No Easy Solution for Nauru's Big Problem

Nauru's Big Problem

THE UN report on Nauru is a far more practicable document than the one the same Visiting Mission wrote on New Guinea. There is nothing in it that Australia, as the Administering Authority, cannot put into effect.

The Nauruans are a civilised people; there are no cannibals among them and they all have the vote and know how to use it. If they are back ward politically, that is not their fault but Australia’s, for it is quite true as the Mission states that Nauru is well able to support a fully elected Legislative Council with a Nauruan majority. Furthermore, the Nauruans have been asking for some time for a greater say in their own affairs, and in this they differ very much from the New Guineans. [At present the Administrator has all the powers of Government—legis lative, administrative and judicial.

But local government matters are handled by the Nauru Local Govern ment Council of nine members elected by adult suffrage. Main function of the Council is to advise the Adminis trator on Nauruan affairs and to maintain peace, order and good government amongst the Nauruans.

As the Phosphate Commision pays the cost of administration and is the sole prop to the economy, the Ad ministration’s only reason for being is the welfare of the Nauruans, which it has seen to meticulously, if with occasional heavy-handed paternalism.] The matter of a new home is a more difficult question than method of government, but the Mission’s ap proach is, again, correct. The Mis sion simply says that there has been a great deal of Australian dithering on the whole matter and that the time has come for the Nauruans to be given specific proposals by the Aus tralian Government, and a decision made.

The Mission says they must be given the offer of an island home somewhere off New Guinea or Aus tralia, or they must be given a model village of their own near one of the big Australian cities.

So far so good. Making the next decision is the trouble.

If the Nauruans really do succeed in finding an island home to their liking, they may discover that auto nomy is not going to be all that they expected. Can 2,500 Nauruans really become an independent State and not fall into somebody’s orbit?

This madness for independence is fashionable at the moment, we know, but as the practical NZ Minister of Island Territories, Mr. Gotz, said the other day: “It’s all very well being independent while somebody else has to pay your bills!”

And what about the “model village” scheme on the Australian mainland?

Australia’s postwar advisers on im migration problems have, as we un derstand it, warned Governments to discourage migrants from living to gether in groups, as this slows down their assimilation and makes prob lems both for them and their new country.

In times of economic depression, for instance, a racial group is more likely to be singled out for abuse by Australians (“they’re taking our jobs!”) if it is easily identifiable in a close knit community.

There are other practical difficulties in creating a Nauruan village on the Australian mainland. It might suc ceed for the first generation but it is almost inevitable that young people of the second generation, knowing nothing of their homeland, would want to go out into the larger com munity of Australia proper and be come Australians.