[Theme music starts]

ANGE:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ange McCormack, this is 7am.

Asylum seekers in the UK could face a new fate once they arrive: being loaded onto an enormous 10,000 ton barge, floating in a port on the south coast of England. It’s part of a new hardline-migration policy being rolled out by the British government, and it’s being sold to the public with a slogan that will sound familiar to Australians: ‘Stop the boats’.

Today, lawyer Madeline Gleeson from the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW, on how ideas from Australia led to Britain’s floating detention centre.

It’s Monday, August 21.

[Theme music ends]

ANGE:

Madeline, in the UK, the government has a plan to house Asylum Seekers who’ve entered the country onto a huge floating barge – called the Bibby Stockholm. What does that actually look like in practice?

MADELINE:

Yes. Earlier this month, we heard that the United Kingdom had started moving asylum seekers onto the Bibby Stockholm, which is called an accommodation barge, but it basically looks like a large pink and grey square building, except that it's floating in Portland Port in Dorset, in southern England.

Archival Tape – Reporter 1:

“High on the cliffs overlooking the Bibby Stockholm is one of Portland's two prisons. The Government insists this barge isn't a third, despite the high metal fences and 24 hour security.”

MADELINE:

This barge was originally meant to have a capacity of about 222 people, which would have been one per cabin. But according to media reports, the UK government has installed bunk beds in each of those cabins. So it's effectively looking to double the capacity of that barge by housing 500 asylum seeker men while they await the outcome of their asylum applications, which could be a very lengthy process.

Archival Tape – Reporter 2:

“The controversial barge will soon be home to 500 asylum seekers. Part of the Government's plan to reduce the £6 million daily hotel bill for migrants.”

MADELINE:

Some journalists who were permitted to tour the Bibby Stockholm when it was empty said the inside facilities looked reasonably comfortable and the website actually claims that it's luxury living on board. But as we've seen elsewhere, whenever large numbers of people are held together in close quarters for extended periods of time, what can look reasonably comfortable in a one hour walk through can become intolerable very quickly. Since COVID, we're more aware than ever of the risks of this type of accommodation. And actually already the few asylum seekers on board have had to be evacuated to a nearby hotel due to concerns about Legionnaires disease.

Archival Tape – Reporter 3:

“The BBC understands the evacuation is a precautionary move and officials are planning to move the migrants back onto the barge once the all clear has been given.”

MADELINE:

So leaving aside the psychological impact of being accommodated on this type of barge, the physical risks of this type of environment, particularly around infectious diseases, are clear. And for an Australian audience will bring to mind the treatment of asylum seekers evacuated back to Australia from Nauru and Manus Island, who were locked up in hotel accommodation for extended periods. The situation isn't identical, but there are certain similarities there.

ANGE:

And can you tell me, Madeleine, how the UK government justifies doing this? Like what kind of rhetoric are we hearing from the prime minister about this really quite hardline immigration policy?

MADELINE:

Recently UK rhetoric looks like it's been cut and pasted almost directly from the Australian playbook. I mean the big slogan is ‘Stop the boats’.

Archival Tape – Rishi Sunak:

“Good evening, today we are introducing new legislation to keep my promise to you, to stop the boats…We will pass new laws to stop small boats…We've introduced tough new measures today to help us stop the boats.”

MADELINE:

Which will be all too familiar to an Australian audience and it's reminiscent particularly of former prime ministers Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison.

Archival Tape – Scott Morrison:

“Operation Sovereign Borders is the new government's action to stop the boats.”

Archival Tape – Kevin Rudd:

“From now on any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia.”

Archival Tape – Tony Abbott:

“Because if we stop the boats we stop the deaths, and that's why it is absolutely critically important that Operation
Sovereign Borders continues to succeed.”

MADELINE:

And so in the UK, that slogan has been plastered across podiums at press conferences, and it features really prominently in Prime Minister Sunak's video about his plan to stop the boats.

Archival Tape – Rishi Sunak:

“I recently passed laws that will mean that if you come to the UK illegally, you cannot claim asylum. You cannot misuse our modern slavery protections. You can't make false human rights claims and you can't stay.”

MADELINE:

He's released a curious video which summarises what he calls his five point plan to stop the boats.

Archival Tape – Rishi Sunak:

“That's why one of my top priorities as prime minister is to stop the boats, and I have a clear plan to get it done. Here's how.”

MADELINE:

At first glance, it's a video which is not really designed to articulate any clear policies, but rather to whip up fear and a bit of hysteria around this issue of small boat crossings first. And he uses a lot of the same rhetoric we saw in Australia about illegal migration and people coming to really take things from the people of the UK. But there's also some of the older insidious rhetoric around queue jumpers and illegal migrants. And all of this type of language is feeding into that idea that there are two groups or two classes of asylum seekers. The first who are genuine refugees who come to the UK so-called legally, and the others who are in some way exploiting or gaming the system, doing the wrong thing by coming illegally and in some way are less deserving of protection.

Archival Tape – Rishi Sunak:

“I'm ensuring that the only way to come to the UK for asylum will be through safe and legal routes and as we get a grip of illegal migration, we'll create more of these routes so that we can continue to help those in genuine need like we've done for Ukrainians. I know stopping the boats is a priority for the British people.”

MADELINE:

So that's really where that language tries to take the mind. But the reality is that those distinctions are arbitrary. They are created at the state level, They don't match the reality of displacement.

ANGE:

Mmm and Madeleine, is the UK Government just borrowing the language of Australia to excuse this or explain it to the public? Or is there a deeper connection here? Have they actually been inspired into doing this from Australia's offshore detention policy?

MADELINE:

There's clear inspiration from Australia and we can see that in a few ways. The first is what is arguably a disproportionate focus on these small boats coming across the channel and using that focus to possibly draw attention away from other aspects of domestic politics or to whip up hysteria for the purpose of winning votes. A second clear inspiration from Australia is this idea that if you come to the UK illegally to use the Government's language, you'll not be permitted to make an asylum claim there and you could potentially be sent to Rwanda. And there's a clear link there from Australia's offshore processing policies in Nauru and Manus Island to what the UK is obviously trying to do in terms of removing people to Rwanda. Other aspects of the so-called Australian model which have been particularly touted by Alexander Downer, a former Australian minister of Foreign Affairs under Howard and subsequently the High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. He wrote a piece, an opinion piece in the Daily Mail earlier this year touting Australian style policies and politics, many of which is taking directly from what we've seen in Australia and proposing that it be adopted in the UK so that things like, you know, this idea of breaking the business model of smugglers, a focus on people arriving through irregular channels as damaging our education system, our housing, our economy, our crime levels. So it's that kind of focus instead of focusing on the opportunity that migration can bring and the benefits of global solidarity in addressing displacement. Downer also called for a permanent ban on settlement in the UK for anyone who enters illegally and a deportation and lifetime ban. I mean, that's taken directly from what we've seen debated in Australia in recent years, although it's worth noting that the Australian proposal didn't get up. And really, these ideas aren't about effective solutions. They're just good politics. They whip up fear. They create the illusion of a crisis. And they can be used strategically by a government, which I guess leads us to one of the last clear areas of inspiration from Australia, and that's this element of performative cruelty. You know, this recognition that there is political strategic benefit in appearing as tough and as cruel as possible. And a corollary of that is, is the dehumanising or othering of asylum seekers and refugees, because it's only by casting people as less than human that that performative cruelty can have its desired effect. So in all of these ways, we're seeing clear inspiration from Australia.

ANGE:

After the break Is it legal for the UK to hold asylum seekers on this barge… potentially indefinitely?

[ADVERTISEMENT]

ANGE:

Madeleine, we were talking about Australia's role in inspiring the UK's tough refugee policy. And I want to ask how legal this is for the UK to put refugees on these barges potentially indefinitely. How does that stack up with international law?

MADELINE:

A starting point to make is that the application of international law and the UK's human rights obligations, it doesn't differ whether somebody is on a barge which is parked at a port or a few hundred metres down the road at a hotel. Either way, that person is within the UK's territory, subject to its jurisdiction and control, and so the human rights obligations of that state are binding. So the fact that somebody is floating versus on solid land does not make a difference to the rights to which that person is legally formally entitled under international law. Under that law probably the most relevant to the present case would be the prohibition on torture and on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That is a really fundamental rule under international law, and it's an absolute prohibition. What that means is that a government cannot justify exposing people to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by reference, for example, to the imperatives of its border control policies. There's really no excuse for exposing people to that sort of treatment. So the question becomes what constitutes prohibited conduct? And in the case of the barge, there's two really important elements to factor in. The first will be the physical element. And that's not just about what the barge looks like when it's empty, but it's about things like when people are inside of it, how much access to sunlight they get, the quality of recreational facilities. Is the food healthy? What's the quality of the health care? So all of those questions will make up the physical component. And then almost more important is the mental element, the psychological impact of accommodation on that barge. And we've seen this in the Australian context as well as offshore. Nauru and Manus Island, the indefinite nature of being held in a place like this can really break a person and there are often related issues. So if people are not being advised about time frames of their application, if they don't know whether they'll be permitted to stay in the UK, even if they're found to be a refugee. Those things can really exacerbate the experience of living on a barge like this. And of course there'll always be the individual element. So if someone has a personal history of torture or trauma, which is in some way exacerbated by the conditions on the barge, then all of those things can build the case towards this accommodation amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

ANGE:

Yeah. And you actually gave evidence to the House of Commons about our immigration policy here in Australia. What did you say to them and how was that received by the members of Parliament?

Archival Tape – House of Commons Speaker:

“To move to our second panel now and thank our witnesses very much for joining us from Australia.”

MADELINE:

The Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, which I'm a part of, focuses on the production of rigorous evidence based research and feeding that research into live issues of law and policy reform both in Australia and overseas. We've presented a few times to the UK Parliament, both to various committees and to individual members.

Archival Tape – House of Commons Speaker:

“Thank you, Madeline Gleeson…”

Archival Tape –Madeline Gleeson:

“In terms of a key message, there are many very serious legal and humanitarian concerns with what is called the Australian model for offshore processing and I am very happy to take the committee to those, but the main point to make is that this does not work.”

MADELINE:

One of the key messages was that offshore processing is not what certain former Australian government ministers might claim it to be.

Archival Tape –Madeline Gleeson:

“It did not work in Australia, it was introduced with the goal of trying to deter people from seeking asylum in Australia by boat, but in fact in the first 12 months of the policy we saw more people arrive in Australia by boat than any other time in history or since.”

MADELINE:

So it has been held out internationally as a model of an effective deterrent strategy. That is, it's a policy which governments can introduce, which will effectively stop the number of people trying to reach their territory, for example, by boats. But that's not the reality of what we saw in Australia. And if you really look at the data, the Government's own data, it shows that in the first 12 months of offshore processing, more people arrived in Australia by boat seeking asylum than at any other recorded time. So it clearly was not an effective deterrent yet that is how it has been, I guess, sold to the rest of the world. Another key message that we delivered to the UK Parliament was a caution against this unwavering commitment to deterrence and control as the primary goals rather than migration management.

Archival Tape –Madeline Gleeson:

“To give a bit of an indication… In 2016, UNHCR medical experts found that the cumulative rates of depression, anxiety and PTSD amongst the refugees in both places were the highest recorded in the medical literature to date, with over 80% in both locations. Still, the policy continued.”

MADELINE:

So it was really emphasising that point that if you are going to take the deterrent angle, you need to be willing to expose vulnerable people to treatment worse than that which they are fleeing. So if somebody is fleeing persecution, fear of death, fear of torture, if you're really going to deter them from trying to reach safety in your territory, you need to be promising them something even worse than that. And that's a dangerous road to start down.

ANGE:

And Madeleine, reflecting on what the UK is doing, it appears that the UK has introduced these new laws largely based on what we have done here in Australia. How responsible is Australia, do you think, for what's happening now in the UK? Is our legacy that we open the door for other countries to treat people this way?

MADELINE:

Well, Australia didn't invent cruelty to refugees and if we look around the world at the moment, unfortunately there's no shortage of bad practices and even more unhelpful and divisive rhetoric. But what Australia did do was show how you could get away with policies which for most states previously would have been unthinkable. And the way that we were able to get away with that is because, unlike most other democratic nations, we don't have any binding human rights framework. So we've signed on to all of the major international conventions and human rights treaties, and we take the credit that comes with being a responsible citizen within the international rules based system, but we haven't transposed them into domestic law. By contrast, most other liberal democracies do have bills or charters of rights, human rights acts, even human rights instruments and courts at the regional level, all of which constrain their conduct. And so the ability of a country like the UK to implement this kind of policy is constrained by directly by things like the prohibition on torture, restrictions on arbitrary detention, the prohibition on cruel, inhuman degrading treatment or punishment. And these limits may well put the brakes on much of what the UK is proposing at the moment. One of the key learnings from the Australian context and certainly what we're seeing now with it being picked up in the UK is the importance of questioning whether there is any evidence that a particular policy will in fact address the challenges of.. that both displaced people and states are experiencing. Or is it just a political game? Because demonising and politicising refugees is a tried and true political strategy to win votes. But with more people displaced than ever before and new rising threats from climate change and other avenues. We're really overdue for a recalibration towards policies which are effective, sustainable, lawful and humane rather than just seeking cruelty for political gain.

ANGE:

Madeline, thanks so much for your time today.

MADELINE:

Thank you very much.

[Theme music starts]

ANGE:

Also in the news today

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is promising a 200 million dollar investment in women's sport, following the history-making performance of the Matildas in the FIFA women's World cup. The Play Our Way grants program, specifically for women and girls, will be offered from next year.

And…

The state of Victoria will be forced to pay 380 million dollars in compensation, after cancelling plans to host the 2026 Commonwealth Games. The Andrews government reached a financial settlement with the Commonwealth Games bodies, saying it was the best outcome with all parties now on the same page.

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ange McCormack - we’ll be back again tomorrow.

[Theme music ends]