JULIA GILLARD AND THE NAURU QUESTION: The asylum-seekers have to go somewhere.
Nauru is a nation with no means of support. No industries, nothing for tourists to look at, precious little arable land . . . .
Its unemployment rate is 90 percent.
When Australia closed its asylum-seeker detention centre in Nauru in 2007, one of the main sources of paid work disappeared — 10 percent of the nation’s people being directly or indirectly affected.
Nauru is keen to help out again if Australia wants to re-establish such a centre.
* * *
It was promising, the other day, to hear Prime Minister Gillard refer to “my plans for a regional processing centre” and “the dialogue with Nauru.”
But it was a slip of the tongue.
The rest of the time, she rejects any suggestion of using Nauru.
She says this is because Nauru hasn’t signed the United Nations refugees convention.
But that may not be her reason.
About the asylum-seekers, opposition leader Tony Abbott says, “If the Prime Minister is serious about taking tough action, she would pick up the phone to the president of Nauru.”
* * *
Meanwhile more asylum-seekers keep turning up thick and fast — another 80-odd picked up off Christmas Island two days ago.
Australia is obliged to keep helping Nauru to survive one way or another.
We stripped off most of their topsoil getting the phosphate out — leaving it like a moonscape of naked limestone pinnacles.
Waste-products from our mining killed most of the edible fish in the waters around the island.
Nauru already functions as an Australian colony. They use the Australian dollar. Australian Rules Football is their main sport. They depend on Australia for treasury advice and imported Australian health and education expertise.
* * *
It’s hard to realise how helpless and un-viable Nauru is.
And how tiny.
3000 Naurus could fit on the island of Tasmania.
So why did J. Gillard’s tongue slip into saying we’ll negotiate a new detention centre with Nauru?
Because she knows it’s the right thing to do.
For our own benefit.
For the benefit of the nation of Nauru.
And — if it is done properly – for the benefit of the immigrants.
Mary Mckillop would be horrifed by this article being written on a website dedicated to her. Mental illness and self harm was common in the Nauru detention centres. There are many reasons why we should not be locking up refugees anywhere but Nauru is a place where past refugees still have nightmares about. Nauru needs to make its money other ways, not by putting refugees beind fences.