And so it came to pass

And so it came to pass that truth persisted, hope survived and…

Election 2022: Prospects for a New Multidimensional Era?

By Denis Bright Election 2022 is more than a Labor victory. It opens…

The Great Teal Tsunami: Arise Australia’s Independents

Rarely in Australian history has a governing party suffered such loss in…

The day after, and the days ahead

A few matters to say the day after the 2022 Federal Election. Firstly,…

A New Start: The 2022 Election

Prologue: The Result It is done. The former regime under which we have…

Australian Disinformation Wonderland: The Federal Election 2022

All elections are filled with the half-truths, mistruths and full-fledged lies. Victory…

Fly against the wind with me when you…

What comes around once every three years and leaves us washed up…

All that remains is for you to cast…

An emboldened Scott Morrison would be a disaster for Australia. A vote…

«
»
Facebook

Nauru: What do bird poop, the Russian Mafia and Australia’s refugee policy have in common?

Nauru was described by The Economist in 2001 as a hotbed of incompetence – as “Paradise Lost … an enormous moth-eaten fedora: a ghastly grey mound of rock surrounded by a narrow green brim of vegetation“.

That same year, Nauru became a cornerstone of one of the LNP’s favourite policies – their refugee policy. In the heady days of the Abbott PMship, barely a day went by when Abbott didn’t boast about stopping the boats. Even in his post-PMship days, Abbott is still annoying people all over the world with his stop the boats mantra. And our shiny new PM – Malcolm Turnbull – has picked up a similar, but predictably longer refrain about his party’s refugee policy:

The one thing that we know is that our [refugee] policies, tough though they are, harsh though they are in many respects, actually do work. They save lives.
(Malcolm Turnbull, 1 October 2015)

One country’s political hot potato is another country’s lottery win

Crucial to our government’s refugee policy – at least so they would have us believe – is the promise that no asylum seeker who arrives here by boat will be settled in Australia. To achieve this, they have renewed and reinvigorated deals with Nauru and PNG (Manus Island) that were first struck by both the previous Liberal and Labor governments.

Rather than considering this to be a hardship, Australia’s political hot potato has been a veritable lottery win for Nauru and PNG. Both have received a substantial increase in foreign aid from Australia as well as a brand new ‘Asylum Seeker processing’ industry to provide jobs and inject hundreds of millions of dollars into their economies.

But who exactly are we financing here? We’ve taken money (and jobs) out of the Australian economy so that we can send victims of war, terrorism and persecution to these islands. So surely, with the well-being and lives of asylum seekers at stake and with billions of Australian taxpayer dollars being poured into sending asylum seekers offshore, we would want to ensure that we are comfortable with the regimes we are throwing our considerable financial weight behind.

Further, as one of the other regularly promoted goals of the LNP’s refugee policy is to stop the “evil trade” of people smuggling, we would certainly want to ensure that any country we are dealing with is above board, and that we are not directly or indirectly supporting any illegal activities through our investment in their economies.

So let’s take a look at Nauru – the Economist’s ‘Paradise Lost’.

Nauru: not so much paradise lost as paradise spent

Here’s some things you need to know about Nauru:

  • Nauru has the second smallest population in the world
    Nauru is a sovereign state – a single island with around 10,500 inhabitants. It is the second smallest country (population wise) in the world – with only the Vatican City in Rome being smaller.
  • NauruSigns Nauru is a speck in the ocean, just below the equator
    Nauru is only 21 square kilometers – around the size of an average university campus in Sydney or Melbourne. But thanks to mining, around 70% to 80% of the island is now an environmental wasteland – leaving inhabitants with around 5 to 7 square kilometers of inhabitable space. In fact, Nauru is so small, that it doesn’t even have a capital city.
  • Nauru has almost no arable land and no in-ground water supplies – but it does have a golf-course
    Having given up most of its land to mining, Nauru has very little room for agriculture and as a result imports most of its food (much of it from Australia). There are no clean in-ground water supplies, so all clean water is sourced from rainwater or imported. Despite this shortage of arable land and water, Nauru has still found room for a golf-course.
  • In the 70s and 80s Nauru was THE wealthiest country (on a per capita basis) in the world
    In the 1970s and 1980s, thanks to the proceeds of phosphate mining (derived from bird poop) – Nauruans had the highest income per capita in the world. Knowing that the bird poop would run out at some stage, the Nauruan government did set aside income from the phosphate mines for the future. But it also started spending up big time. For example, it set up a national airline of seven aircraft which were often empty and ran at a huge loss. Further, it created ‘jobs’ in the public service for most of the population. At one stage the government employed some 95% of the island’s laborforce.
  • By the early 90s, most of Nauru’s mining wealth was gone
    Once the phosphate started to run out, the income started to dry up. The Nauru government also made some poor investment decisions with the money they had saved from the phosphate boom – which meant that by 1993 the Government teetered on the edge of insolvency. The 1.8 billion the government had set aside was somehow all but gone.
  • So Nauru became a money laundering centre drawing in the likes of the Russian mafia
    On an island that small, there weren’t too many money-making options left once the phosphate supplies had dwindled to a trickle and the bulk of the land was left stripped of vegetation. So some bright-spark came up with the idea of allowing foreigners to set up their own offshore bank in Nauru online. When you combine the ability to set up your own bank with laws that provide strict secrecy for any banking transactions done in Nauru – and they had created the perfect environment for money laundering. In 1998 alone, the Russian mafia is said to have laundered $70 billion through Nauru.
  • Throw in selling passports to foreign nationals (including at least a few to Al Qaeda) and Nauru was starting to look shadier than a palm tree
    To further supplement the country’s income, the Nauruan government also set up a passport-dispensing operation whereby it would sell passports to anyone who had the money. This included selling much-coveted diplomatic passports – which confer all sorts of legal immunity to the passport holder.
  • This soon bought severe international sanctions
    Not surprisingly, it wasn’t long before Nauru’s money-laundering and passport-dispensing boom brought international condemnation. This was soon followed by sanctions – harsher than those against Iraq – which eventually forced Nauru to do something about its latest money-making schemes.
  • As a result, the unemployment rate in Nauru has been as high as 90% this century
    During the mining and money laundering booms, the Nauruan government continued ‘redistributing’ much of its wealth through government ‘jobs’. Once the government had limited income from these sources, the jobs dried up, leaving unemployment as high as 90%. While employment has picked up a bit lately, that is primarily due to Nauru hosting our Asylum Seeker Processing centre which generates 600 direct jobs and many ancillary ones. Other than that, the key sources of non-government employment are a few jobs in what remains of the Nauru Phosphate mines and a few in fishing.

Nauru finds a new money supply….

Back to 2001, and with its two major income sources under threat, Nauru was in a perilous position. It had even started discussing buying another island and starting all over again. But in the words of the Economist:

“Who in his right mind would let the Nauruans get their hands on another island?”

Luckily for Nauru, at the same time as they were looking for either a new island or a new source of income, the Liberal government of Australia was looking for a way to solve its politically charged refugee situation. Phillip Ruddock – then Immigration Minister of Australia – was in charge of implementing the LNP’s “Pacific Solution”, and offered Nauru a much needed lifeline: a new industry to bring employment and income to the island nation, along with an agreement to substantially increase Australia’s Foreign Aid to Nauru.

Back in 2001, Nauru’s role was simply to play temporary host to asylum seekers while their claims for refuge were being assessed. Once assessed, if asylum seekers were determined to be legitimate refugees they were then moved elsewhere – to Australia, New Zealand and various other countries.

It was just prior to the 2013 federal election that then Prime Minister Keven Rudd signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Nauru to extend their role in Australia’s refugee policy to one where they would also allow refugees to settle in Nauru, rather than just staying there temporarily. Two weeks later, when Abbott took the reins of government, he and Scott Morrison endorsed and continued the arrangements that had been made.

Australia: Nauru’s Sugar Daddy

A key part of our initial agreement with Nauru back in 2001 was to increase the amount of foreign aid we sent there from around $3.5 million per year in 2000 and 2001, to an average of around $27 million per year since then. This equates to around $2700 per Nauruan citizen per year. As a result, Nauru now receives aid at one of the highest rates per capita in the world.

And that’s just our foreign aid budget. We also spend an extraordinary amount of money on running the asylum seeker detention centre on Nauru. In the 3 months from July 2015 to September 2015, our government spent 93.26 million dollars to look after 653 asylum seekers on Nauru. This is $143,000 per asylum seeker for the quarter – the equivalent of $572,000 per year. That’s just for operating the asylum seeker centre – meals, water, staff etc.

With that sort of price-tag, you’d be forgiven for thinking that asylum seekers are living in five-star beach-side accommodation on Nauru, each with their own private chef and butler.

Not so much. The $143,000 fee that we – the Australian tax payer – paid last quarter for every asylum seeker on Nauru covered them sleeping on a stretcher in “mouldy tents full of cockroaches and rodents“.

(Now, to avoid confusion, I should point out that not all money for running the asylum seeker centre is going to the people of Nauru. The centre is actually operated by Transfield who clearly have a very large snout in the seemingly endless pool that is the asylum seeker funding trough.)

And that’s not the end of the money that continues to flow out of the Australian taxpayer’s coffers to keep our government’s refugee policy firmly in place. Here are some other examples of money spent by our government on keeping refugees out of Australia and on Nauru:

The world’s most expensive refugee policy?

It’s pretty clear that the government’s refugee policies cost Australians a fortune – over a billion dollars in 2014 for just over 2,000 refugees on both Nauru and Manus Island.

By way of contrast, the UNHCR spent $157 million (around 16% of that) over the same period to look after 200,000 refugees, half a million internally displaced people and nearly 1.4 million stateless people.

Allegations of corruption in Nauru

It’s hardly surprising that allegations of corruption are to be found on an island that provided money-laundering services to the Russian mafia and purportedly sold passports to Al Qaeda operatives. According to Tony Thomas, “anti-corruption drives are often announced and never successful, partly because among any five Nauruans, two are relatives.”

Most recently, New Zealand cut aid to Nauru due to human rights abuses and problems with the Nauruan judicial system (which saw several senior members of the judiciary removed).

There have been other accusations of corruption this year. The Nauru government has attempted to silence local dissent – recently shutting down access to social media from the island and suspending members of the opposition from parliament without pay.

Further, other than hand-picked state-friendly media, the Nauruan government has blocked many media outlets from visiting their island. In the words of Meghna Abraham, Deputy Director for Global Thematic Issues at Amnesty International:

“Whatever Nauru is trying to hide, it can’t be good if the authorities are so desperate to block all international media from visiting or reporting from the island”

So back to my original question…

Question: What do bird poop, the Russian Mafia and Australia’s refugee policy have in common?

Answer: Nauru has managed to make money from all of them.

But here’s the thing – there are plenty more questions that we, the Australian people, really need answers to about Nauru. Here’s a few key ones:

  • If one of the key goals of our Refugee Policy is to reduce criminal activity such as people smuggling in the region, then why on earth did we make a deal with Nauru back in 2001? There was no doubt at all at that stage that Nauru was facilitating money laundering and selling passports to foreign nationals – including to Al Qaeda. And even if we made a mistake back then, why do we continue to prop up their regime today when there are so many stories around about government corruption?
  • How could anyone in this ‘entitlement-free’ age think that spending between $400,000 and $600,000 per asylum seeker per year is a reasonable cost when the UN does it for less than $800 per year. Yes, that is the cost differential – I haven’t forgotten any zeros. The UN looks after 200,000 refugees in SE Asia for less than what it costs us to look after 4 refugees on Nauru. And who exactly is getting all of this money? It’s clearly not all being spent on accommodation or food – so whose pockets are really being lined?
  • Why would anyone select an island in the middle of nowhere with less than 10 kms of inhabitable land and a history of unemployment at 90% as a viable solution for resettling a group of refugees? Who exactly would choose an island that even the locals have considered deserting because they are doubtful that it will be able to sustain them? What could be the justification for deciding to increase Nauru’s population by close to ten percent through the resettlement of refugees? And while the government is now looking at alternatives to move some of these refugees – how is $50 million to move four of them to Cambodia any more palatable?

There are also plenty of unanswered questions around human rights abuses and the refusal of Nauru to allow any press other than a hand-picked Murdoch journalist onto the island. However since these questions are being covered extensively elsewhere, I haven’t covered them here.

Nauru: Really?

I find it impossible to look at the image of this tiny little rock in the middle of the Pacific ocean – so crucial to our government’s refugee policy – and not wonder if there is a single non-political reason for continuing our arrangements there.

To me Nauru seems like a ridiculously expensive political solution that has seen victims of war, terrorism and persecution who, having escaped hellholes in their country of birth in order to find a safe place to put their feet, end up in a location referred to by the BBC as Australia’s Guantanamo. Instead of safety, they have ended up on an island where they sleep in moldy tents and are unable to protect themselves and their children from being sexually abused. It’s no wonder Australian officials have been able to convince Syrian refugees to return to Syria – despite the war there continuing to worsen.

Further, at the end of the day it’s arguable that we aren’t doing Nauru any real favours. They clearly had more than enough of their own problems before we came along. With an economy that is probably unsustainable without the Asylum Seeker industry and with the prospect of climate change seeing many of the inhabitable parts of the island going underwater, it’s difficult to see how the island has a future. The Asylum Seeker industry – and the accompanying foreign aid – has propped Nauru up temporarily and stalled them having to face the realities of how they make a future for themselves once the Asylum Seeker Industry is gone.

It doesn’t matter which way you look at it, this government’s refugee policies are an abject expensive failure. They have stayed in place and avoided scrutiny for so long by fanning the flames of bigotry which lie in many corners of Australia, by mixing up the issue of refugees with border security, by hiding behind spurious ‘saving lives’ claims and through the self-righteous (and erroneous) proclamations of having stopped people smuggling.

One day history is going to look back on Australia’s current refugee policies in the clear light of day with horror, disbelief and shame.

This article was first published on Progressive Conversation.

 

 39 total views,  3 views today

41 comments

Login here Register here
  1. philgorman2014

    And all this is backed by the mainstream media and supported by at least half the population. Wicked, stupid, ignorant, devious, cruel and corrupt as they are we still keep voting for the two major parties as though there were no other choices. Why do so many otherwise intelligent and caring people allow themselves to be gulled by the parcel of corporatist rogues running “developed” nations?

  2. Kate M

    Exactly Phil. Exactly.

  3. mars08

    @philgorman2014…. you said it all…

  4. guest

    This is a very comprehensive explanation of the role of Nauru in thrall to colonizers. Naomi Klein, in her book ‘This Changes Everything’ (2014) summarises the situation in a few pages (161-169) and even more briefly:”…Nauru isn’t the only place digging itself to death: we all are.” (p.168)

  5. kerri

    Remember those nonsense quotes from Joe Hockey about how much every man woman and child pays to support those on welfare? I am no mathematician but can anyone do a similar calculation for how much every taxpayer pays per year to keep asylum seekers in detention and to rehome them in places like Cambodia?

  6. Kate M

    Kaye – wow!! I think I’d like one of them 🙂

    It beggars belief what we could do with the money if we stopped demonising asylum seekers and started thinking about real solutions which would benefit from them and us.

  7. Kate M

    Kerri – it would be a sum worth doing, but the numbers would be difficult to come by as they are scattered all over the place. It isn’t just in one spot – that’s why I pulled out some examples. But it would be good to do both direct costs plus an estimate of the opportunity cost and lost costs of how much more benefit it would have been to us to have done this onshore and invested the money in the Australian economy. If you add to that the fact that our economy is declining because of slow population growth, and the value that refugees typically bring in the skills they can offer – and the real cost to Australia is huge.

  8. Florence nee Fedup

    There must be a huge danger that many we are ill treating sending back to danger, will become radicalise as they say, joining the forces they are now fleeing

    The govt is refusing to support what they allege are unviable towns within the indigenous community, while supporting a unviable community on a island in the middle of the ocean.

    There doesn’t appear to be a apparent answer.

  9. Florence nee Fedup

    I heard Dutton claim once again, we are taking in refugees in numbers never seen before

    I question his numbers. I am old enough to still remeber post war migrant intake. The numbers were great They change our culture in a way, that many today would recognise the Australia that existed in the 1950’s. Changed for the better.

    In spite of our white Australian policy, something that we should hold our head in shame, we took in over short period of time, tens thousands from Vietnam and surrounding countries. Yes, once again our culture, way of life changed, changed for the better.

    Then there was the six day war and other disasters in the middle east, once again another influx migrants.

    Dutton, I say is wrong What is happening now, is ongoing welcoming migrants that lead to this country becoming stronger, not weaker.

    They merge quickly into our society They add to its rich heritage.

    History shows we have nothing to fear from welcoming refugees of all colours and cultures.

  10. Florence nee Fedup

    We have on those Islands highly educated people with skills we can use. What a waste.

  11. Brad

    This is what happens when the extreme right in our community are allowed a bit of traction. Their bile spreads and infects like a virus. Now that the arse of the virus has been given a good kicking (although he’s still in his death throws) it’s just a matter of time before the community gets on top of the illness. Then we can look forward to spending our billions on something productive.

  12. Kate M

    Florence – it is indeed a waste, particularly when we know that our economy is suffering from low population growth. And there is a part of me that wonders whether the fear that surrounds our refugee policy isn’t a flashback to the White Australia Policy. It’s only been gone for forty years – and that’s not all that long in a nation’s psyche.

  13. Kate M

    Brad – I hope you are right, that we do some traction on the community getting on top of the illness.

  14. kerri

    I was kind of hoping someone good with research and stats (cough Kaye Lee) might pick up on that comment Kate M? And like you I think of the huge amounts of dollars wasted by this gang of clowns all in the name of keeping their own jobs?
    FlorenceneeFedup excellent point!!! And also were we to introduce these refugees into the community and assist them in developing skills and Education they would be all the better armed to return home (as I am certain they want to) and rebuild their communities?

  15. Kyran

    So many valid and pertinent points in your article (and the comments). As only 20-30% of the island is habitable and it is not anywhere near self sufficient, shouldn’t we bring them all over here? The notion that Nauruan’s will one day be refugee’s themselves is one I regard as a ‘when’, not ‘if’, proposition.
    The very definition of ‘refugee’ has been a lawyer’s picnic for a long time now. The broader definition, “a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster” has been dissected and bastardised for political gain, rather than moral obligation.
    The Kiribati family seeking asylum in New Zealand due to climate change, as far as I know, was the first precedent, which has been followed internationally. They have recently lost the battle and been deported, having endured years of legal shenanigans from a morally bankrupt New Zealand government.
    The rising prospect of climate change refugee’s has been the subject of much study and estimates are the numbers will be in the millions within the next decade or so. But we have yet to give them ‘legal’ definition.
    Another thought pertains to ‘Abyan’ and ‘Nazanin’, two women who were raped on Nauru and Manus, respectively, whilst in the custody of the Australian government. They are no longer refugee’s from Somalia or Iran. They are now refugee’s from Nauru and Manus. Surely, rape is one of the most vile of persecutions? There is no prospect the respective governments of those islands can even vaguely guarantee these women won’t be facing their attackers on a daily basis. Attackers afforded the protection of authorities on those islands.
    Whilst the monetary cost of supporting these regimes is obscene, the moral cost of ignoring their plight is incalculable. The moral currency is one paid by a nation’s character. The Australian character. Debased and devalued by the barbaric acts of our government.
    Thank you, Kate M. This conversation must be continued. Take care

  16. Backyard Bob

    I tweeted this article to Chris Kenny. Oddly I didn’t get any kind of reply.

  17. Chris Blaikie

    I’m sure it would have been to much information for him, BackyardBob.
    It’s a shame more people don’t know how badly Australia behaves in the world.

  18. Chris Blaikie

    PS. I was the guy who posted that Economist article in the Guardian (multiple times – some got deleted). Disgusted with the Guardian….

  19. Kate M

    Kyran – I hadn’t heard that the Kitibati family were turned back from NZ. That issue is going to get worse and worse – with estimates of potentially 700 million people being made homeless by climate change. At some point we’re going to have realise that the world is finite – that there is no more space – and that we need to share. Having said that – given the number of people who go without food and die of hunger each day, when there is enough to go around – perhaps we will end up being as ruthless with land. Perhaps people will numb to deaths at sea like they have to deaths from hunger – because that is what will happen to people who have nowhere to put there feet – as I said in a previous article. I truly hope that doesn’t happe – that difficult times brings out the best and not the worst in people – but we will wait and see.

  20. Kate M

    Backyard Bob 🙂

  21. diannaart

    Nauru – encapsulates the achievements of capitalism in micro form – look forward to the complete series: Planet Earth – Last Rich Man Standing.

  22. stephengb2014

    Kate M
    Your article (which is very good) has actually made me feel sad about who we have become.

    How utterly pathetic we are, when you look at those numbers and think about what we are doing to these people to us and our future – we are so sick!

  23. Kaye Lee

    I often indulge in verandah dreaming.

    Imagine if we bought all those islands (and more) and called them healing centres. Asylum seekers could be moved to the closest regional towns where their children could go to school and the adult refugees could, with whatever assistance they required, turn these into places of peace, tolerance, education and healing. An artists’ retreat, a cultural centre where we could celebrate other cultures, an ecoresort using sustainable practice, an adult education centre, an intensive English school, arts and crafts markets, a peaceful place to rest and recover with medical help if required, tropical gardens, cultural weddings, holidays for underprivileged kids….the possibilities are endless.

    Why must we persecute people who could offer us so much if given the chance. I know my verandah dreaming would never happen but I wonder why. Imagine the loyalty that refugees would show to a country who greeted them with open comforting arms.

    My dream would not only cost a lot less than our current policy, it might also make money and revitalise regional areas.

    And it might put a smile on a child’s face who has known nothing but life behind razor wire.

  24. diannaart

    Not just dreaming – there are workable, reasonable answers to much suffering – what I dream of is that we find the will.

  25. Kyran

    Kate M (@ 1.41pm), the father was deported in late September. His wife and their three New Zealand born children are still waiting to be advised when they will be deported, as far as I know.

    http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjACahUKEwiK_5irn_HIAhVD6GMKHVDcBg0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2015-09-23%2Fnew-zealand-deports-kiribati-climate-change-refugee%2F6800230&usg=AFQjCNH2gmzMvOTs2vgmSr7bbQS9pHlWvw

    I have met many refugee’s, predominantly from Myanmar. Meeting them has been my privilege. Their contribution to Australia dwarf’s any assistance they have had from Australia. As other commentators (thanks, diannaart) have noted, these aren’t hard problems to address, if you have the will. Seems to me, our politician’s, and their self interest/preservation, are the problem. These idiots want to peddle a story that this debasement saves lives drowning at sea. I think I need a verandah. Take care

  26. Kaye Lee

    My verandah keeps me semi-sane 🙂 It all seems so easy as I look out at the ocean.

  27. mars08

    I wonder what is considered “sane” these days.

  28. Kaye Lee

    I am not yet curled up in a foetal position nor sitting in a corner rocking. I remember all the people I know who are achieving good things without the aid of politicians. I see the birds and listen to the waves. And I can still smile sometimes. It’s probably all I can hope for – some perspective as the madness rolls on.

  29. mars08

    @Kaye Lee… not questioning your sanity. Just wondering about the mental state of our fellow citizens.

  30. Kaye Lee

    For some it’s greed. Some are scared. Many are disillusioned or just too tired to care about politicians’ shenanigans.

  31. John Fraser

    <

    Kaye Lee

    Rome won't "cure" you.

    John Fraser ….. Rome, Italy.

    Where tax dodging is a religion and Pell is still saving the corporations money.

    Pope Pell is a real possibility …… in spite of the Abbott setback.

  32. Kaye Lee

    Even Pell could not stop me from enjoying Rome. Forget the bastards and enjoy what is a fabulous city.

  33. John Fraser

    <

    Kaye Lee

    Better advice would be to buy some cans of spray paint and start plastering Pells name in the most unflattering terms across Rome.

    But there is too much to see, do and eat in Rome.

    Difficult to forget the bastards when one sees them taking school children on excursions.

  34. Kate M

    Kaye – I like your dream.
    Kyra’s – I’ve seen that article. It is very sad.

  35. Kyran

    To a human, it seems counterintuitive to suggest the rule of law relates more to property than people.
    I guess that’s where the expression ‘there will only be enough law to hold the loopholes together’ comes from. I’ve only heard it from lawyers, many of whom went on to become politicians. Their humanity I will leave to greater minds.

    Palm Sunday saw marches across Australia, engaging tens of thousands of people. Not much reported.

    There were protests in Nauru (which are ongoing) as well. Not much reported.

    https://web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=839867502797443

    Today, an article from the ABC.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-29/nauru-families-directly-benefiting-from-australian-funded-centre/7278120

    There are many other links that can be passed on about our government’s empowerment of a lawless, corrupt ‘nation’ (which only serves as a microcosm of what they are doing to this once great nation), for the lofty ideal of legal or political expediency.
    Niemöller’s prophesy seems to be our reality.
    Grateful, again, Ms M. Take care

  36. Freethinker

    How low can Australia can finish regarding human rights and our global reputation.
    Today articles in the Guardian are an embarrassment and nothing to be proud about it.
    The sad part it is that the majority of the electorate does not give a dam. The election proved that.

    Nauru files: global reaction to huge leak of immigration detention reports – live
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2016/aug/10/nauru-files-global-reaction-to-huge-leak-of-immigration-detention-reports-live

    The Nauru files: 2,000 leaked reports reveal scale of abuse of children in Australian offshore detention
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/10/the-nauru-files-2000-leaked-reports-reveal-scale-of-abuse-of-children-in-australian-offshore-detention

  37. Kyran

    Indeed, Freethinker, every time I think we can’t go lower, this government demonstrates that that is their only ability. They are impervious to such notions as embarrassment or reputation, let alone human rights.
    I will not lose a seconds sleep over their ‘christian’ souls burning in their ‘christian’ hell.
    In the meantime, to paraphrase Niebuhr, we must have the courage to change the things we can change, the serenity to accept the things we can’t change and the ever important wisdom to know the difference.
    The situation on Nauru is inexcusable, by any definition.
    The situation on Manus is being forced to a head by the PNG government, who have been told by their Supreme Court that the arrangement they made with the Australian government is illegal.
    The situation of our First People, of all ages and genders, seems, to me, little more than genocide by complacence.
    My thanks to you, Freethinker. As long as there are people of good will, the situation remains desperate, but not hopeless.
    Take care

  38. diannaart

    F*ck Turnbull, F*ck Shorten, for allowing this sickening treatment of people to continue.

    This does not deter smugglers, only adds to the harm inflicted on innocent people.

    The report in today’s Guardian is only the beginning; politicians of Australia you have been warned.

  39. Kyran

    Couldn’t agree more, diannaart, but I would never expend that much energy on them.
    “I can’t believe the news today
    Oh, I can’t close my eyes
    And make it go away
    How long…
    How long must we sing this song”.
    Take care

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: