mainly security firms. Before moving onto discuss the case of Australia and Nauru the general
problem with holding large corporations to account will be.
Australia and Nauru: Creating the ‘State of Exception’
The processing centre was created following the fallout from the infamous Tampa incident in
2001 which spawned the policy known as the ‘Pacific Solution.’ The policy was created by 3
pieces of legislation. Firstly, the Border Protection (Validation and enforcement powers) act of
2001 validated the controversial actions of the Australian Special forces on-board the Tampa
and enacting new border protection powers such as those of interdiction. Secondly, the
Migration Amendment (excision from the migration zone) Act 2001 excised areas such as the
Christmas Islands and Ashmore Cartier Islands, as well as define any refugee entering from
those excised areas to be an ‘unlawful non-citizen.’ This act was designed to deny maritime
refugees or ‘boatpeople’ access to the appeals process, usually made available to asylum
seekers who file claims from inside the Australia migration zone. Here, asylum seekers who
were not granted asylum would have no chance to appeal. The third and final piece of
legislation is the Migration Amendment (Excision from the Migration Zone) (Consequential
Provision) Act 2001 which allowed officers to detain unlawful non-citizens within Australia or
the migration zone.
From this, the legislative changes created a geographical zone of exception, a space
“outside the norms of the law” in this case, Australian and international refugee law. 17 This
‘zone’ is justified due to the combination of a “populist demand for protection” 18 from an
invading force and “powerful nationalist discourse” which moved the immigration debate post-
Tampa, away from one of protecting refugees and became a debate regarding sovereignty
and the responsibility to protect Australia’s borders. 19 Now the reduction of the refugees rights
are justified due to the need to protect the population during a time of emergency, which again
becomes permanent and becomes the normal rule, not the exception. Within this zone the
refugees are taken out of the state where they seek protection and placed into a ‘zone of
indistinction.’ Subsequently, their futures rest entirely in the hands of the sovereign, who in the
case of Nauru, decide to subject them to harsh conditions and treatment in order to deter
future arrivals. This physical creation is supported by the establi