By Charlotte Stump
In recent weeks, the Australian government’s longstanding arrangements with the Government of Nauru regarding asylum processing has garnered renewed criticism and media attention (see here and here). The current debate is focused on the 2025 arrangement to resettle refugees and people with international protection needs who were released from indefinite immigration detention in 2023 to Nauru. This blog post aims to situate the recent developments within Australia’s long history of externalising its international protection obligations to asylum seekers and refugees. Externalisation refers to the government’s practice of denying asylum seekers access to the territory or removing asylum seekers from the territory to a third state. This practice has been employed by successive governments in Australia, from both major parties, purporting to curb people smuggling. These arrangements hold clear consequences for the individuals affected, Australia’s international human rights obligations, and its regional relations.
The ‘Pacific Solution’
Following the Tampa Affair in 2001, the Australian government entered into an agreement with Nauru, and subsequently with Papua New Guinea, establishing the ‘Pacific Solution’. Henceforth, asylum seekers who arrived by boat would be transferred to Nauru and Papua New Guinea to be processed. The ‘Pacific Solution’ was suspended in 2008 but resumed in August 2012. Between August 2012 and 18 July 2013, approximately 950 people were transferred to Nauru and Manus Island, and subsequently brought back to Australia after 19 July 2013. People in this cohort were subject to ‘fast track’ processing.
Since 19 July 2013, the Australian government has maintained that unauthorised maritime arrivals will never settle in Australia, despite the right to seek asylum being a cornerstone of international law. Australia’s externalisation regime of ‘offshore detention’ has seen approximately 3,460 asylum seekers sent to regional processing centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru since 19 July 2013, costing the government approximately $12.1 billion dollars since 2013. At its height in 2017-2018, the government spent $1.5 billion Australian dollars on offshore detention.
In 2019, the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court declared the practice unconstitutional and ordered the Australian and Papua New Guinean governments to end the illegal detention of refugees. The regional processing centre in Papua New Guinea was subsequently closed. Nauru continues to process the claims of asylum seekers transferred by Australia. As at 30 September 2025, 91 people were on Nauru, and 163 people had been transferred to Nauru for regional processing since May 2022. Many of the recognised refugees in Papua New Guinea and Nauru have been resettled under bilateral arrangements between the governments of Australia, the United States of America, and New Zealand, or by private sponsorship to Canada under ‘Operation Not Forgotten’. UN Bodies and Committees have repeatedly expressed concern that offshore processing violates international law (see UNHCR observations and UN Human Rights Committee ruling in January 2025). Human Rights Watch and ‘The Nauru Files’ published by The Guardian also allege that refugees have faced torture and other ill-treatment, as well as arbitrary detention. Offshore processing has also faced a series of legal challenges domestically, largely involving questions of constitutional law.
Arrangements with Southeast Asian states
In addition to the ‘Pacific Solution’, the Australian government has attempted to externalise its protection obligations to Malaysia and Cambodia. The 2011 arrangement with Malaysia, a country which is not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor the 1967 Protocol, provided that 800 asylum seekers who had arrived in Australia by boat would be transferred to Malaysia to have their protection claims assessed, and Australia would resettle 1000 recognised refugees from Malaysia per year for up to four years. Australia’s High Court declared the designation of Malaysia as a ‘third country’ for the removal of asylum seekers unlawful, effectively quashing the viability of the agreement. In 2010, the Australian government also attempted to negotiate a deal with East Timor. However, East Timor’s parliament rejected it.
In September 2014, the Australian government entered into a deal with Cambodia to resettle refugees from Nauru who had been sent there under the offshore processing policy. Cambodia has a history of poor treatment of refugees and refoulement. Under the deal, Australia agreed to pay Cambodia $55 million Australian dollars, in a combination of settlement support and development efforts, to resettle refugees from Nauru who voluntarily accepted to be relocated. Only 7 refugees were relocated to Cambodia.
The latest iteration of externalisation
On 28 November 2024, the Australian government passed a series of bills that further undermine Australia’s commitment to refugee protection. These bills come in the context of a battle between the High Court of Australia and the Executive regarding the legality of indefinite immigration detention.
On 29 November 2023, the High Court of Australia ruled that it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the Australian government to detain people in immigration detention when there is no real prospect of them being deported in the foreseeable future (the NZYQ decision). The legal challenge originated from a stateless Rohingya man whose visa had been denied on character grounds. However, he was determined to be in need of international protection and therefore he could not be removed and was placed in immigration detention. In response to the NZYQ decision, the government passed new laws in November 2024 which authorise the deportation of the non-citizens whose visas have been cancelled or denied, but cannot be returned to their country of origin, to unspecified third countries. The majority of this cohort have been convicted of serious crimes and served in prison before being transferred to immigration detention. The first agreement was announced in February 2025 with the Government of Nauru agreeing to resettle members of the so-called NZYQ cohort on long-term visas. In August 2025, the two governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding to resettle approximately 280 people. The Australian government paid $408 million upfront to Nauru, with an annual payment of $70 million over thirty years. The arrangement is forecast to cost Australia a total of $2.5 billion. In August 2025, the government also passed further laws which removed the government’s duty to give a person notice, and an opportunity to respond, when deciding to deport them to a third country, effectively denying their right to procedural fairness. NGOs and refugee advocates have repeatedly raised serious concerns about the potential for refugees deported to Nauru to face chain refoulement, detention in third countries, and the risks to family unity. The legal implications of the NZYQ decision and the subsequent deportation arrangement have been analysed extensively (see here and here).
The impact on Australia’s human rights record and its regional relationships
Australia’s 2025 arrangement with Nauru signifies a harmful and concerning turn in Australia’s history of externalisation. The traditional policy of offshore processing purported to act as a deterrent for asylum seekers engaging people smuggling services to attempt to reach Australia (despite evidence to the contrary). In contrast, Australia’s deportation regime of the so-called NZYQ cohort amounts to a policy of exiling people with international protection needs who are deemed ‘undesirable’, many of whom have lived in Australia for decades and have partners and children who are Australian citizens. Australia’s asylum policies must balance important domestic concerns, including security considerations, with its international obligations, particularly the principle of non-refoulement and protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Some academics have argued that Australia’s externalisation policies and third-country arrangements are evidence of neo-colonial attitudes to its Pacific neighbours (see here and here). Australian politician, Senator David Shoebridge, accused the government of ‘forcing our smaller neighbours to become 21st century prison colonies’. Australia’s externalisation policies are not only contrary to fundamental rules of international law, but they also shed light on political and moral failings in terms of how the country views people with international protection needs as well as its Pacific neighbours. Australia’s long history of externalisation and its associated harm must end.
Charlotte Stump is a PhD researcher at the University of New South Wales Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. Her research focuses on Pacific regional approaches to climate mobility. She has several years of experience working on asylum policy and refugee protection in the Pacific region at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Charlotte holds a Masters of Law (International Law) from the University of Edinburgh, and a Bachelor of Laws (First Class Honours) and Bachelor of Arts (History and French) from the Australian National University.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.