Australia’s Extraterritorial Border Control Policies 63 There is no doubt that the current policy of offshore processing and prolonged detention is immensely harmful . . .. Despite efforts by the Governments of Papua New Guinea and Nauru, arrangements in both countries have proved completely untenable.41 In 2016, the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court held in Namah v. Pato that detention of refugees and asylum seekers was unconstitutional under the right to liberty set out in the Papua New Guinean Constitution. The Court ordered both the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments to “take all steps necessary to cease and prevent the continued unconstitutional and illegal detention of the asylum seekers or transferees . . . on Manus Island.”42 The detention center on Manus Island has now closed but there is little certainty regarding the fate of the refugees there as their resettlement appears untenable. A number of refugees have required medical attention following assaults from members of the local population after being released into the community, and there are deep concerns regarding the safety of the men transferred to Manus Island by Australia.43 The men are vulnerable because of the animosity felt by some members of the local community toward them. As Grewcock explains, “the tensions between sections of the local Manus Island community and the detainees are rooted in the socio-economic impacts of locating the centre in one of the poorer regions of PNG.”44 Human rights groups also report that refugees have been attacked on a daily basis in Nauru after being released into the Nauruan community.45 Australia has paid a high cost for its extraterritorial status determination and detention regime for asylum seekers and refugees. In financial terms, the operation of detention facilities in Nauru and Manus Island cost Australia nearly $5 billion between 2012 and 2017.46 The extraterritorial regime has also been highly damaging to Australia’s international reputation with a negative impact on its diplomacy and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “UNHCR Calls for Immediate Movement of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers to Humane Conditions,” May 2, 2016, www.unhcr.org/en-au/ 572862016.pdf#zoom=95. 42 Namah v. Pato, Papua New Guinea Supreme Court (2016), 8 } 17. 43 A. Dastyari and M. O’Sullivan, “Not for Export: The Failure of Australia’s Extraterritorial Processing Regime in Papua New Guinea and the Decision of the PNG Supreme Court in Namah (2016)” (2016) 42 Monash University Law Review 308–338 at 308. 44 M. Grewcock, “‘Our Lives Is in Danger’: Manus Island and the End of Asylum” (2017) 59(2) Race & Class at 78, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396817717860. 45 See “Claims Probed of Brutal Conditions for Refugees on Island of Nauru,” NPR, August 11, 2016, www.npr.org/2016/08/11/489584342/claims-probed-of-brutal-conditions-for-refugees-onisland-of-nauru. See also M. G. Bochenek, “Australia: Appalling Abuse, Neglect of Refugees on Nauru,” Human Rights Watch, August 2, 2016, www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/02/australiaappalling-abuse-neglect-refugees-nauru. 46 R. Strating, “Enabling Authoritarianism in the Indo-Pacific: Australian Exemptionalism” (2020) 74(3) Australian Journal of International Affairs 301–321, https://doi.org/10.1080/103577 18.2020.1744516. 41 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914994 Published online by Cambridge University Press