The school, which served approximately 60+ children aged 5-18, was staffed by Australian-registered teachers and had been described by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton as providing education "at least as good as I've seen in Australia" [1].
The claim omits several crucial pieces of context:
**The Official Rationale:** The Department of Immigration stated that the closure was part of integrating asylum seeker children into local Nauruan schools, which they said was "consistent with both open centre processing arrangements and education opportunities already accessed by refugee children in Nauru" [2].
The transition was intended to "minimise disruption of an asylum seeker child's education in the event that they are found to be owed Nauru's protection" [2].
**Conditions of Local Schools:** The asylum seeker children and their parents raised significant concerns about the local Nauruan schools, including: poor sanitation (broken toilets, lack of running water), safety concerns (reports of bullying and violence against refugee children), corporal punishment practices, and inadequate teaching standards [1][3].
Truancy rates at some Nauru schools ran as high as 60% for children over 15, and the Nauruan government itself acknowledged that "many young people lack basic literacy and numeracy" [1].
**The Impact on Children:** The closure announcement caused significant distress among children in the detention centre, with reports of protests, threats of self-harm, and several incidents of actual self-harm by children as young as five [2].
The specific article by Ben Doherty provides detailed on-the-ground reporting and includes direct quotes from affected children, government statements, and context about the state of education in Nauru [1].
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government reopened Nauru Manus offshore detention 2012 Julia Gillard Kevin Rudd"
Finding: The Nauru detention centre's history is complex and spans both major parties:
- **2001:** Opened under the Howard Coalition Government (Pacific Solution)
- **2007:** CLOSED by Kevin Rudd's Labor Government (December 2007)
- **August 2012:** REOPENED by Julia Gillard's Labor Government [4][5]
Labor both closed the centre (2007) and reopened it (2012).
* * * *
The reopening under Gillard was a response to increasing boat arrivals and followed the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers.
検索 nounKensaku 実施 nounJisshi : : 「 " Labor nounLabor government nounGovernment reopened nounReopened Nauru nounNauru Manus nounManus offshore nounOffshore detention nounDetention 2012 noun2012 Julia nounJulia Gillard nounGillard Kevin nounKevin Rudd nounRudd 」 "
When Labor reopened Nauru in 2012, they re-established the offshore detention system that would eventually lead to the 2015 school closure decision.
The offshore detention policy itself has been maintained by both parties, with the Coalition continuing and expanding the system after winning government in 2013.
The specific decision to close the school in 2015 occurred under the Abbott/Turnbull Coalition government with Peter Dutton as Immigration Minister, but the broader policy framework of offshore detention on Nauru was re-established by Labor in 2012.
However, the implementation faced significant criticism:
- The local schools were demonstrably under-resourced and posed safety risks to refugee children
- Children expressed genuine fear of attending these schools
- The conversion of the well-equipped detention centre school into staff facilities (offices, gym, recreational area) created a stark contrast between the treatment of staff and detained children
- The decision proceeded despite Immigration Minister Dutton's own admission that the existing school was of high quality
**Key context:** This specific school closure decision was made by the Coalition government, but the offshore detention system itself was reopened by Labor in 2012 after being closed by Labor in 2007.
However, the claim presents this as a standalone decision without the context that: (1) children were transitioned to local schools as part of open centre arrangements; (2) the move was theoretically to prepare children for potential resettlement in Nauru; and (3) while the school closure had significant negative impacts on children, it was not simply to benefit staff without any educational rationale for the children.
However, the claim presents this as a standalone decision without the context that: (1) children were transitioned to local schools as part of open centre arrangements; (2) the move was theoretically to prepare children for potential resettlement in Nauru; and (3) while the school closure had significant negative impacts on children, it was not simply to benefit staff without any educational rationale for the children.