I would like to point out the basic premise of the human right to accommodation. Under this principle, humans – which the asylum seekers clearly are – are guaranteed the right to adequate shelter. This principle also guarantees them the human right to an adequate standard of living as well as the right of access to safe drinking water and sanitation. There are also several ‘peripheral’ rights such as the right to choose one's residence, to determine where and how to live and to freedom of movement.
Let there be no mistake – the asylum seekers, more often than not, ate more nutritious meals more frequently than did the Nauruans. But this, again, is no luxury. It is not a privilege. Many countries recognize, formally or not, the human right to nutirious and available food. These ‘buffet’ meals that the asylum seekers were presented with were always adequate, were always nutritious and were always prepared with respect to their various religions. Most importantly, this food was their human right. Was there an alternative to feeding them as they deserved to be fed?

As to the medical attention that they received – and this will be revisited – these people were, for a great deal of their time, denied any more than the physiological medication needed to keep them alive. Look no further than the mental deterioration of these men for proof of this. What medical attention they received was their right. Not only was it their right but it was also the obligation of the medical professionals associated.

Many of these asylum seekers exercised their right to education, which was the avenue through which I grew to know them and their struggles. It is an injustice to your own reasoning that you have concluded them lucky to have this right. There is no luck involved in the provision of ‘ meals,…medical attention, free access to international telephone services and the internet, and … education services’. It is their inalienable human right to have access to these things as well as to the ‘adequate’ housing that was afforded them.

Finishing hubby's post:
None of what they received was a gift from Australia; it is all recoverable in terms of costs and it was all their basic right. That there are worse camps than this in the world does not make Australia’s crime any less; if anything it gives Australia an unwanted association with the other governments of this world which either create or do not recognise refugees. You at least recognise that they were ‘asylum seekers’ which betrays an understanding that there must be something from which they seek asylum.

The most misleading – and patently untrue – aspect of your argument is that this ‘Pacific Solution’ was somehow of benefit to Nauru. From the outset, this was designed to be of advantage only to Australia. So desperate was Australia to close the deal on Nauru that free medical treatment was provided to the then-president Rene Harris and gifts were given to other ministers. But there was an existent means through which Australia could have provided infrastructure and social services; it is called humanitarian aid.

When the camp started, it was partially reliant on Nauru’s power supply. For this reason, much was offered towards supporting our power plant. (AusAID claims to have spent upward of thirty million dollars during this period. There is no physical evidence of this expenditure; no generators sounding, no new buildings.) As the camp grew better equipped to supply its own power, support to Nauru’s power plant was virtually withdrawn. When media attention was drawn to the psychiatric condition of the last two refugees on Nauru, and after incessant requests from the Nauruan government, assistance was provided in establishing a Nauru Mental Health Service (NMHS). When the last refugee left Nauru’s shores last month, so did that health service. I was completely unsurprised. I had speculated some years before this that once the Pacific Solution was ended, once the camp was closed, that the Australian government would once again close its Consulate-General and aid would dramatically decrease.

The withdrawal of support to this NMHS, and the two professionals involved, is, in my eyes, a clear indication of what we can expect to happen in the years to come, when Nauru has outlived her usefulness to our former colonial masters.

To readers of LunarEclipses post: please consider what LunarEclipse offers you and then consider that, as it comes from a DIMA employee, the opinion being represented is not a balanced one. I would also ask you to consider that the Pacific Solution is not the best one available for any of the parties involved. It is expensive for Australia, it is unbearable for the asylum seekers and it makes a prostitute of Nauru.

Best regards,
Xavier Barker

P.S. BriscoRant,

Please do not try to further distort the facts. The refugees did have free access to phones, did shop, did many things.

I wrote this article about Australian governments'(past and present) trying to avoid the messy problem of dealing with vulnerable people. I did not discuss the conditions of the detention camp in Nauru.

The comments by luneclipse present the picture of a club med style resort where people are comfortable and relaxed and everything is fine. This is not how people living in the camps in the past have felt. Many asylum seekers are traumatised, some have been tortured or badly abused before they arrive. The anxiety and distress they feel is intense regardless of conditions in the camps. The Australian Government is clear in public statements that they do not welcome them.

Tonight 82 Sri Lankans are on their way to the camp in Nauru and we will wait to see how they cope with their situation. I know there are some caring people in Nauru who will watch out for them as much as possible, I know they will receive food and shelter and basic health care, but there is no doubt that it will be hard for them. They may be left to languish for many years in a country that they will never call home.

The conditions in Nauru are currently adequate for providing food, accomodation and addressing basic needs for asylum seekers held there, a psychiatrist is available on site - but as Xavier points out, this is the least we can expect.

Lunaecipse also claims that IOM process people's claims in Nauru - in fact UNHCR processed the people from the Tampa and one other boat arriving in 2001, Australia's immigration department did the rest of the more than 1,500 people taken to Nauru and Manus Island. It seems clear that mistakes were made in people's cases which would have been overturned if people had been able to access the Refugee Review Tribunal in Australia. There is no independent appeal process for negative decisions when people are processed offshore.

Since 2001 the conditions in the camp in Nauru have not been static.

Early reports from those who were there talk of water shortages, no power, etc..As I am sure Xavier could explain better than me, these are usual conditions for Nauruans who have fallen on difficult times. The conditions have recently improved for asylum seekers (not Nauruans) but the funadmental problems of offshore processing have not.

I have met many kind and caring Nauruans on my visits and I feel a respect and warmth towards a country that finds itself trapped in a deal that may not ultimately be in its long term interests. I too am extremely concerned by what will happen when the Australian mission ultimately pulls out. Will Australia abandon the Nauruan people when they are no longer useful?

Here are some of UNHCR's comments from a submission to a senate inquiry last year:

Fair and efficient asylum procedures

22. ........ To reiterate the point made in UNHCR’s 2002 submission to this same Committee, “If lesser standards relating to procedures or lesser status accorded under these procedures are envisaged due to the nature of arrival of asylum-seekers, this would not be in accord with international protection obligations”.

5. It is the opinion of UNHCR that the experience gained from off-shore processing on Nauru, introduced by Australia in October 2001, should not be considered the “outstanding success” it is characterised... but to the contrary has resulted in prolonged detention-like situations of asylum-seekers and refugees alike, as well as extended separation of families. The practice is also known by UNHCR to have contributed to serious mental health problems.

6. With regard to the proposal that those taken to Nauru for off-shore processing be resettled in countries other than Australia, UNHCR is concerned that this creates the possibility of refugees being unable to find durable solutions in a timely manner.


Barring access to the RRT and national courts would seem to be a serious flaw in the off-shore processing regime, given that the RRT and the national courts of Australia, being independent of DIMA, are key bodies guaranteeing the accuracy of asylum decisions and therefore important legal safeguards against refoulement.

Xavier Barker's Wife -

Thanks for the PS and correction, for taking time to tell us, how things are on Nauru - it's appreciated - and the word limit on the forum, can make it a bit difficult to get the whole picture across.

Thanks for contributing that information to this discussion. It's difficult for us on the mainland who are concerned, to understand how things are on the island.

You also remind us that things are not easy in Nauru, and the welfare of folk who live there, is another issue as well, besides welfare of the asylum seekers.

I'm still waiting to hear from LunaEclipse, about the URLs .. but he/she seems to have gone silent. Ah well...

All the best ...

Mike.