Sarah Stephen

The Australian government delegation sent to the Pacific island state of Nauru to assess its health services on January 12-14 released the report of its findings on January 29.

The delegation was given narrow terms of reference for its visit. The first objective was to assess the needs of the Nauruan government in providing medical care to asylum seekers. This was designed to pre-empt the visit of a group of independent doctors to Nauru, and avoid an embarrassing assessment of the dire situation of the 280 asylum seekers held there in an Australian-funded detention centre.

The delegation's second objective was perhaps the most important for the Australian government. This was “to establish a clear agreed process with the government of Nauru for handling any future requirements — directly on a government-to-government basis”.

Nauruan finance minister Kinza Clodumar’s public criticism in early January of Australia’s relationship with Nauru was not well-received by Canberra. Refugee supporters in Australia took advantage of the rift, and almost succeeded in getting a delegation of health professionals onto the island at the Nauruan government’s invitation.

The Australian government has welcomed the recommendations made in the delegation’s report, which amount to a range of proposals for upgrading equipment and increasing resources in the island's hospital.

The report highlighted that “asylum seekers who were met by the team seemed generally well and none showed signs consistent with recent prolonged lack of nutrition”. Yet it admitted that, “the team did not conduct a physical examination of the individuals”. Nevertheless, the delegation believed there was “no evidence supporting the claims that” the 40 or so asylum seekers who undertook a hunger strike in December “were near death”.

According to refugee supporter Elaine Smith, who regularly corresponds with asylum seekers on Nauru, the delegation was unlikely to have seen any of the men who had been on hunger strike. “These men were mostly lying in their rooms. Their muscles were aching, they had pain in their stomachs and kidneys. They had lost 10-15kg and they felt weak and dizzy.”

The report's claim was further criticised by Louise Newman from the Professional Alliance for the Health of Asylum Seekers and their Children. She told the January 30 Canberra Times: “The idea that you can diagnose long-term damage from a hunger strike by eyeballing a patient is ridiculous.”

An Afghan refuge on Nauru, who wrote to Green Left Weekly on February 4, gave further weight to the claim that the delegation paid little attention to the health of the asylum seekers: “The medical team who came on Nauru on January 12 looked like tourists who had come for a holiday, not for assistance of the asylum seekers’ plight. They never talked with us and they did not even visit some people who are in a critical condition. The main purpose of their coming to Nauru was to prevent independent doctors from coming to Nauru and to deceive the Australian people.”

From Green Left Weekly, February 11, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

Tools

• Bookmark This Page
• Print This Page