Australia’s treatment of refugees has long been the subject of both domestic debate and international scrutiny. From the open-arms approach toward Indochinese refugees in the 1970s to the harsh realities of offshore detention today, policies have shifted dramatically — often leaving human rights and international law in their wake. With political rhetoric intensifying and humanitarian concerns mounting, understanding the deeper implications of these shifts is more crucial than ever.
So what has been done? What is being done? What can be done to help look after desperate fellow human beings?
To unpack this complex issue, I spoke with John Minns, Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University and a longtime refugee rights advocate. In this interview, Minns traces Australia’s refugee policies from their origins to the present day, challenges persistent myths, and shares powerful stories from those directly impacted. With decades of academic insight and frontline activism, Minns offers a sobering yet compelling perspective on how Australia has arrived at this moment — and where it might go from here.
Can you share a bit about Australia’s history with refugees?
A: Australia’s approach to refugees has seen a major shift over the years. There was a time when we were more welcoming, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s when we accepted Indochinese refugees. However, the 1990s marked a turning point, especially with the introduction of mandatory detention under Paul Keating’s government in 1992. This meant that anyone who arrived without a visa, like those coming by boat, was detained behind barbed wire. Initially, there was a time limit on detention, but it was removed in 1994, leading to indefinite detention.
Another major change occurred in 2001 when a Norwegian freighter, the MV Tampa, rescued a sinking boat of asylum seekers off Australia’s coast. The boat was headed for Christmas Island, but then-Prime Minister John Howard sent SAS soldiers to stop it from docking. This sparked a political firestorm, with Howard framing the asylum seekers as a threat, even though many were fleeing the Taliban—an organisation Australia also considered a terrorist group. This incident became central to his re-election campaign, and Howard introduced the “Pacific Solution,” which sent asylum seekers to offshore detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.
Since then, refugee policy has become more politically divisive. Labor and Liberal governments have traded off on how to handle refugees. Kevin Rudd, when he became Prime Minister in 2007, initially promised to end offshore detention, but this was reversed by Julia Gillard in 2012. Then, in 2013, Rudd made another drastic change by announcing that no one arriving by boat would be resettled in Australia, regardless of whether their refugee claims were valid. This policy shift marked the continuation of harsh refugee politics that have persisted to this day.
Is it against international law to close borders to people fleeing?
A: Yes, closing borders to people fleeing persecution is a direct violation of international law, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention. This convention, which Australia signed in 1954, enshrines the right for anyone fleeing persecution to seek asylum. The core principle is that how someone arrives—whether by boat, overland, or through irregular means—should not disqualify them from seeking refuge.
This is critical because many refugees don’t have the luxury of waiting in official “queues” for resettlement. They’re fleeing for their lives and are forced to cross borders in search of safety. For example, if someone from Iran or Afghanistan tries to seek asylum in Australia, they might first end up in a neighboring country like Turkey or Pakistan, where they cannot safely stay long-term, nor do these countries offer formal resettlement programs. Closing borders to asylum seekers is not only unjust but also goes against the spirit of the international agreements designed to protect people fleeing violence and persecution.
The Refugee Convention ensures that asylum seekers are treated with dignity and respect. By closing borders, Australia not only defies this obligation but also contributes to the suffering of those who are already vulnerable. In doing so, we also undermine our standing in the global community as a responsible and compassionate nation.
What are the biggest misconceptions about refugees?
A: There are a number of misconceptions about refugees that persist in public discourse. One of the most common is the idea that refugees are linked to terrorism, a narrative often perpetuated by political rhetoric. However, no asylum seeker who has arrived in Australia has ever been convicted or even charged with a terrorism-related offence. In fact, many refugees are fleeing regimes that Australia itself condemns, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Iranian government
Another widespread misconception is the idea that refugees are “queue jumpers.” This misunderstands the asylum-seeking process entirely. Under international law, a person cannot be classified as a refugee while they are still in their home country. They must first flee and seek safety. This means that many asylum seekers end up in transit countries—such as Turkey or Pakistan—where they can’t safely remain and where no official resettlement “queue” exists. The reality is that only a small fraction of refugees are ever resettled through official channels, making the concept of a global refugee queue misleading and inaccurate.
Finally, a critical misconception involves the practice of returning refugees to the countries they fled. Known as “refoulement,” this practice is a direct violation of international law. Australia has, at times, returned refugees to countries like Sri Lanka, where Tamil asylum seekers face persecution. This not only breaches the Refugee Convention but also puts vulnerable individuals at risk of harm or even death.
How have Australia’s refugee policies impacted those affected?
A: The impact of Australia’s refugee policies on the people affected has been devastating. The mental health toll of indefinite detention is enormous. Many refugees arrive traumatized by the violence they’ve witnessed, only to face further trauma as they are locked up with no clear timeline for release.
Detention, both onshore and offshore, has led to at least 12 deaths, most commonly from suicide.
The uncertainty and isolation of indefinite detention destroy hope and make it harder for asylum seekers to rebuild their lives.
One example is the Ghashemi family from Iran, who arrived by boat in 2013, just after Australia introduced its new policy banning boat arrivals from resettling. Despite their refugee claims being found valid, they were detained on Nauru for five years. During this time, their eldest daughter, Saha, became suicidal, as did her younger sister. Eventually, the family was brought to Australia for treatment, where Saha excelled academically and was awarded a scholarship to study arts and law. However, just weeks into her studies, she was told to leave because she had turned 18, and her visa no longer allowed her to study.
These arbitrary and harsh policies have long-term psychological effects. Many young refugees, like a Tamil student I know who graduated from high school in Australia, face restrictions when they turn 18. They’re not allowed to work or study, which limits their ability to build a future here. These policies not only harm individuals but also prevent Australia from benefiting from the contributions that these refugees could make to our society.
What inspired you to get involved in refugee activism?
A: My involvement in refugee activism comes from a deep sense of empathy and a belief in justice. I can’t ignore the suffering of people fleeing violence and persecution, and I feel compelled to stand up against policies that inflict harm on them. I also believe that these harmful policies have broader consequences for Australian society. When we label refugees as undeserving, we start to normalize divisive and harmful attitudes toward other marginalized groups. For instance, if you’re willing to deny refugees safety, it becomes easier to develop harmful views about Indigenous Australians or other vulnerable populations.
On a personal level, I find activism to be an antidote to despair. In the face of global crises and constant bad news, activism provides a way to make a tangible difference. It gives me a sense of purpose and helps me feel like I’m part of the solution, not just a passive observer.
Through the Refugee Action Campaign (RAC), I’ve met incredible people who share a commitment to helping others, and that sense of community has been invaluable.
For me, this work isn’t just about fighting for refugees; it’s also about fostering a better society for all of us. The more I see the positive impact we can have when we work together, the more motivated I am to continue the fight.
What keeps you motivated when progress feels slow?
A: The most important thing that keeps me motivated is the idea that activism is an antidote to helplessness. While it’s easy to feel discouraged by the enormity of the issues at hand, activism keeps me focused on action. Every step, no matter how small, contributes to the larger movement for change. It’s rewarding to know that, even when progress feels slow, you’re still pushing toward a better future.
Building a movement is also a process of growth and learning. There are so many skills involved in organising, from media creation to understanding the logistics of running a campaign. Each new challenge—like putting up signs for a campaign—reminds me that activism is not just about speaking out; it’s about rolling up your sleeves and getting involved in the hard work.
But beyond the practical aspects, what keeps me going is the sense of community in activism. We’re all working toward a shared goal, and the diversity of perspectives within that community is enriching. Despite challenges, it’s fulfilling to be surrounded by people who share your values and are committed to making the world a better place.
Can Australia learn from other countries’ refugee policies?
A: Yes, absolutely. Countries like Canada have much more humane refugee policies. They don’t rely on mandatory detention or offshore processing.
I think the best example Australia can follow is its own history. In the past, Australia treated refugees with more compassion.
Refugees from Vietnam, for example, were given a chance to rebuild their lives in Australia. They were placed in migrant hostels, like Villawood, where they had access to language support and were allowed to start fresh without the harshness of barbed wire or indefinite detention.
Back then, refugees were treated with dignity, their children went to local schools, and they were given the tools they needed to succeed. Today, however, Australia’s refugee policies have become much more punitive and cruel. Looking back at how we treated refugees in the past shows that it’s possible to be both compassionate and secure. It’s time for Australia to return to those values and treat refugees with the respect and care they deserve.