Following last week’s revelations about the “Nauru deal”, the Senate voted in favour of a full inquiry into the Government’s “Offshore processing and resettlement arrangements.” Janet Pelly reports on what may come from it.
The Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee will report by 1 June 2026, and cover “Australia’s arrangements since 2022 with the Republic of Nauru, Papua New Guinea and other countries for offshore processing and resettlement programs, including:
- The payments made by the Australian Government to the primary contractors and subcontractors involved in offshore processing and resettlement programs,
- the payments made by the Australian Government to other third parties involved in offshore processing and resettlement programs,
- the outcomes and effect of payments made to primary contractors and subcontractors involved in offshore processing and resettlement programs and other relevant third parties, and,
- the integrity of arrangements made for the delivery of services and value money for Australian taxpayers; and
any other related matters.”
Plenty of evidence about Australia’s earlier deals is on the record, including government-commissioned reports like the Richardson Review, ANAO audits, and a buried AUSTRAC report (to name just a few). Add in UN rulings and other expert reviews, and it’s quite a body of work.
Despite recent Home Affairs assurances that the controversial offshore processing program has “significantly matured ($)” over the past decade, recent whistleblower accounts suggest otherwise. And legislation threatening 2 years’ jail for any insider who speaks out remains intact.
Graft and corruption over human rights
Apart from the eye-watering waste of taxpayer billions through substantiated claims of graft, corruption, incompetence and lack of oversight, thousands of lives have already been destroyed by Australia’s offshore detention program. Check out the Nauru Files or Behrouz Boochani’s books.
But this is different. In an interview with his own Government Information Office just after the $2.5bB NZYQ deal was signed (February 2025), Nauruan President David Adeang clearly misunderstood the deal he was getting his country into.
The two things that stood out were his claim that he wasn’t accepting refugees, and his belief he could return these “regular people” to the countries they’d fled.
The facts tell a different story:
- Over 300 of the men impacted by the deal are refugees – the other 58 are stateless or from countries that refuse their return.
- Nauru is a signatory to the Refugee Convention and to the Convention Against Torture, meaning it has agreed not to return refugees to the countries they fled.
- So is Australia, which means we would be committing chain refoulement; ie, deporting refugees to a country that sends them back to the danger they fled.
Knowing this, you’d think the Australian government would fix it up quick-smart.
It did. By going to the Federal Court to get a 10-year non-publication order, succeeding, then proceeding with the same plan.
Last week, Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong refused a Senate order to produce the translated interview, arguing it is against the public interest and,
could reasonably be expected to prejudice Australia’s international relations.
Still no MoU
If we had access to the memorandum of understanding between Australia and Nauru, signed in late August, all this could be cleared up. However, all requests have been refused.
Last week, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke resisted renewed pressure, saying it would require a court order or the agreement of both countries.
Strategies like secret MoUs and suppression orders are not new. Ever since offshore detention resumed in 2012, Labor and Coalition governments have refused to disclose the agreements signed with our former colonies (PNG and Nauru).
No trust deed. Billions of tax dollars to be spent without oversight by Nauru
After 13 years of rolling scandals, the grand irony is that the latest Nauru Deal is designed to exile refugees and other ‘non-returnables’ considered unfit to hold Australian visas.
Some had committed serious crimes, others had committed minor crimes, a few had committed no crimes, but almost all held permanent protection visas (which equals recognised refugee) before they were cancelled under Australia’s controversial character test.
On the other hand, no contractor has been sanctioned, no politician has had to pay back siphoned funds, no bureaucrat has been sacked. And hundreds of millions (if not billions) of Australian taxpayer dollars remain unaccounted for.
What’s next?
The 2026 inquiry could go one of three ways:
The deal could unravel under its own weight
If the government is compelled to release the memorandum of understanding, contractual vulnerabilities, breaches of international law, and gaps in due diligence will likely be revealed.
The government might double down
Last week, Tony Burke again deflected corruption allegations, saying “Visa cancellation is meaningful”. This did not respond to the question MP Monique Ryan was asking about the conduct of the Australian and Nauruan governments and Australian-funded contractors.
PM Albanese also deflected and defended, saying the deal with Nauru is “entirely appropriate”, so it looks like the pattern will continue.
In this scenario, expect deeper secrecy, more “operational matters” and stronger rhetorical focus on dangers that are never fully described.
Freeze, review, and reinvent
The government could suspend further transfers but keep the framework intact, buying time and hoping the heat subsides. This is the least risky option for a party trying to look both pragmatic and firm.
From Tampa to Nauru – human rights at stake
Not unlike John Howard and the Children Overboard Affair, the Albanese government went into an election with a false narrative.
Bad people doing bad things, therefore unfit to live in our community.
If the Senate inquiry survives the inevitable attempts to narrow or neuter it, we may find out what has long been treated as proprietary information: who was paid, for what, and whether it was lawful or ethical.
The 2026 inquiry goes beyond the NZYQ deal, also assessing the treatment of a different group – asylum seekers who arrive by boat. At latest count, there are around 100 detainees in Nauru and controversial US private prisons operator, MTC, is being paid $787million – more than 16 times the original five-year contract value – to oversee them.
It’s no stretch to say the inquiry will build on a mountain of evidence that indicates we (Australian taxpayers) have been underwriting a model that treats corruption as an administrative cost and secrecy as a governing principle. The next question is whether we’re willing to keep paying for it.
Even more importantly, we need a coherent, lawful, humane response to the now-lawful fact that our government can’t lock up people forever because it can’t otherwise dispose of them.
Australia’s risk just exploded on shonky Nauru Deal. How bad can it get?
Janet Pelly is a Melbourne-based refugee and detention rights advocate. She has worked with Human Rights 4 All since 2019.