DOCSLIB.ORG

Submission to the Royal Commission Into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Submission to the Royal Commission Into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability Submission to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability Submission on laws, policies and practice affecting migrants, refugees and citizens from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds January 2021 Sydney Centre for International Law The University of Sydney Law School Building (F10) Camperdown Campus, The University of Sydney NSW 2006 [email protected] With Macquarie Law School Social Justice Clinic About the Sydney Centre for International Law The Sydney Centre for International Law (SCIL) was established in 2003 as a centre of excellence in research and teaching in international law. The centre fosters innovative, interdisciplinary scholarship across the international legal field, and also provides an avenue for the public to access international legal expertise. It operates within the University of Sydney Law School, building upon its well-recognised history of strength in this area. This submission was prepared by the following SCIL interns under the supervision and with the assistance of SCIL Director Professor Mary Crock. Parts 1 – 3; Part 10 Sarah Charak*; Wendy Chen*; Angus Chen*; Sherry Xueyi Jin; John McCrorie*; Leah Park; Rachel Sun*; Emma Louise Tirabosco;* Siobhan Walsh; Frank Gang Yang. Parts 4 - 6 Freya Appleford*; Sarah Charak; Angus Chen; Jake Jerogin*; Emma Kench*; Maxine McHugh; Miranda Hutchenson; Anton Nguyen*; Alexandra Touw; Jiann Yap; Alan Zheng*; Kevin Zou*; Part 7 Jess Mitchell*; Anisha Gunawardhana*; Part 8 Mary Crock; Olivia Morris; Part 9 Mary Crock with Macquarie University Law School Social Justice Clinic and the National Justice Project– Associate Professor Daniel Ghezelbash; Thomas Boyes, Sarah Croake, Jemy Ma; and Sara Hakim* (as a volunteer at the National Justice Project). *Lead writers Acknowledgments Case study assistance was provided by Ali Battison of Human Rights for All; Ariane Dozer and George Newhouse of National Justice Project; and Omid Tofighian. The authors also wish to acknowledge the assistance provided by Professor Emeritus Ron McCallum AO, Associate Professor Daniel Ghezelbash, Rebecca Brown, Grant Kynaston, Omid Tofighian, Linda Tucker, Dr Rosemary Grey and Professor Ben Saul in reading parts (or all!) of this submission. Special Thanks to Jess Mitchell for formatting the final document. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 14 PART I: INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ............................................. 20 A Introduction .................................................................................................... 20 B Admission Of Migrants .................................................................................. 24 C Entitlements After Entry ............................................................................... 276 D Immigration Detention And Asylum Seekers ................................................. 30 E Offshore Processing Of Asylum Claims ......................................................... 33 PART II: MIGRANTS, DISABILITY AND THE HEALTH RULES ........................... 35 A The Health Criteria ........................................................................................ 35 B Health And Disability ..................................................................................... 40 C How The Migration Health Rules Can Cause Abuse And Neglect................. 43 D Conclusions And Recommendations ............................................................. 45 PART III: ENTITLEMENTS AFTER ENTRY ............................................................ 46 A Entitlement To Social Security ....................................................................... 46 B Waiting Periods ............................................................................................. 51 C Entitlement To The National Disability Insurance Scheme ............................ 53 D Covid-19 And Entitlements ............................................................................ 53 Recommendations: ............................................................................................... 61 PART IV: ‘CRIMMIGRATION’ LAW AND DISABILITY .......................................... 62 A Visa Cancellations And Disability .................................................................. 62 B Deportation, Disability And International Law ................................................ 68 C Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 81 PART V: DISABILITY AND WRONGFUL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ......... 82 A Disability And Arrest And Removal Laws ...................................................... 82 B The Faultline Cases ....................................................................................... 84 C Reforms Following Inquiries By Comrie And Palmer ..................................... 88 D Recent Cases ................................................................................................ 91 E Implications.................................................................................................... 93 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 94 2 PART VI: DISABILITY AND MANDATORY IMMIGRATION DETENTION ............. 94 A Disability And The Evolution Of Immigration Detention Laws ........................ 95 B The Incidence Of Disability In Immigration Detention .................................. 100 C How Disability Is Identified In Immigration Detention Populations ............... 105 D Accommodation Of Persons With Disabilities In Immigration Detention ...... 109 E Causation And Exacerbation Of Disability ................................................... 113 PART VII: CHILDREN, DISABILITY AND IMMIGRATION DETENTION .............. 116 A Australia’s Obligations Under International Law .......................................... 117 B Failure To Treat = Failure To Thrive ............................................................ 120 C Immigration Detention Causes Disability In Children ................................... 121 D Conclusion ................................................................................................... 124 E Case Studies ............................................................................................... 125 PART VIII: DISABILITY AND THE ‘LEGACY CASELOAD’ REFUGEES............. 137 A Who Is Included In The ‘Legacy Caseload’ Cohort? .................................... 137 B Persons With Disabilities In The Legacy Caseload ..................................... 139 PART IX: DISABILITY, OFFSHORE PROCESSING AND THE ‘MEDEVAC’ REFUGEES ........................................................................................................... 144 A Legal Frameworks ....................................................................................... 145 B Harms Associated With The Front-End Stage Of Offshore Processing ....... 150 C Harms Associated With Offshore Processing .............................................. 154 D Harms Experienced By Transitory Persons Returned To Australia ............. 158 PART X: AUSTRALIA’S RESPONSE TO MIGRANTS WITH DISABILITIES IN THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC ........................................................................................... 163 A Introduction: Hotel Detention And Disability ................................................ 164 B Australia’s Duty Of Care To Non-Citizens Subject To Immigration Control . 167 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 178 2-A: PIC 4005 And PIC 4007 .............................................................................. 178 2-B: Table Of Health Criteria For Current Visa Subclasses ................................ 181 2-C: Changes In The “Significant Cost” Threshold ............................................. 188 2-D: Minister’s Guidelines On Ministerial Powers ............................................... 192 3: Summary Of Healthcare Entitlements ............................................................. 193 6-A: Incidence Of Disability In Immigration Detention ......................................... 197 3 6-B: Overview Of Case Studies .......................................................................... 200 6-C: Health Care Entitlements For Detainees With A Disability Under International Law ..................................................................................................................... 208 6-D: Australian Border Deaths Annual Report 2019 ........................................... 211 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION This submission examines the intersection in Australian law, policy and practice between immigration, cultural and linguistic diversity (CALD) and disability. The topic is one of panoramic proportions. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reports that in the 2016 census, over 28 percent of Australians were born overseas. In that year it was estimated that as much as 11 percent of the Australian workforce were temporary migrant workers. Migrants who transition to become Australian citizens meld into the general populations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Myths, Facts and Solutions 1 Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
    MYTHS, FACTS AND SOLutions 1 ASYLUM SEEKER RESOURCE CENTRE WWW.ASRC.ORG.AU Asylum seekers and refugees myths FACTS + solutions 2 Myths, FACTS AND SOLUTIONS Asylum Seeker Resource Centre 12 Batman Street West Melbourne, Vic. 3003 Telephone +61 3 9326 6066 www.asrc.org.au Design zirka&wolf. www.zirkawolf.com MYTHS, FACTS AND SOLutions 3 MYTHS AND FACTS MYTH 1 Asylum seekers are ‘illegal immigrants’ .........................................................4 MYTH 2 People who arrive by boat are not ‘genuine refugees’. .5 MYTH 3 Asylum seekers have only themselves to blame for lengthy detention because they lodge endless appeals ....................................................................7 MYTH 4 When asylum seekers destroy their documentation they are cheating the system ..................8 MYTH 5 Boat arrivals might be terrorists or pose other security risks. .9 MYTH 6 Boat people are queue jumpers; they take the place of refugees patiently waiting in overseas camps .....................................................................11 MYTH 7 Asylum seekers don’t use the proper channels — they come via ‘the back door’ ...................13 MYTH 8 Asylum seekers are ‘country shoppers’; they could have stopped at safe places along the way. 15 MYTH 9 Asylum seekers are ‘cashed up’ and ‘choose’ to come here. .16 MYTH 10 People smugglers are ‘evil’ and the ‘vilest form of human life’. .17 MYTH 11 Australia is losing control over its borders ......................................................19 MYTH 12 If we are too ‘soft’ there will
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Detention in Australia: a New Beginning Is the First of Three Reports by This Committee on Immigration Detention Policy in Australia
    The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Immigration detention in Australia: A new beginning Criteria for release from immigration detention First report of the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia Joint Standing Committee on Migration December 2008 Canberra © Commonwealth of Australia 2008 ISBN 978-0-642-79127-6 (Printed version) ISBN 978-0-642-79128-3 (HTML version) Cover design by Lisa McDonald, House of Representatives Printing and Publishing Office Contents Foreword............................................................................................................................................vii Membership of the Committee ..........................................................................................................xiii Terms of reference.............................................................................................................................xv List of abbreviations .........................................................................................................................xvii List of recommendations ...................................................................................................................xix THE REPORT 1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 Referral of the inquiry............................................................................................................... 1 The immigration detention context ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pro Bono Voco Issue 4: November 2020
    AUSTRALIAN Pro Bono Voco PRO BONO CENTRE Natalie Wade: Disability rights advocacy Dentons: Large scale Measuring impact at the Centre wetlands conservation National Justice Project: Tackling Kingsford Legal Centre: Pro bono discrimination through strategic litigation FAL Lawyers: Pro bono support in the time of COVID at a boutique firm Pro Bono Guide to the Climate Crisis: Chloe O’Brien: COVID and ‘the new normal’ The Centre’s new resource Rosalind Croucher: Pro bono DLA Piper: Learning in the time of COVID-19 Spotlight on Our Board: Jonathon Hunyor & the Australian Human Rights Commission Growing pro bono participation by in-house Inspiring Pro Bono Action ISSUE 4 | NOV 2020 Thanks to Kingsford Legal Centre Pro Bono Voco for use of front cover photo Many of us are contemplating how we’ll fill our cups over the Chloe O’Brien, a lawyer in the pro bono team of holiday break to restore our mental, physical and emotional Simmons & Simmons in London, discusses challenges Each week the Centre distributes energy after such a challenging year. I hope this edition of Voco and opportunities presented by COVID-19 and her work a Weekly Round-Up of the top news will aid you in this quest! This edition’s focus is on celebrating as a volunteer Policy & Project Officer at the Centre while stories relating to pro bono legal the work of lawyers in Australia and abroad in advancing on furlough leave this year. Chloe was a great asset to work and access to justice through human rights and social justice to create a better, brighter, the team and we are grateful for her support, all Pro Bono in the News.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents Volume 29 2/2010
    Contents -------------------------- 1 President’s Report Barry McGaw The Price of Fear 5 Life as a Weapon: Making Sense of Suicide Bombings Riaz Hassan 10 Fear, Asylum, and Hansonism in Australian Politics William Maley 20 Alien Fears: Politics and Immigration Control Mary Crock 31 ‘Preposterous Caricatures’: Fear, Tokenism, Denial and the Australia-Indonesia Relationship Tim Lindsey 44 Fear: Crime and Punishment Chris Cunneen 55 AIDS and Religion: ‘This Wave of Hate Must Stop’ Michael Kirby 62 Books 65 Genetics of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Mark A Bellgrove 69 Academy News and Workshop Reports 81 An Ethics for Living in the Anthropocene Katherine Gibson, Ruth Fincher and Deborah Bird Rose 85 Philanthropy and Public Culture: The influence and legacies of the Carnegie Corporation of New York in Australia Kate Darian-Smith, Julie McLeod and Glenda Sluga 91 Unsettling the Settler State: Creativity and resistance in Indigenous- Settler state governance Morgan Brigg, Sarah Maddison and Jon Altman 95 Roundtable Reports ------------------------- Volume 29 2/2010 Dialogue 29, 2/2010 President’s Report he Academy is commencing a strategic review to shape T its program and its working arrangements. The Review of the Structure, Systems and Processes of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia undertaken for the Academy by Professor Ian Palmer provides one important starting point. The terms of reference set by the Academy for the review gave it an internal focus. They were: 1. Does the Secretariat provide adequate support to the Committees and to the Fellows? 2. Does the ASSA administration (Executive Committee and Secretariat) articulate and communicate effectively with the Fellows? 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharon Pickering (2005) Refugees and State Crime, the Federation Press, Sydney, ISBN: 1 86287 541 3
    Sharon Pickering (2005) Refugees and State Crime, The Federation Press, Sydney, ISBN: 1 86287 541 3 Unlike 2001, the 2004 federal election was not primarily fought around racist images of boatloads of refugees 'invading' Australia's shores. However, the detention and mistreatment of mentally ill Australian resident Cornelia Rau, the Federal Government's intensifying and largely unreported program of forced deportations, 1 the unlawful deportation of Australian citizen Vivian Solon and the deaths in custody of 13 immigration detainees since December 2000 reflect the ongoing human rights violations committed b~ the Australian state against 'unlawful' migrants. With the findings of the Palmer Inquiry likely to generate further much-needed critical debate, Sharon Pickering's book is a timely reminder of the dismal reality of Australia's border protection policies and one of the few serious attempts by criminologists to analyse the Australian state's responses to forced migration.3 Pickering describes her task as 'mapping the construction of refugee deviancy and how the ensuing state response can be considered illegitimate and potentially criminal' (p l ). She starts by locating Australia's refugee policy within the wider law and order discourse entrenched by neo-liberalism throughout the Global North. ln this context, refugees seeking asylum outside of the Australian Government's tightly prescribed legal framework arc acting simply out of choice and must suffer the consequences if their gamble fails. Moreover, the very fact of them attempting to exercise their rights under international Jaw qualifies them as dangerous and triggers state-driven processes of exclusion and criminalisation, which help construct and rely upon rationales for ignoring human rights obligations.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry Into The
    Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry into the administration and operation of the Migration Act By Angus Francisi Introduction This submission focuses on the first term of reference of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry into the administration and operation of the Migration Act. In particular, this submission focuses on the administration and operation of the detention and removal powers of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘MA’). The Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon cases highlight the failure of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘DIMIA’) to properly administer the detention and removal powers found in the MA. According to Mick Palmer, the head of the government initiated inquiry into the detention of Cornelia Rau, this is a result of inadequate training, insufficient internal controls, lack of management oversight and review, a failure of co-ordination between Federal, State and non-government agencies, as well as a culture within the compliance and detention sections of DIMIA that is ‘overly self-protective and defensive’.ii The Palmer Report unearthed what has laid stagnant on the surface of earlier public inquiries into the operation of the MA: an attitude within government that the powers to detain and remove unlawful non-citizens are wide and unfettered. This attitude is evident in the way in which the detention and removal powers in the MA are often exercised without due regard or concern for the individual subject to those powers. This position is unlikely to change, even if, as inquiry head Mick Palmer recommended, effective personnel and cultural change takes place within DIMIA.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen Action in Support of Asylum Seekers in Australia 2001-2006
    ‘I had to do something. I couldn’t do nothing!’: Citizen Action in Support of Asylum Seekers in Australia 2001-2006. Diane Gosden Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Social Sciences Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of New South Wales 2012 PLEASE TYPE THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname or Family name: GOSDEN First name: DIANE Other name/s: MARGARET Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD School: School of Social Sciences Faculty: Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Title: 'I had to do something. I couldn't do nothing!': Citizen Action in Support of Asylum Seekers in Australia 2001-2006 Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE) This thesis is an examination of social action opposed to particular Australian government policies. The policies concerned are those affecting people seeking asylum without authorised entry documents. The period examined is from 2001 to 2006. It is argued that the social action contributed to the achievement of shifts in public opinion and policy during this period. The context in which this local action is examined is the international system of asylum, and the responses of developed countries to flows of incoming asylum seekers. Political rhetoric has often demonised those seeking asylum, and the term 'asylum seeker' increasingly has negative connotations for many people in developed countries. At the same time, groups of people in asylum destination countries such as Australia, have also responded with support and assistance for asylum seekers. Using ethnographic methodology and drawing on theories from refugee studies, and collective action and social movement theory, this thesis explores the nature of this particular response.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia Has an Appalling History of Mismanagement of Welfare Issues Relating to People Detained in Its Immigration Centres
    Macquarie Law Journal (2005) Vol 5 81 CONTRACTUALISM, EXCLUSION AND ‘MADNESS’ IN AUSTRALIA’S ‘OUTSOURCED WASTELANDS’ ∗ LYNDA CROWLEY-CYR I INTRODUCTION Australia has an appalling history of mismanagement of welfare issues relating to people detained in its immigration centres. How is this possible in the ‘lucky country’ where Australians pride themselves on mateship and giving everyone ‘a fair go’? Theories of contemporary contractualism1 offer one possible explanation. Most concepts of the state2 assume statehood involves certain functions. This article deals with the way that different facets of the state - especially its market, fortress and security facets - have fused together to manage ‘wasted lives’3 in detention centres in Australia. This fusion of the state has converted ‘illegal outsiders’ (asylum seekers and refugees) into ‘rightless’ homines sacri.4 My intention is to use contemporary contractualism as the lens through which we can consider how the state has failed to discharge its obligations to detainees under its care. Contemporary contractualism is an ideology that legitimates exclusion by limiting its process to the purchase of outputs rather than the delivery of outcomes.5 This is a ∗ LLB (QUT), LLM (JCU), James Cook University. This article is based on a paper presented at the British Criminology Conference, Leeds, 12-14 July 2005. My special thanks to Professor Paul Havemann and Carole Caple for their invaluable assistance in the development of the ideas in this article. 1 I use the term ‘contemporary contractualism’ here to refer to transactions that can appear contractual in nature but that do not necessarily draw on the principles of contract law as traditionally understood.
    [Show full text]
  • Serious Allegations of Abuse, Self-Harm and Neglect of Asylum
    The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing Centre April 2017 Commonwealth of Australia 2017 ISBN 978-1-76010-563-1 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License. The details of this licence are available on the Creative Commons website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/. This document was produced by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee secretariat and printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Department of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra. ii Members of the committee Members Senator Louise Pratt (ALP, WA) (Chair) Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald (LNP, QLD) (Deputy Chair) Senator Patrick Dodson (ALP, WA) Senator David Fawcett (LP, SA) to replace Senator Linda Reynolds from 15.02.2017 Senator Nick McKim (AG, TAS) Senator Murray Watt (ALP, QLD) Former member Senator Linda Reynolds (LP, WA) until 15.02.2017 Participating member Senator Derryn Hinch (DHJP, VIC) Secretariat Ms Toni Matulick, Committee Secretary Ms Pothida Youhorn, Principal Research Officer Ms Charlotte Fletcher, Senior Research Officer Mr Nicholas Craft, Senior Research Officer Ms Jo-Anne Holmes, Administrative Officer Suite S1.61 Telephone: (02) 6277 3560 Parliament House Fax: (02) 6277 5794 CANBERRA ACT 2600 Email: [email protected] iii Chair's foreword Australia's policy of offshore processing has been the subject of a number of Senate inquiries. These inquires have been highly critical of many aspects of the Regional Processing Centre (RPC) policy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legality of the Deportation of Long-Term Residents from Australia
    ‘AN “ALIEN” BY THE BAREST OF THREADS’* — THE LEGALITY OF THE DEPORTATION OF LONG-TERM RESIDENTS FROM AUSTRALIA MICHELLE FOSTER† [The banishment of long-term permanent residents from Australia following criminal conviction is a controversial practice, yet one that has been increasingly employed by the Australian government in recent years. This article assesses the legality of this practice both in terms of domestic and international law. The article first considers the history of both constitutional doctrine and legislative developments in this area, explaining how it is that the Commonwealth can lawfully engage in the deportation of Australian residents who are citizens but for ‘the barest of technicalities’. In the latter half of the article, the analysis turns to consider the international law context to this issue, with particular focus on the extent to which the advent of international human rights law has curtailed states’ plenary power in this arena. The article concludes that the deportation of long-term residents implicates a number of Australia’s key international obligations and thus makes recommendations for urgent reform of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).] CONTENTS I Introduction............................................................................................................. 484 II The Deportation of Long-Term Residents from Australia: Constitutional Background............................................................................................................. 489 III The Deportation of Long-Term Residents
    [Show full text]
  • Black to the Future: Making the Case for Indigenist Health Humanities
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Black to the Future: Making the Case for Indigenist Health Humanities Chelsea Watego 1,*, Lisa J. Whop 2 , David Singh 3, Bryan Mukandi 4, Alissa Macoun 5 , George Newhouse 6 , Ali Drummond 7, Amy McQuire 8, Janet Stajic 9 , Helena Kajlich 8 and Mark Brough 1 1 School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4059, Australia; [email protected] 2 National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra 2601, Australia; [email protected] 3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4067, Australia; [email protected] 4 School of Languages and Cultures, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4067, Australia; [email protected] 5 School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4000, Australia; [email protected] 6 Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University, Sydney 2109, Australia; [email protected] 7 School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4059, Australia; [email protected] 8 School of Political Science and International Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4067, Australia; [email protected] (A.M.); [email protected] (H.K.) 9 Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4067, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-07-3138-0212 Citation: Watego, C.; Whop, L.J.; Abstract: This paper outlines the development of Indigenist Health Humanities as a new and Singh, D.; Mukandi, B.; Macoun, A.; innovative field of research building an intellectual collective capable of bridging the knowledge gap Newhouse, G.; Drummond, A.; that hinders current efforts to close the gap in Indigenous health inequality.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Reviews
    Political Reviews michael lujan bevacqua, elizabeth (isa) ua ceallaigh bowman, zaldy dandan, monica c labriola, nic maclellan, tiara r na'puti, gonzaga puas peter clegg, lorenz gonschor, margaret mutu, salote talagi, forrest wade young 187 political reviews • micronesia 213 Nauru protest. Not surprisingly, a further focus of media criticism has been the Over the past two years, Nauru has Nauru government’s combative rela- raised its regional and international tions with overseas journalists and profile, as the government led by restrictions on access for many media President Baron Divavesi Waqa and organizations, including the Australian Minister for Finance and Justice David Broadcasting Corporation (abc). Adeang sought to address a range of The Micronesian nation of eleven economic, political, and social chal- thousand people faces many devel- lenges at home. opment challenges. A quarter of the In January 2018, Nauru celebrated population lives below the national its fiftieth anniversary of independence poverty line, according to data from as a sovereign nation. A key part of the Asian Development Bank (adb the anniversary year was hosting the 2018). forty-ninth Pacific Islands Forum in Education standards and truancy September. The government’s unity, continue to be major problems. In however, ended with national elections 2018, only 60 percent of students in August 2019, when Waqa lost his attended school for the midyear exam- seat in the Boe constituency, opening inations, and of these, less than half the way for a new era of governance. of the students in years 1–8 passed the Throughout 2018–2019, the Waqa examinations. Of year 8 students, only government was engaged in domestic 14 percent passed mathematics, 32 reforms, introducing new economic percent passed science, and 54 percent policies, major changes to superan- passed English (Nauru Bulletin 2018c, nuation, and fundamental reforms 7).
    [Show full text]