The Claim
“Claimed asylum seekers are safe on Nauru, even after an unexploded wartime shell was found inside the compound.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
TRUE - The core facts of this claim are accurate. An unexploded WWII artillery shell was discovered at the Nauru offshore processing centre on April 15, 2014 [1]. The shell, a Howitzer artillery shell from World War II, was found next to the "recreation tent" in OPC3, the family compound section housing children, pregnant women, and families [1].
According to internal emails obtained by Guardian Australia, the discovery raised serious concerns because "no one has been able to give assurances the area OPC3 is located on was adequately checked for UXOs [unexploded ordnance]" [1]. The shell was eventually removed after an exclusion zone was established.
The risks of unexploded ordnance on Nauru are well-documented. Nauru was occupied by Japanese troops during WWII, leaving a legacy of unexploded munitions. In 2010, the Australian Department of Defence conducted "Operation Render Safe," sending troops to assist with locating unexploded bombs on the island [1].
Scott Morrison, who was Immigration Minister at the time, was briefed about the unexploded bomb. His spokeswoman confirmed the bomb was subsequently deemed "inert" and stated that "some asylum seekers were moved to other sections of the detention centre at an appropriate distance from the exclusion zone" [1]. The department also committed to engaging "a specialist survey company to review the need for a more detailed UXO survey" [1].
Missing Context
Policy Continuity: The claim omits that the offshore detention policy was not a Coalition creation—it was reinstated by the Labor Government under Prime Minister Julia Gillard in August 2012 [2], and the facility infrastructure and transfers were established before the Coalition took office in September 2013.
Bipartisan Support: The policy of offshore processing has enjoyed bipartisan support. The Coalition continued a policy framework that both major parties have maintained since 2012. The claim implies this was uniquely a Coalition position when it was actually a continuation of existing policy [2].
Government Response: The claim doesn't mention that the government did respond to the incident by moving affected asylum seekers, declaring the shell inert, and commissioning a specialist survey—suggesting negligence when there was an actual response [1].
Historical Context: The unexploded ordnance risk on Nauru is a documented legacy of WWII Japanese occupation, not a failing of the Australian government. The Australian Defence Force had already been addressing this issue through Operation Render Safe since 2010 [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian Australia is a mainstream, reputable news organization with a strong reputation for factual reporting. The article cites internal emails obtained exclusively by Guardian Australia and includes confirmation from the Immigration Minister's office [1]. The Guardian has generally been critical of offshore detention policies but maintains journalistic standards for factual accuracy. This source is considered reliable for the factual claims made.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
YES - This is a critical omission from the claim.
The offshore detention policy on Nauru was reinstated by the Labor Government under Prime Minister Julia Gillard in August 2012 [2]. On July 19, 2013, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that no person seeking asylum by boat would ever be resettled in Australia, establishing the "Regional Resettlement Arrangement" with PNG [2].
The Nauru detention centre (OPC3 where the shell was found) was operational under Labor's management from August 2012 through September 2013 when the Coalition won government. The facility opened in 2012 under Labor, and the first asylum seekers arrived in September 2012 [3].
Key Finding: This is not a Coalition-specific policy or failure. The offshore processing regime, including detention at Nauru, has been maintained by both major parties:
- Howard Government (Coalition): Originally established Pacific Solution (2001-2007)
- Rudd Government (Labor): Closed Nauru facility (2007)
- Gillard Government (Labor): Reopened Nauru and Manus Island (August 2012)
- Rudd Government (Labor): Announced no boat arrivals would be resettled in Australia (July 2013)
- Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison Governments (Coalition): Continued the policy (2013-2022)
- Albanese Government (Labor): Continues offshore processing to this day [2]
The unexploded ordnance risk existed throughout the entire operation of the facility—under both Labor and Coalition governments. There is no evidence that Labor conducted more thorough UXO surveys when reopening the facility in 2012 than the Coalition did subsequently.
Balanced Perspective
The Safety Claim: The claim suggests the government maintained that asylum seekers were "safe" despite the unexploded shell discovery. The government's position, as stated by Morrison's office, was that the bomb was deemed "inert" (non-explosive), affected individuals were relocated, and a specialist survey was commissioned [1]. The "very slim" chance of detonation cited in internal emails suggests the actual risk was low, though the discovery was undoubtedly concerning.
The Broader Safety Context: While the unexploded shell made headlines, it was one of many safety concerns at Nauru that existed under both governments. The Human Rights Law Centre documented deaths, self-harm, sexual assault allegations, and inadequate medical care over the decade-long operation of offshore detention [2]. The UXO discovery should be seen as part of a broader pattern of inadequate facilities and conditions that both major parties oversaw.
Policy Justification: Both Labor and Coalition governments have maintained offshore processing as a deterrent policy aimed at preventing dangerous maritime journeys by asylum seekers. This justification has been consistently offered regardless of which party was in power [2].
Key Context: This incident was not unique to Coalition management—it occurred in a facility that Labor had reopened and operated for over a year before the 2013 election. The bipartisan nature of offshore detention means responsibility for conditions at Nauru cannot be attributed to one party alone.
TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The factual claim is accurate: an unexploded WWII shell was found at the Nauru detention centre in April 2014, and the government maintained that asylum seekers were safe despite this discovery [1]. However, the claim presents this as a Coalition-specific failing when it occurred in a facility that the Labor Government had reopened in 2012 and operated for over a year. The offshore detention policy has been maintained by both major parties since 2012 [2], and the unexploded ordnance risk on Nauru—a legacy of WWII Japanese occupation—is a geographic hazard that existed regardless of which party was in government [1]. The claim omits the bipartisan nature of the policy and the Labor Government's role in re-establishing the Nauru facility where this incident occurred.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The factual claim is accurate: an unexploded WWII shell was found at the Nauru detention centre in April 2014, and the government maintained that asylum seekers were safe despite this discovery [1]. However, the claim presents this as a Coalition-specific failing when it occurred in a facility that the Labor Government had reopened in 2012 and operated for over a year. The offshore detention policy has been maintained by both major parties since 2012 [2], and the unexploded ordnance risk on Nauru—a legacy of WWII Japanese occupation—is a geographic hazard that existed regardless of which party was in government [1]. The claim omits the bipartisan nature of the policy and the Labor Government's role in re-establishing the Nauru facility where this incident occurred.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (3)
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.