Politics Opinion

Last refugee leaves Nauru: Cruel processing regime to stay

By | | comments |
The absence of refugee inmates in Nauru’s detention facility does not herald its closure (Image by Takver | Wikimedia Commons)

Although the last refugee has left Australia's much-criticised offshore detention centre on Nauru, the Federal Government has no plans to close the facility, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.

THE LAST refugee, for now, has left the small, guano-producing state of Nauru

For a decade, the Pacific Island state served as one of Australia’s offshore detention facilities (arguably, a prison) for refugees and asylum seekers — a cruel deterrent to those daring to exercise their right to seek asylum via the sea. 

Since July 2013, 3,127 people making the naval journey to Australia to seek sanctuary found themselves in carceral facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island, told that they would never resettle on the Australian mainland. 

Such persons were duly euphemised as “transitory persons” to be hurried on to third-country destinations if not returned to their country of origin, a form of vacant reasoning typical of a callous bureaucracy.

The wisdom here was that other countries would not only be more suitable for such persons but keener candidates to pull their weight in terms of processing and accepting refugees. For the Australian Commonwealth, outsourcing responsibilities, from protecting citizens to shielding vulnerable arrivals from harm, has become a matter of dark habit. 

Many of those remaining refugees held on the Australian mainland are the subjects of acute care and all await transfer to third countries such as Canada under its private sponsorship program, the United States, New Zealand or other destinations. 

In the meantime, 80 refugees remain in Papua New Guinea. The situation there is marred by a fundamental legal peculiarity. 

In October 2017, the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea found the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre (MIRCP) to be both illegal and unconstitutional. (PNG, unlike Australia, has a Constitution prohibiting violations of personal liberty, even for non-PNG nationals.) Its closure led to the removal of the detainees to various transition centres devoid of basic amenities, including water, electricity and medical support. 

Both PNG and Australia proceeded to squabble over responsibility, despite the obvious fact that the latter exercises effective control over the facilities and those being held in them. 

 UK advocacy and communications coordinator Emilie McDonnell with Human Rights Watch deems it indisputable:

'... that Australia bears primary responsibility for those in offshore detention under its policies and has an ongoing legal duty to find a durable solution.'

The offshore concentration camp system established and prosecuted by respective federal governments has become the envy of autocrats, populists and reactionaries the world over. 

European Union member states have made fact-finding missions. The model is mesmerising officials in the UK. Its credentials of cruelty and suffering are beyond doubt: 14 deaths since 2012, marked by gross medical neglect and suicide and murder by overly enthusiastic guards. 

Spokesperson for Refugee Action Coalition Sydney (RACIan Rintoul reportedly suggested that the legacy of Nauru:

"... will forever stain the record of both sides of Australian politics."

The absence of any refugee inmates in Nauru’s detention facility does not herald its closure. Far from it: the Albanese Government has, according to Federal Budget figures, promised to spend $486 million this year on the facility.   

The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) continues to tersely state that the position of the Government 'on maritime smuggling and irregular maritime ventures has not changed'.

Says DHA:

'Any person entering Australia by boat without a valid visa will be returned or taken to a regional processing country for protection claims assessment. Unauthorised maritime arrivals will not settle in Australia.' 

For anyone concerned about the welfare of such persons held in captivity, DHA makes a feeble assurance:

'All transitory persons in Nauru reside in community accommodation and have access to health and welfare services. Transitory persons have work rights and can operate businesses.'

These people have evidently not been to the prison idyll they so praise. But not to worry, a wounded conscience could also be put to rest by the fact that there are 'currently no minors under regional processing arrangements' on the island.

In Senate Estimates, it was also revealed that the Government would continue forking out $350 million annually to maintain the Nauru facility as a “contingency” for any future arrivals. 

According to a spokesperson for DHA, the processing centre was “ready to receive and process any new unauthorised maritime arrivals, future-proofing Australia’s response to maritime people-smuggling”. And so, old canards are recycled in their staleness and counterfeit quality.

Another unsavoury aspect of this needless cost to the Australian Budget is the recipient of such taxpayer largesse. The Albanese Government has an ongoing contract with the U.S. prison company, Management and Training Corporation (MTC), which is responsible for running the facilities till September 2025 at the cost of AU$422 million. 

MTC has a spotty resume, though it trumpets its record as a “leader in social impact”. Impact is certainly not an issue if alleged incidents of maladministration, wrongful death, poor medical care and failing performance in rehabilitation count in the equation. 

In 2015, then-Arizona governor Doug Ducey cancelled MTC’s contract after a withering report into a riot at Kingman Prison identified '... a culture of disorganisation, disengagement and disregard for state policies'

As a 2021 lawsuit filed in the District Court of the Southern District of California pungently alleged, MTC 'is a private corporation that traffics in human captivity for profit'.

The very fact that MTC Australia advertises itself as a provider of 'evidence-based rehabilitation programs and other services to approximately 1,000 male inmates in Australia' begs that old question as to why it needs to oversee refugees and asylum seekers in the first place. 

But the answer is glaringly evident: anyone daring to make the perilous journey across the seas to the world’s largest island continent is seen as presumptively criminal, trafficked by actual criminals. 

Such a sickness of attitude and policy continues to keep the Australian political imagination captive and defiant before law and decency.

Dr Binoy Kampmark was a Cambridge Scholar and is a lecturer at RMIT University. You can follow Dr Kampmark on Twitter @BKampmark.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.

Related Articles

Recent articles by Binoy Kampmark
Rot in the civil service: Farewelling Mike Pezzullo

With the sacking of Mike Pezzullo, questions now need to be raised as to how far ...  
Whistleblower David McBride's duty to obey results in guilty plea

Australian whistleblower David McBride has pled guilty to leaking classified ...  
The militarised university: Where secrecy goes to thrive

For anyone wishing to bury secrets, especially of the unsavoury sort, there is one ...  
Join the conversation
comments powered by Disqus

Support IAIndependent Australia

Subscribe to IA and investigate Australia today.

Close Subscribe Donate