Transcript
MALAKAI KOLOAMATANGI: I think it was initially a very good time for Nauru. In its heyday of course everyone knows that it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even though it was very small. And once the phosphate started to run out, infrastructure for one was not maintained and the economy took a down turn and the problem is of course is that Nauru doesn't really have anything, except for the fish to export. And it has faced some growing political problems and instability. It had some constitutional support from Australia, which gives the aid to Nauru that props it up, so I think initially it was a very good time on Nauruan and it was a really good time to be a Nauruan...
DON WISEMAN: Except of course Nauru had access at that point, eventually, to a vast amount of money which was squandered, wasn't it?
MK: It disappeared.
DW: It wasn't spent on facilities there.
MK: No it wasn't and a good example of that was Air Nauru, which was infamous in the Pacific for mismanagement and so forth. And Nauru had properties it had invested in. Of course it had to sell the properties to prop up the government. So I would say, looking at the 50 years and today's celebrations, I think Nauru would have to rue to opportunities it had squandered and not really capitalised on, because they were huge opportunities for Nauru.
DW: What happened to the money? Was that lost through corruption or was it mismanagement?
MK: I think in a way it was probably a bit of both, probably mismanagement of it. And just huge sums of money. Per capita for example Nauruans were amongst the most wealthy, not only in the Pacific but in the world. So it was new, it was an opportunity that could not be managed properly. I think Nauru would probably have done well if it was maybe able to contract investment managers and so forth to manage that, because it really was a huge opportunity for Nauru to maintain a standard of living that was viable and sustainable.
DW: So is that an indication that it wasn't actually in a position to be independent, because it couldn't do it, couldn’t do the job?
MK: Yes and I think Nauru is in that with a number of other Pacific islands [which] are in that category of Pacific Islands which are impoverished and probably too small. Perhaps should not be independent but maybe should be in a status such as Tokelau and Cook Islands and Niue with regards to New Zealand. So it is all very well to be politically independent but will that be beneficial for you in terms of economics or not. That's the reality of being a small impoverished island being independent in such a big world.
DW: The big question I guess for Nauru right now is 'What happens when the refugee re-settlement centres - when they go' because they will go.
MK: They will go and of course, again, that was a welcome income earner, if you like, for Nauru, being a part of Australia's Pacific Solution, so called, but that kind of thing - I see that the [Nauru] budget this is year is something like $128 million and the expenditure is around $127 million. So if Australia, apart from maintaining the refugee centres, if it doesn't give aid to Nauru it is not going to survive. It's as simple as that.
