which had rescued more than 400 asylum seekers from a distressed vessel near Australia. The government refused permission for the ship to dock in Australia, triggering a major political and legal controversy.
In response, Australia established what became known as the Pacific Solution, whereby asylum seekers arriving by boat were transferred to detention centres on:
- Nauru, or in
- Papua New Guinea, specifically on Manus Island.
The government argued the policy would deter dangerous sea voyages and disrupt people-smuggling operations. Critics argued it denied vulnerable people access to Australia’s protection obligations under international refugee law.
Closure and Reopening (2008–2012)
The Rudd Government formally ended the Pacific Solution in 2008 and closed the Nauru detention centre. However, increasing numbers of asylum seekers arriving by boat led to renewed political debate. In 2012, the Gillard Government reopened offshore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island.
July 19, 2013 is a critical date for those “transitory” refugees who were on Nauru but were transferred to Australia for medical reasons
On 19 July 2013, the Labor government announced that all asylum seekers currently offshore would be transferred back to Australia, and the detention centres would be refilled with new asylum seekers arriving from that day forward. Any people seeking asylum by boat, after this arbitrary date, were told that they would never be permanently settled in Australia. Instead, it was argued that refugees would integrate locally in Nauru and PNG or be resettled elsewhere. UNHCR immediately raised concerns with this proposal, noting that neither country had the conditions necessary for effective and large-scale settlement of refugees. Conditions in the centres were already a source of concern for humanitarian organisations, medical professionals, and the United Nations.
Human Rights Criticism
Offshore detention has attracted extensive criticism from:
- United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
- Amnesty International
- Human Rights Watch
- Australian medical bodies
- Refugee advocacy groups
Major concerns have included:
- Indefinite detention and uncertainty
- Inadequate medical treatment
- Mental health deterioration
- Self-harm and suicidal ideation and suicides
- The detention of children
- Reports of violence, abuse, and
- Australia’s failed compliance with international refugee and human rights obligations.
Numerous official reviews, court cases, and independent investigations documented serious psychological harm among detainees, particularly those held for many years. On 9 January 2025, the UN Human Rights Committee issued a decision finding that Australia had breached the human rights of asylum seekers transferred to Nauru under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The decision comes after two separate complaints were submitted in 2016 by asylum seekers transferred to Nauru. The Committee found that Australia had violated the asylum seekers’ right to freedom from arbitrary detention and their right to challenge the legality of their detention in court. The Committee rejected Australia’s argument that the alleged violations occurred outside its jurisdiction, finding that the Australian government had significant control and influence over the regional processing facility in Nauru.
Manus Island Closure and Ongoing Arrangements
In 2016, the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea ruled that detention at Manus Island breached constitutional rights. The Manus Regional Processing Centre formally closed in 2017, though many refugees remained in Papua New Guinea under alternative accommodation arrangements. There have been ongoing outcries about the conditions under which these refugees live in Port Moresby (PNG). https://asrc.org.au/2024/08/01/labor-drags-feet-on-restoring-png-support/
Australia also negotiated a third country resettlement arrangements with the United States and New Zealand, under which many refugees from Nauru and Manus were eventually resettled.
Current Situation
Australia no longer operates the large Manus Island detention centre as the refugees detained there have been transferred to Port Morseby in PNG.
Offshore processing continues in a more limited form through arrangements with Nauru. Since 2012, Australia spent $13.5 billion on offshore processing. Following the High Court’s NZYQ ruling, deeming it unconstitutional for refugees who have served their sentences for crimes committed in Australia to remain in closed detention centres, the Australian government negotiated a further agreement with the Nauruan government for the transfer 280 people in this group to offshore detention, on grounds of concerns about character and criminality. The recent Commonwealth budget of 2026 allocated a further $2.5 billion for managing those who are once again being sent to Nauru. Another group of approximately 100 asylum seekers from countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and China who arrived in Australian waters from by boat over the last two to three years have been detained on Nauru. Little is known about actual numbers.
As a result, offshore detention remains a defining feature of Australia’s border protection framework and a continuing source of political, legal, and ethical debate.
Key Debate
The central debate over offshore detention is often framed as a tension between two objectives:
Supporters argue it:
- Prevents deaths at sea.
- Discourages people smuggling.
- Protects Australia’s borders.
- Maintains public confidence (“social licence”) in migration programs such as UNHCR’s Humanitarian resettlement program .
Critics argue it:
- Causes significant human suffering.
- Violates human rights and refugee protections.
- Creates long-term psychological harm.
- Shifts Australia’s responsibilities to poorer neighbouring countries which do not have the resource to provide for the mental and physical wellbeing of refugees.
The policy remains one of the most contested issues in Australian public life, reflecting broader questions about national sovereignty, humanitarian obligations, and the treatment of people seeking protection.