The Very Australian Politics of Sick Refugees

As a result of two by-election loses late last year, Australia’s conservative government has been operating in minority. This has left the government relying on the votes of smaller parties or independant members of parliament (MPs) to pass any legislation that the Labor Party opposes. While the government has gained assurances from these MPs (known as “crossbenchers” in the Australian political lexicon) that they will allow the government to serve its full term (until late May), this, however, hasn’t prevented them from using the current numbers to their advantage.

The new numbers in the House of Representatives offered an opportunity to test the government’s excessively harsh treatment of asylum seekers and refugees detained on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea and on Nauru. Due to Australia’s refusal to allow anyone seeking asylum via boat to gain residency in Australia, these offshore processing facilities have become permanent centers for holding asylum seekers and refugees. Unless they choose to return to the countries from which they had fled, these people are essentially stuck. However, those among the asylum seekers and refugees in detention that require medical assistance face great difficulties due to the isolated nature of the islands and the limited medical capabilities of PNG and Nauru.

In light of this issue, independent MP (and doctor by trade) Kerryn Phelps, who won a by-election in October after the resignation from parliament of former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, introduced legislation that would allow detainees to be transferred to Australia if their medical conditions were unable to be treated on Manus Island or Nauru. Since 2010 there have been 12 deaths on the islands due to inadequate medical care. With the support of Labor, the Greens, and the other independents, the legislation was passed.

The legislation sets out new conditions under which people with illnesses on Nauru and Manus Island could be transferred to Australia for treatment. If two doctors assess that a patient requires treatment that is unable to be administered in their current location, then a transfer can be recommended to the Minister of Home Affairs. However, the minister maintains the right to refuse the transfer if they believe that the person poses a security threat, or if the transferee has a substantial criminal record and could be deemed likely to offend while in Australia. 

However, if the minister refuses to transfer because they disagree with the medical assessment then an independent medical panel is able to override the minister. The new procedures only apply to those asylum seekers and refugees currently on Nauru and Manus Island, not any new detainees. There are around 1,000 people currently being held between the two locations.

However, due to the transnational nature of Australia’s approach to asylum seekers, those in need of specialist medical treatment in Australia have a second tier of scrutiny to negotiate. In response to the new legislation passed by Australia, the Nauru cabinet approved a change to its own laws that would force all medical transfers to be approved by the country’s health minister. The new Nauruan law bans transfers where a patient seeks medical assessment from a doctor not currently on Nauru. This would prevent a consultation taking place via video link (something that is increasingly common for people in remote areas).

Nauru’s finances remaining wedded to the money it receives from Australia for hosting the detention center (around 20 percent of its GDP). These funds are provided per detainee, therefore incentivizing Nauru to keep detainees on the island. Any new provision that Nauru thinks will undermine the continued existence of the center on their territory is therefore viewed as an existential threat. It is an added layer of complexity and absurdity for refugees and asylum seekers on Nauru.

For the Australian government, however, the legislative defeat seems to have invigorated them. It has provided the Liberal Party with the opportunity to act as the oppositional force that it is more comfortable with being. It is using these minor changes to claim that the Labor Party will be responsible for the insecurity of Australia’s borders, despite the fact that the changes do nothing to undermine the policy of using the navy to turn back toward Indonesia any boats of asylum seekers entering Australian waters. But the Liberal Party sees an opportunity to use this legislation as an election tactic leading into the polls in May, hoping that it can scare the public into believing that a handful of sick refugees have the capability to erode Australia’s sovereignty.