A translation of the Nauruan president’s remarks will stay suppressed for a decade – but secrecy in Australia’s offshore policy is nothing new
Offshore, secrecy dominates. But it doesn’t stop at the water’s edge. In February, Australia brokered a new offshore arrangement with Nauru, striking a deal to send members of the so-called NZYQ cohort – non-citizens with criminal histories – to the Pacific island. Australia would give Nauru more than $400m in exchange. So far, Australia has forcibly removed at least four people to Nauru, but the number could be higher, and their conditions inside the RPC3 detention centre remain shrouded in secrecy. When the new deal was publicly announced, the Nauruan president posted an interview online, explaining the arrangement to his country. Interviewed by a government staffer and speaking Nauruan, David Adeang emphasised those to be sent to the island had “served their time” in Australian prisons and were no longer subject to any punishment.
“Australia is trying to send them back to their country but they are not wanted back home,” the president said. “So we accepted them from Australia. They are not Australian and Australia doesn’t want them.” Adeang said Nauru had demonstrated its capability and willingness to resettle migrants during its history as an offshore processing site. “Even for the refugees that came here, they have the same history: some of them killed people, some of them are disturbed people. But they will not do that here, instead they will live their life as normal and be happy along with us all.” The president said those moved to Nauru would be granted 30-year visas and the right to settle and work in Nauru. “They will be living among us like normal free people … nothing stops them from working and being a normal citizen. They are also subject to our laws, they will also get the same punishment if they break the law.” Important public information for the Nauruan public. But vital too, for the Australian people who are funding and ostensibly supporting this arcane arrangement. A member of staff at the Australian High Commission in Nauru made notes: “taken hastily, for internal purposes only,” the government says. But getting a public translation proved troublingly difficult. The Nauruan government did not provide one at the time and has refused to since. Nauru is a tiny country – about 12,000 people live on an island roughly the size of Melbourne airport. About half the working population works for the government, which is dependent on Australian support. Nauruan society is close-knit and bonded by familial ties. There is no independent media, and little criticism of government. There are few Nauruan speakers in the world, and those the Guardian spoke with were reticent to provide a translation, fearful of being seen as disloyal, or of facing repercussions (for themselves or family members). Eventually, an unofficial and incomplete translation was obtained, but on condition of anonymity. The Guardian reported its translation at the time. That version has never been disputed by either the Australian or Nauruan governments. But extraordinarily, the government’s unofficial translation of the interview remains, somehow, off limits to the public. Responding to a demand from the Australian Senate, the government refused to release the translation it acknowledges it holds. “Disclosing parts of the information… would be contrary to the public interest on the basis it could reasonably be expected to prejudice Australia’s international relations,” Penny Wong wrote, defying the senate order to produce the documents. “In particular, this includes Australia’s long-standing bilateral relationship with the Republic of Nauru and our broader standing in the Pacific islands region.” The federal government has even sought – and won – a non-publication order on its translation and transcript notes in the federal and high courts. That order does not apply to the original interview itself or any other attempts to translate it. “It would be not be appropriate to release them and doing so would damage our bilateral relationship,” Wong wrote. The 10-minute interview in Nauruan remains online. A foreign president granted an interview concerning a contentious Australian policy and posted it online. But the Australian government – having translated it – refuses to release that document, saying it would harm Australia’s relationship with that country. This is an alarming level of secrecy, but not a novel position when it comes to Australia’s tenacious offshore policy. Australia is regularly referred to by thinktanks, human rights groups and media outlets as the “most secretive democracy on Earth”. Successive governments have appeared determined to reinforce that appellation, particularly around its offshore detention regime. From the Howard government’s edict that “no personalising or humanising images” should be taken of asylum seekers, through Scott Morrison’s “we don’t comment on on-water matters” (except if there’s an election on that day), successive governments’ attitude to legitimate scrutiny has been one of unbridled hostility. The Albanese government has has also refused to release the memorandum of understanding it has signed with Nauru, detailing the conditions under which the NZYQ cohort will be resettled, citing a lack of agreement from Nauru. It has also repeatedly told the Senate it would not reveal the details of a multimillion dollar “confidential bilateral agreement” it has signed with Papua New Guinea to hold asylum seekers and refugees formerly detained on Manus Island: “the release … could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the Australian government’s international relations”.
That is, the Australian people are not allowed to know what is being done, with their money, in their name, because it’s acknowledged as being damaging. Journalists have been banned from immigration detention centres for conducting interviews with people unjustly detained: the government has even put up ‘wanted’ posters featuring journalists’ pictures inside offshore detention camps, warning asylum seekers not to speak with them. If Australia’s offshore processing regime is as uncontroversial as the government insists, why is nobody allowed to see it, to interrogate it? Why should we not know the translation of the interview held by the government?
