Skip to main content

Search

Commission Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention

 


Click

here to return to the Submission Index

Submission to the National

Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from

International

Commission of Jurists, Queensland Branch



Introduction

Background

Statistics on Children in Australian Detention Centres

International

Obligations and Laws Governing Detention of Children

A.

Some Rights and Obligations of Asylum Seekers under Australian Law and

Standards

Appropriate

and Proper Care of People in Immigration Detention

The

DIMIA Regime, what it purports to do and how it is in breach of the

CROC

Conclusion

and Summary



Introduction


This submission will focus on the current Australian immigration detention

regime as it applies to minors. The regime will be examined based on data

and information made available by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural

and Indigenous Affairs (“DIMIA”) and supporting documentation

ranging from government publications, the Flood Inquiry and testimonies

given to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

“HREOC” under oath. International conventions, domestic statutes

and case law will also be referred to in order to contextualise the socio-political

ramifications of Australia’s continued practice in it’s detention

institutions as well as to lay down the fundamental tenets that inform

international governments, lawyers and social scientists in this field.

Secondary sources will be used to reinforce the principles and policies

that should inform as to the best methods of dealing with the influx of

asylum seekers to Australia, with particular emphasis on children and

unaccompanied minors.

This submission will

examine the detention institutes both generally and specifically, with

emphasis on improvements and variations of methodologies required. The

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) (Queensland Branch) strongly

recommends that the Australian government revise its policy of institutionalising,

isolating and detaining children irrespective of their geographical heritage.

We will reaffirm that the Minister is the guardian of all children that

come onto Australia waters, air and soil and in this regard has the highest

duty of care with regard to these minors and should be accountable to

the Australian public, be responsive to international policies that inform

on human rights and the dignity of children as well as the minors detained

through the immigration policy. There has been some change to the immigration/migration

policies pursuant to the Flood Inquiry, and while we commend this, we

argue that more needs to be done and that our submission should, to whatever

relevant extent lend itself to proactive measures by the government of

the day. For the general issue of detention of children continues to be

important as a matter of human rights, law and policy.

Background

Statistics on Children in Australian Detention Centres


According to DIMIA, between 1 July 2001 and 12 April 2002 a total of 1,871

minors have been taken into detention. [1] On 26 April

2002 it was estimated that there were 184 minors in detention, 70 females

and 114 males. [2] Of these, nine minors were held in

immigration detention unaccompanied and another 12 unaccompanied minors

were held in other places of detention as stipulated below. [3]

The Refugee Council of Australia published numbers of Children Held in

Detention as at May 2, 2002 citing a total of 153 children in the immigration

centres mentioned below, as well as 368 on Nauru and Manus Island. [4]

Woomera IRPC held the largest numbers of minors, at 61, with Curtin IRPC

holding 42 and Villawood IDC having 28. Port Hedland IRPC, Christmas Island

IRPC, Maribynong IDC and Perth IDC also housed minors in detention. [5]

In other places of detention such as hospitals, prison, remand centres

or alternate places of detention there were 24 minors. [6]


A year later the figures show that there has been a significant decrease

in the number of children in detention centres but maintain that the presence

of 33 such children is of ongoing concern to the ICJ. It is accepted that

there is a decrease in the number of children being detained. It is submitted

that even if detention is viewed as a last resort for children, it is

imperative to note that detention like situations in the community will

have similar detrimental effects.


International

Obligations and Laws Governing Detention of Children



“Each child has his or her human dignity and the same needs: for

protection of his or her personality, for integrity and privacy…Each

child is an individual person whose personality and identity should

enjoy universal recognition and respect…”


Current International Law Regime: International law,

is a system of law comprising widely accepted rules and principles, which

govern the international relations between sovereign States and other

institutional subjects of international law. [8] These

rules and principles, articulated in documents like treaties, conventions,

charters and other such instruments, impose obligations only on the members

of the international community who choose to be bound by them.[9]

This may include an obligation limiting a government’s freedom of

action.[10] The success of the international system

of law depends exclusively on the political will of sovereign States,

to firstly agree to be bound by such principles, and secondly to fulfil

these obligations once they voluntarily agree to be bound by them. [11]

Each sovereign State

has the capacity to act in a way which it individually feels is consistent

with the legal obligations it has become a signatory to. [12]

In Australia, ratification of a treaty or convention requires active adoption

of the relevant instrument into domestic law in order to create enforceable

rights. [13]

Following the creation

of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came a series of specific

declarations and conventions, which canvassed a diverse range of human

rights law. [14]

Treaties

or Conventions Dealing Generally and Specifically with Child Refugees

or Child Asylum Seekers: The ICJ believes that the following treaties

should inform the government of their obligations under international

laws:


(1) Specifically


(a) The Convention on the Rights of a Child (1989)

(b) The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and its

protocol (1967)



(2) Generally


(a) Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954)

(b) Convention Against Discrimination in Education (1960)

(c) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination (1965)

(d) Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961)

(e) International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”)

(1966)

(f) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rigths (1966)

(g) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against

Women (1979)

(h) Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment (1984).

In recent years Australia

has gained a reputation for being a willing signatory to a number of treaties

and conventions which articulate strong views on human rights concerns.

It is an even greater challenge for sovereign States such as Australia

to follow through the international law regime which has no legal ramification

until it has been incorporated into domestic law.

We contend that

the institutionalised detention of minors in detention centres has been

under circumstances that breach international principles and are contrary

to the international law principles Australia is widely known to accept.

The importance of these conventions is reflected in the fact that over

half of the world’s refugees are children under the age of 18. [15]

The Significance

of the Convention on the Rights of a Child (1989) (“CROC”):

The most important convention to this discussion is the CROC,

which expands on the general principles governing rights of refugees which

is found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [16]

and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and its 1967

Protocol.[17] The latest figures show that CROC has

140 signatories and 191 countries are State Parties. [18]

The Four

Main CROC Principles: CROC covers virtually all areas of the

life of a child and regardless of their immigration status, all children

are entitled to the full enjoyment of the rights enshrined within the

convention. [19] There are four main principles which

are considered to be the core of CROC. [20]


1. Best interests of the child. This is found in Article 3(1)

of CROC:


‘In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public

or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative

authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall

be a primary consideration.’



2. Right to non-discrimination. This is found in Article 2 of

CROC:


i. ‘States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth

in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without

discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his

or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language,

religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin,

property, disability, birth or other status.’

ii. ‘States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure

that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment

on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs

of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.’


3. Right to participation and survival. This is found in Article 12(1)

of CROC:


i. ‘States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of

forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely

in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given

due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.’


4. Right to development. This is found in Article (6):


i. ‘States Parties recognise that every child has the inherent

right to life.’

ii. ‘States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible

the survival and development of the child.’


Other salient features of CROC: Include the right

to family provision embraced in Article 5 :[21]


i. ‘States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights

and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended

family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians

or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a

manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate

direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognised

in the present Convention.’

: Refuge-seeking

children are entitled to the same educational opportunities as

citizen children.[22] That is under Arts 28

and 29 of CROC respectively. There is a requirement on the Department

of Immigration to ensure there is compulsory primary education, encourage

secondary education and to make higher education accessible. [23]

However, all international obligations that the Department owes are subject

to policies taken on by the States and this has varying implications depending

on the State where the detention centre happens to be located. [24]

: There is an obligation

to ensure that suitable staff under competent supervision carry

out the health and well being of the child as provided for under

Arts. 2 and 6(2) of CROC. [25] The Department also owes

children who are intellectually and physically disabled special obligations

under Arts 23 and 25 of CROC respectively. [26]

:There is an obligation

to provide for adequate and appropriate recreational resources

under Arts 17 and 31 of CROC. [27]

:There is also a

right to compensation for arbitrary detention and this

should be applied to minors as well as adults in accordance with 9(1)

and 9(4) (ICCPR). [28] In A v Australia [29]

the applicant was held in detention for over three-years and was awarded

compensation because detention was arbitrary and in contravention of arts

9(1) and 9(4) (ICCPR). Adequate compensation ‘for the length of

detention’ is provided for under art. 2(3) (ICCPR), but Australia

to date has not compensated ‘A’. [30]


Australian Law Governing Detention of Refugee Children


The Commonwealth has power to make laws regarding naturalisation of aliens,

immigration and emigration, and the influx of criminals; therefore the

Commonwealth has power to make laws in relation to preventing entry of

non-citizens. [31]


‘Asylum-Seekers’ are subject to the provisions of the

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) [32]

and must be a non-citizen to whom Australia owes protection obligations

under the International Conventions. [33] Although regulated

by the Act, international laws do have an impact on Australia’s

domestic laws. [34]

A. Some Rights

and Obligations of Asylum Seekers under Australian Law and Standards


Rights of Asylum Seekers:


1. Valid Visa Applications: It may be that ‘Asylum-Seekers’

will be unable to make valid visa applications depending on their place

of arrival.[35] However, a person is entitled upon

request to application forms for a visa or all reasonable facilities

for making a statutory declaration for the purposes of obtaining legal

advice or taking legal proceedings.[36]


2. Review of Refusal to Grant Visa Application: Decisions to refuse

to grant or to cancel protection visas are reviewable. [37]


3. Review of Late Application: Where an original application is unsuccessful,

only new information can be considered in a later application. [38]


4. Reasons by the Minister: The Minister is obliged to give reasons

that the applicant understands and can comment on. [39]


5. Minister as Guardian of children: The Minister is the guardian of

non-citizen children who enter Australia without being in the care of

relatives that intend to become permanent residents (unaccompanied minors).

[40] Guardianship is conferred under section 6 of

the IGOC Act. This includes the basic human needs of the child as well

as all of Australia’s international obligations to the child.

[41] Although the Minister has delegated most of his

powers and functions under the IGOC Act to various officers of the State

or Territory departments responsible for child welfare through Memorandum’s

of Understanding (MOU’s) [42] the duties

owed to children under his custody are still to be discharged by the

Department on behalf of the relevant Minister.


6. Substantial Justice: A Refugee Review Tribunal is to be fair, just,

economical, informal and quick and must act according to substantial

justice and merits of the case. [43]

Obligations

of Asylum Seekers:


7. Obligations of Detainees to pay: It is possible to require detainees

to pay a daily amount for their maintenance whilst detained as well

as their costs of removal or deportation. [44]


8. Section 189 Persons: Persons detained under section 189 must be kept

in immigration detention until they are deported or granted a visa.

[45] There is no provision for earlier release by

the courts or otherwise. [46]


9. Third Country Principles: Third Country resettlement may be possible.

[47] Australia’s obligations extend only to

persons who have taken all possible steps to enter and reside in another

country. [48]


10. Arrival without identification: Arrival without identification should

not be interpreted as an attempt to defraud the system because refugees

are at risk of persecution and loss of documents is not unusual. [49]

However, they may not be eligible for permanent residence and may only

be granted a three year Temporary Protection Visa (TPV). [50]


It is acknowledged that there is no common law right to enter into Australia.

[51]

 

Appropriate

and Proper Care of People in Immigration Detention


Immigration Detention Standards: The Immigration Detention Standards (IDS)

set out the appropriate and proper care of people in immigration detention

including the requirement to provide safe and secure detention. [52]

These standards also establish a right to educational services and the

right to be called by name and not to be referred to as a number. There

are guidelines that all persons have access to health facilities and specialist

facilities where required.

In particular Standard

9.1 provides that children with ‘special needs’ be

identified to increase their quality of life.[53] The

Standards further cover a range of services including accommodation, food,

clothing, bedding, religion and recreation.[54] However,

these are standards only as the Department has limited facilities. [55]

Duty of Care

owed by Department and the Services Provider:

Both the Department and the Services Provider are required to meet duty

of care obligations, which go beyond the provision of basic needs;

these commitments require the provision of a “safe and secure physical

environment and, to the fullest extent possible, the prevention of physical,

verbal or cultural abuse, sexual harassment, neglect and any other abuse.”

[56]

Duty of care obligations

also require the provision of appropriate educational programs and above

this is the duty of care to all detainee children, in particular unaccompanied

minors because of the Minister’s guardianship responsibilities for

these children, as discussed above. [57]

Services Provider:

The Services Provider is required to have a case management plan for all

children within 14 days of being taken into detention to ensure that their

needs are met and regularly reviewed. The Status report on each unaccompanied

minor should be provided weekly to High Risk Assessment Team meetings

held within the facility, and each Services Provider Centre Manger provides

a written report weekly on the welfare of all unaccompanied minors to

the DIMIA Manager. [58]

The DIMIA

Regime, what it purports to do and how it is in breach of the CROC


What DIMIA claims to be doing: It is submitted that many of the claims

put forward by DIMIA are to be commended, given the staff training and

development needs necessary to implement many of the programs to be monitored

by the Services Provider Centre Manger and DIMIA Manager. DIMIA have stated

that the detention centres run various programs to enhance the detainees

stay, including:


“education services for children and adults, including English

language instruction, cultural classes and sporting activities. Detainees

are free to practice their religion of choice…Detainees are provided

with three meals daily, which are developed by qualified cooks/chefs

in consultation with qualified dieticians. Detainees have input into

the formulation of culturally appropriate menus through the Detainee

Representative Committees and often are involved in the preparation

of meals. Milk is available for the children to drink.”

[59]


They go on to explain that children have access also to health, welfare

and psychological services. [60]

DIMIA’s Breach

of the CROC: The majority of children in detention (56) were aged between

five to ten years of age. [61] Those aged between 11-15

years numbered 50. There were 41 between 16-17years and 35 were under

five years of age. Nine of those were less than a year old.[62]

A report of the Senate Standing Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee into Refugee

Detention Centres in 2001 indicates that being exposed to a detention

environment as a baby and in early childhood is not favourable to healthy

development. [63]

This would seem consistent

with the fact that the early years are seen as vitally important for future

development of the brain both cognitively, in terms of future learning

and emotionally in terms of developing a healthy secure attachment to

a caregiver. [64] This attachment has been found to

be necessary for the child to develop trust, self-identity, independence,

self-esteem, social skills – such as forming meaningful relationships

and knowing the difference between right and wrong, emotional stability

and control, sensitivity and empathy with others. [65]

It is submitted that

many of the duties of proper care and support that DIMIA is supposed to

be providing fall far short of that department’s own standard and

certain key issues are addressed to highlight these short fallings. It

is further submitted that due to these drastic short fallings that DIMIA

is in fact in breach of the CROC and that the Minister is outside of the

general standard of care owed to children in detention centres. Below

are some reasons that have informed the ICJ perspective that the DIMIA

needs to make reference to it’s own commendable standards and maintain

them as it would be obliged to by the community it represents and is accountable

to.

Parental Responsibilities

and Support: DIMIA have stipulated that the responsibility for nurturing

and disciplining the children, ensuring hygiene and cleanliness, supervising

and encouraging participation in recreational and educational activities

remains with the parents. However, they state that the detention centres

provide assistance by way of parenting programs such as newsletters, tape-recorded

information and sessions run by police.[66] Parents

are also the mechanism through which minors in detention are able to have

their say about their needs, apart from unaccompanied minors who are regularly

spoken to by DIMIA Managers and Deputy Managers. [67]

If minors are assessed

as having emotional issues and their parents are assessed as possibly

depressed or with poor coping skills they are treated and monitored by

the High Risk Assessment Team. [68] The Services Provider

encourages all staff (such as teachers) to be aware of children in need

and then deal with them pro-actively.[69] Children who

self-harm are referred to appropriate professionals and counsellors. [70]

The Detention Centre staff also take on the role of “mandated notifiers”

and are required to report suspected incidents or risk of child abuse

or neglect. [71]

An example of the

negative developmental effect of detention was outlined by a Perth paediatrician,

a previous Woomera employee who had examined a child born in detention:


“I met him in August and he was six months old. When I went back

in January, he was still there with his family and he was barely able

to crawl. He was showing all the signs of a year’s worth of environmental

deprivation.” [72]

Recommendation:

It is submitted that in detention centres, parents are no longer in control

of the living situation and may often be unable to control the situation

because of their reactions to the circumstances. If a parent is depressed,

emotionally detached or feeling helpless they are unable to focus on the

needs of their child, provide them with nurturing, support and protection

and as such the children may experience neglect both emotionally and physically.

[73]

Another aspect, which

prevents children developing this attachment and adds to the alienation

between parents and child, is the state of mind of the parents. These

people may also be subject to depression and their own symptoms, for example,

of post-traumatic stress disorder and may then be contributing to their

child’s trauma and disruption in their emotional development. [74]

Specifically, “parents experiencing post-traumatic symptoms are

often extremely irritable, have unstable moods and poorer impulse control.[75]

” Children are frightened and traumatized by these symptoms. [76]

A related instance

is that the normal behaviour of terrible toddlers may result in abusive

discipline. [77] An example of the problem was outlined

by a Psychiatrist from the Rural and Remote Mental Health Service. She

stated that a severely depressed and possibly psychotic mother had concerns

that she would harm her 5 month old child. The child was subsequently

removed from her care and placed with another family. The mother and child

were finally admitted to the hospital and treated but are now back in

detention. [78] The reality of this is seemingly addressed

by the treatment and monitoring by the High Risk Assessment Team, however

the numbers who are affected does not look to be reflected in those cared

for by this Team and there is some question about the qualifications of

those in the team.

It is further submitted

that the regimentation and control exhibited in the detention environment

can confuse the child in relation to roles and responsibilities. They

discover that their parents are not in control and so this effects their

view of the parents and how they respond to their authority, in turn breaking

down the family unit. [79]

Unaccompanied Minors:

For unaccompanied minors a mentoring program is in place in which an adult

(usually a parent of a child of similar age and cultural background as

the minor) is delegated with the task of assisting the minor to maintain

their culture and language. [80] This again raises issues

if this adult is effected by depression, etc and further there seems to

be a gap with respect to other issues that the minor may require assistance

with and how they should vent these.

Recommendation:

As mentioned earlier, all children are to have a case management plan

as assessed by a qualified Services provider to ensure needs are met satisfactorily,

however there seems to be a question regarding the follow up to this.

[81] Primarily, this issue should be resolved on the

basis that the DIMIA, under the supervision of the Minister, owe a duty

of care to children in detention and it is our contention that this duty

has been breached. The Minister is the guardian of these unaccompanied

minors and as long as they remain within the Minister’s jurisdiction

and should not be disadvantaged for want of adult representation and concern

for their needs.


Violence in Detention Centres: A report by the Human Rights and Equal

Opportunity Commission in 1998 found evidence of violence between detainees

and between detainees and custodial officers. [82] The

Flood Report also found that during the year 2000 “a small proportion

of detention officer staff were treating detainees including children

as if they were criminals, intimidation and verbal abuse occurred.”

[83]

It has been submitted

that children are further exposed to violence in the detention centre

in the form of witnessing the violence between adults, the protest action

such as riots and hunger strikes, self mutilation and attempts at suicide,

searches of both rooms and bodies, tear gas, water canons and in some

centres nightly headcounts, disrupting sleep, along with the public address

system which can run into the night, when many children should be sleeping.

[84]


Recommendation: It is acknowledged by the ICJ that the

Minister has taken heed of the Flood Report and that new endeavours to

ensure that personnel of a corrective centre background are not left with

the sole responsibility of managing the proper security within the detention

centres. However, it is also acknowledged that this must be across all

detention facilities in Australia and on pacific shores to eliminate the

stigma that is attached with seeking refuge and asylum on foreign shores-

it is not a crime to flee persecution and it is imperative that asylum

seekers and refugees be treated with humanity according to Australia’s

laws and international conventions.

Sexual Abuse: There

have been alleged cases of sexual abuse in Curtin which the Australian

Association for the Welfare of Child Health states is evidence of the

danger of confining children and adults (who are often suffering from

various levels of mental distress). [85]

Recommendation:

It is submitted that the staff employed by DIMIA are not necessarily qualified

to identify certain symptoms. Further, there are inherent problems with

detention centre staff making these observations, particularly as they

may be ‘blind’ to the problem, either due to the length of

their contracts and confidentiality issues may create barriers in obtaining

assistance. It is therefore recommended that continued staff development

be introduced in these areas and that clear mandates be put in place to

cover any privacy/ confidentiality concerns that may cause ethical and

moral dilemmas to staff. Staff themselves can easily recommend the DIMIA

Manager and the office of the Minister as to what concerns they face and

how they have previously dealt with these issues.

Cultural diversity:

The Refugee experience itself contributes to a large amount of cultural

loss and bereavement. On arrival the refugee will often experience disorientation

and confusion associated with the “culture shock” of a new

lifestyle, environment, government systems including legal, educational,

health and welfare avenues. [86]

Iranian minors figure the highest among children in detention at 70, with

Afghanis numbering 52 and Iraqis 29. [87] The remaining

33 are drawn from nationalities such as Chinese, Sri Lankans, Palestinians,

Indonesian, Vietnamese, Indians, Malaysians and others. [88]

DIMIA have indicated

that in 2001 that more than 40 languages were present in the mainland

detention centres, including Arabic, Cantonese, Dari, Farsi, Filipino,

Indonesian, Korean, Singhalese, Tamil, Thai, Turkish and Vietnamese. [89]

DIMA and the Service Provider engage interpreters for receiving and orientating

detainees or explaining changes in routine at the centre, discussing complaints

and requests, attending the medical detention facility and processing

of property or money requests. [90] There are on-site

interpreters competent in common languages, and for those not so common

a telephone interpreter is organised unless face-to-face is necessary.

In general day-to-day communication other detainees often act as interpreters.

[91]

Recommendation:

It is not good standard practice where proper care and support are due

for the DIMIA to rely on interpreters whose own language skills may not

be appropriate and whose motives may present a conflict of interest dilemma

to be placed in this position. It is further asserted that the facilities

provided for interpretation in matters that touch and concern the lives

of people is insufficient. For instance, cultural issues may prevent women,

children and younger persons, for example, from openly discussing matters

with male interpreters or other members of a family having to hear and

relate distressing times to others. It is a fact that in war-time, as

in times of peace, women and children are disproportionately disenfranchised

and this many include anything from homeland dispossession to rape and

torture- issues which may constitute a cultural taboo. The same may happen

to men.

Religious Diversity:

DIMIA aims to maintain religious diversity by facilitating visits by accredited

religious personnel and making space and equipment available for religious

services. The Service Provider may also vary food or meal times to respect

“particular religious practices such as Ramadan. [92]

” However, it would seem that only particular religions are catered

for and certainly most rituals are not catered for.

Recommendation:

It is strongly recommended that detention officers participate in cultural

awareness training as an essential element of their staff development

training. Bodies such as the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture

and the Refugee Council [93] are equipped to do this

if the relevant Ministry is not. It has been found however that sometimes

this training does not happen, and it is certainly very limited in depth.

Cultural and religious awareness could certainly improve the relations

between the staff and asylum seekers. The limited access in detention

to communities, religious organisations (and places of worship) and appropriate

schools and cultural activities such as rituals, which would normally

be available to support the child’s cultural development in mainstream

society may have a negative impact on children’s ability to cope

with change and a sense of identity. [94] As multiculturalism

and not assimilation is the ideology of the day, it is recommended

that this should inform the DIMIA on how it views the importance of cultural

and religious expression in detention centres.

The DIMIA is commended

for taking heed of the Flood Report where it was identified that there

was limited privacy and respect accorded to asylum seekers who were previously

identified as a number rather than a name. It is hoped that this practice

has been stoped for good. However, such impersonal anonymity may still

exist where guardians lose the role of the parent [95]

in an environment that appears to be prejudice and discriminatory through

it’s isolation from others with similar cultural backgrounds. This

leads to less acculturation and as such contributes to an increased risk

for mental health problems. [96]

Health and Disability:

When detainees arrive at a centre they participate in an initial health

assessment and medical personnel attempt to assess whether the child displays

signs of past trauma or developmental harm.[97] There

are 24 hour, seven day a week medical centres in all centres to meet needs

of triage, nursing and first aid. [98] Access to this

facility is sometimes by way of an appointment being made (often by a

security officer if they deem it necessary.) [99] Otherwise,

medication is distributed (depending on the centre) between once to four

times daily. [100] If detainees cannot be treated within

detention they are referred off-site. [101]

DIMIA further states

that Doctors usually visit the centres daily and are on call at all times,

psychologists or counsellors are available either on site or by referral

and centres housing children “try to ensure that nursing or general

practitioner staff have experience in paediatrics or child health.”

[102] In addition, attempts are made at employing staff

who have experience in dealing with torture or trauma sufferers. [103]

All medical staff are given (if possible) a one-day orientation program

including cultural awareness sessions. [104]

DIMIA have stipulated that it is the responsibility of the Service Provider

to ensure that detainees have suitable clothing and footwear for their

age, gender and other needs. [105]

Specifically, for children milk and fruit is available, however parents

must request baby food from the Services Provider and baby formula is

available from the medical centres. [106]

However, the guidelines

above seem to be in dispute with the claims by an Adelaide Solicitor in

relation to Woomera who states that:

  • “inmates

    have to queue for … medical attention …for up to two hours.

    Persons seeking medical attention (including painkillers for broken

    leg, raging fever, tonsillitis, etc) each have to queue in the open

    for up to one and a half hours to obtain their medication in front of

    the nurse.

  • Nails may only

    be cut by the nurse, who will do ONE person per day.

  • Women must queue

    each day for their ration of tampons/disposable nappies.

  • There is no baby

    food or formula, one woman with a six month old baby who was struggling

    to maintain breast feeding was advised to feed the baby powdered chicken

    stock mixed with water.” [107]

In a similar vein,

Barnados Australia has described a case study of a five year old girl

with multiple disabilities who came to detention with her father. Medical

staff were aware that she suffered from asthma. When she became ill and

was constantly coughing her father took her to the medical centre but

was told to make sure she kept up her fluid intake. Two weeks later when

the illness continued he was given cough medicine. It took three months

for an inhaler to be granted. Medical tests were carried out on the girl

without an interpreter or any explanation being provided for her father.

Doctors noted on medical certificates that further investigations were

necessary to diagnose the extent of her brain damage but no follow up

was arranged. [108]

As at 30 April 2002

there were 9 children with assessed disabilities (such as congenital,

intellectual and psychological disabilities, speech impediments, delayed

cognitive skills and language acquisition) in detention. [109]

Recommendation:

The Services Provider is required to have a case management plan for all

children within 14 days of being taken into detention to ensure that their

needs are met and regularly reviewed. This is a standard known by the

DIMIA and expected of the Services Provider. Again, the DIMIA is commended

for introducing standards to properly care and support asylum seekers

but it must ensure that these are maintained at all times. It is also

submitted that the mental health of children under the guardianship of

the Minister aught to receive the treatment and proper care that will

equip them to join the community at large.

In discussing the

effects that detention has on children we must recognise that many of

these children come from environments in their own country in which they

were exposed to many traumatic or torturous events such as war, persecution

and abuse, leading to possible loss of family members, displacement and

the associated conditions such as poverty and ill health. [110]

Mental Health: Detainees

(including children) have been found to exhibit symptoms of depression,

extreme anger, bitterness, resentment, urges of self-destruction and suicide,

social withdrawal and absence of emotions, numbness, guilt, fear, sadness

and alienation as well as post-traumatic stress disorder. [111]

Post-traumatic stress

disorder in children is exhibited in such symptoms as disorganised behaviour,

compulsory repeated behaviour or monotonous play, nightmares without recognisable

content, panic attacks, lack of interest in previously enjoyed activities,

tension, fear in the dark (before falling asleep or in the bathroom),

lower self-confidence and loss of attributes such as language or hygiene

abilities. [112] In a Media Statement by President

Professor Alice Tay AM and Dr Sev Ozdowski, Human Rights Commissioner

OAM the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission recently reported

on an interview with a family member of a 13 year old boy in Woomera:


“We notice that while he sleep he talks and screams: “fire,

fire, fire,” and jumps up from sleep in nightmares…We ask

him to go and bring a book and he forgets about that and when he is

walking he walks disordered and not concentrating.” [113]


Julian Burnside QC has reported of a friend’s visit to Woomera in

which she witnessed two teenage girls wearing nappies. When she questioned

this observation she was advised that the stress had made them incontinent.

[114]

International research

indicates that refugee children are traumatized through their experience

as a member of an oppressed group and that their recovery then depends

on the individual child’s response to that experience as well as

the environment in which the recovery is expected to take place. [115]

That is, the trauma experienced in their own country and in flight is

further “exacerbated by being placed in detention centres and the

uncertainty about their future…” [116]

This was seen to be the case in Australia where a report of a survey of

25 detained asylum seekers in Maribyrnong when compared with a similar

study of community-based asylum seekers, suggested that detainees were

more affected by depression, suicidal tendencies and other symptoms of

post-traumatic stress disorder than their counterparts within the community,

even when taking into account their often higher level of past trauma

prior to presenting to detention. [117]

The longer in the

detention environment the more serious the consequences. Of the minors

in detention, 12 have been detained for up to three months, 11 for three

to six months, 42 for six to nine months, 36 for nine to twelve months,

55 for twelve to eighteen months and 28 for longer than eighteen months.

[118]

Michael Dudley of

Suicide Prevention Australia compiled a table of “Medically Serious

Suicide Attempts by Children and Youth in Immigration Detention Centres”

which included incidents of hanging, slashing, hunger-strikes, lip-sewing

and ingestion of shampoo by children between 10 and 18 years in the centres

of Villawood, Maribyrnong, Woomera and Port Hedland from January 2001

to April 2002. [119]


The incidence of Post-Traumatic Stress disorder and indeed other symptoms

of mental illness can be intensified by the fact that parents are often

also affected and unable to provide support. [120]

Sultan and O’Sullivan

have observed a link between the status of an asylum claim and the mental

state of the asylum seekers. They have found that although initially suffering

some shock and dismay when entering detention the asylum seekers retain

some hope. However, as the process continues through to a rejection by

DIMIA, and then the Refugee Review Tribunal the asylum seeker moves into

more and more serious depressive states. Children have been found to also

obsess over the stage of the asylum seeking process and children of parents

who are at the most severe depressive stage are more vulnerable to develop

disorders and extreme distress such as mutism, stereotypic behaviours

and refusal to eat or drink. [121]

Amnesty International

[122] outlined a case of a child who was initially

at Woomera with his family where they made their refugee application.

At Woomera the child witnessed amongst other things, detainees setting

fire to themselves in the riots. He stopped speaking for part of the day

and displayed signs of fear such as huddling in the foetal position on

certain triggers. He refused food and refused to participate in activities,

fearing his family would be harmed if he left. A Woomera psychologist

diagnosed him as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and recommended

urgent expert treatment and removal from the environment of the detention

centre.

Once transferred

to Villawood the child began treatment at a Children’s Hospital

on referral from a Nurse requesting assessment and advice regarding the

child’s “history of night terrors, bed wetting and aggressive

behaviour, following incidents of witness to self-harm.” It was

expressed that he was “totally withdrawn, not speaking, not eating…”

The child would draw “pictures of people standing up against the

barbed wire fencing with wire coils at the top. (He also drew his family,

and ACM Guard shouting and a man cutting his wrists with blood running

from his wrists.)” [123] The child was diagnosed

with acute traumatisation and was at risk of dehydration due to poor fluid

intake and the Senior Clinical Psychologist stated the symptoms developed:


“in the context of the physically restraining environment of the

detention centres in which (on May 2001) he has now resided for close

to fourteen months… They are also perpetuated by the lack of predictability

regarding his future and inability of his parents to reassure him due

to their own uncertainty, and furthermore by the lack of stable peer

group in that other children move out of the detention centre while

he stays behind.” [124]

Barnados Australia

talk of case studies in which this seems to be demonstrated, such as a

young man who has now become “involved in antisocial behaviour…He

was seriously disturbed and anti-social, demonstrating violent behaviour.”

[125] Another example offered by the Australian Association

for Infant Mental Health is of a toddler who exhibits phobias due to the

experience in detention, where even cyclone fencing distresses him. [126]


Recommendation: The Australasian Society for Traumatic

Stress Studies states that mental illnesses and consequences of such do

not necessarily recede once released, but instead may manifest at this

time. [127] In fact, the above findings are consistent

with theories which indicate that if “people come to perceive their

situation to be one over which they have no control … they become

anxious and subsequently depressed.” [128] Alternatively

or in addition the onset of symptoms and consequences of mental illness

an have delayed effects and cause difficulties in functioning in adulthood

reducing the value of these children to the workforce and the community

in the future. [129] It is therefore recommended that

post-traumatic stress disorder in children in detention centres should

be treated with expediency and the highest priority.

The DIMIA cannot

be said to be exercising appropriate and reasonable care if children are

allowed to suffer mental disease without redress, furthermore this cycle

is likely to carry itself into the adult life of the child and cause further

social, economic and emotional impediments to what would otherwise be

a normal, healthy adult life. The Mental Health Care Facilities in the

detention centres should be evaluated according to their usefulness and

only well trained staff should be expected to report on and detect mental

illness in children as it arises or within a reasonable time of the child’s

arrival in the detention centre. There should also be adequate support

for the parent’s of children who are going through trauma on how

to best restore feelings of confidence and esteem in the child as well

as a willingness to embrace change.

Facilities and Hygiene:

The Adelaide Solicitor mentioned above also claims that in Woomera there

were (at the time of witnessing) two working toilets for 700 people, which

were both leaking and had sand on the floor to soak up the leak, four

working showers for 700 people with hot water only available after midnight,

no air-conditioning, fly screens or heating (which is exacerbated by the

extremes of temperature reached in the area).[130]

It would seem that observations by the Western Australia inspector of

Custodial Services supports this view in respect particularly of Curtin

as he states “many of the toilets were broken, some of the washing

machines were also broken…and above all, medical and dental facilities

were inadequate…Such evidence as exists indicates things are little

better at the other centres…” [131]

In another instance,

an affidavit by an Iraqi woman has been referred to in a number of papers

[132] outlining a day in August 2000 at approximately

5.00 a.m. when her family was separated and she was put in a cell with

her daughters, while her husband and sons (including a 5 year old) had

been put in solitary confinement. She specifically refers to her time

in the cell and that after refused requests to guards to open the door

so that the children may use the toilet for two days they were left to

use a plastic bag found in the cell to relieve themselves. [133]

Recommendation:

It would seem from reports that the low numbers of toilet and

shower facilities, as well as absence of heating and cooling in such harsh

environments may have an adverse impact on hygiene and subsequently on

the health of children. Immigration Detention Standards (IDS) should be

applied to the health and hygiene of children in detention centres as

set out by DIMIA. It is acknowledged that these are guidelines that apply

to all persons ensuring access to health facilities and specialist facilities

where required. It is submitted that the current DIMIA health regime is

in breach of CROC and the general standards the community would expect

should apply to children who are under the guardianship of the Minister.

Education: DIMIA

has indicated that if a child is likely to remain in detention for a longer

period of time, a formal assessment of educational needs aims at providing

appropriate and tailored education. [134] Sometimes

children have access to education on-site, and occasionally are placed

in local schools (if detained at Curtin, Port Hedland or Maribyrnong).

[135] DIMIA further states that they expect educational

programs to be available at a pre-school, primary and secondary level

and that they are provided, as far as possible in line with State/Territory

curricula. [136] The main subjects at a primary level

are English, mathematics, art, physical education and computer skills

while secondary subjects are English, mathematics, physical education

and computing. [137]

It is further submitted

that the hours of schooling are not on par with the community. Hours of

educational programs and resources vary between centres. Woomera [138]

provides a program at St Michael’s (former Catholic school in Woomera

township) that runs from 9a.m. to 12p.m. on weekdays and incorporates

one class for all children. [139] However, at the Perth

Centre, which houses the least amount of children three hours of education

a week are provided. [140]

Professor Richard

Harding has identified the problems in educational services provided in

Curtin Detention centre which he inspected in June 2001:


“A glossy brochure indicated that children were receiving 5 hours

daily education in four different groups. In reality, they were receiving

one hour’s education. Teaching took place between 9.00 a.m. and

10.00 a.m.; thereafter, the children stayed in the teaching area until

11.00a.m., during which time some contact with the teacher might occur;

then there was a lunch break until 1.00p.m; and after that so called

‘homework’, if the children felt like doing it, occurred

in the classroom area until about 2.00 p.m.” [141]

Recommendation:

It has been stated that there is a lack of follow up or transition in

the child’s educational progress; specifically, no assessment files

are kept, there is no set curriculum and there are merely scarce resources

in some centres. [142] It is submitted that it is therefore

not possible to provide a holistic approach to education if such scant

attention is given to the development of children and their curriculum.

Also the requirement for extensive resources to provide the necessary

breadth of curriculum and support for these children is not present and

indeed lower than if a child was enrolled in a State school.[143]

It follows that if refugee children are to be successfully integrated

into Australian society they should not be at an educative disadvantage

that will continue to set them back well into their productive and adult

lives. The circumstances of the limited consistent full-time education

facilities and exclusion from mainstream education as well as insufficient

play areas may lead to impaired development. This is particularly so as

“predictability of being able to access play and education facilities

to the same level as children in the general population will create a

sense of normalcy which is of paramount importance to their development."

[144]

Further, the integrated

school system which has been taken up in part by the DIMIA, can provide

an alternative network for security and support to enhance physical, cognitive

and developmental opportunities. [145] However, this

may be impeded by the high turnover of teachers, as is evident from statements

of teachers from Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre who explained

that they were employed on contracts for six weeks, which could then be

extended by Australasian Correctional Management [146].

Also the teachers may lack the necessary qualifications/experience, for

example the Education Department in South Australia asserts that only

1 of 5 teachers now employed at Woomera detention centre is registered

in South Australia and only one is qualified to teach English as a Second

Language. [147]

It should also be

noted that as well as learning in English, opportunities should be provided

to learn in their own language to maintain the child’s sense of

identity and coping skills. [148] It is also imperative

that parents and their children are not lost by the cultural divide that

they are bound to experience if children are taught inadvertently to shun

their own language.

Conclusion

and Summary


Whilst it is acknowledged that the government of Australia is progressively

detaining fewer children it is equally as important that the issues addressed

in this submission are not transferred to other forms of detention within

the community. Children who come to Australia as refugees need adequate

facilities irrespective of where they are so that they can integrate into

society without the added stigma of their status as refugees. It is imperative

that the Australian law and policy makers consider the role that CROC

should play in any formulation of law and policy impacting on children.

While the decline in numbers of children in immigration detention is to

be welcomed, that decline and the recognition of CROC that it indicates,

should now foster a strong policy stand with respect to children in detention

in any capacity. Recent proposals for changes to the

powers of ASIO, for example, included the possibility to detain children

both over and under the age of 10, as well as the possibility to strip-search

children over 10. There was no need to even inform parents of decisions

about detention of children under that proposed regime.

Continuing attempts

to write such breaches of CROC into law raise real rule of law concerns.

Those proposals - together with the regime that has been detailed in our

submission here - illustrate that the need for formal acknowledgment of

CROC and the human rights of children in Australian law and policy. We

contend that this remains a pressing issue in Australia. Detention of

children should, in accordance with the CROC regime, always be a last

resort. Detention style facilities in the community should also be avoided

and every effort be made to ensure that policy makers and agencies involved

in the management and integration of refugees be aware of the past problems,

how these affect children in detention as well as when they are integrated

into the community, importantly, it is important to be aware of the plethora

of issues affecting refugees so that whatever model the government implements

it is one that will not have the same negative effects as the detention

model.


1. Department

of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p29

2. Ibid at p30.

3. Ibid at p192.

4. Refugee Council of Australia on www.refugeecouncil.org.au

citing source of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2/5/02)

5. Note 1 at p30.

6. Ibid.

7. Lopatka A, “The Rights of the Child are Universal:

the Perspective of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”

in Freeman M and Veerman P, eds The Ideologies of Children’s Rights,

London, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992 at 49.

8. Dixon, M, (MA) Textbook on International Law, 3rd Edition,

Place, Blackstone Press Limited, 1990 at 2-3

9. Shaw, M N, International Law, 4th Edition, England,

Cambridge University Press, 1997 at 73,75

10. Holsti K I, International Politics: A Framework for

Analysis, 7th Edition, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1995 at 290

11. Note 8 at 11.

12. Note 10 at 297.

13. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, “Background

Paper 1: Introduction” National Inquiry into Children in Immigration

Detention http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/background/introduction.html

(29/04/02)

14. Kaye S and Piotrowicz R, Human Rights in International

and Australian Law, Australia, Butterworths 2000 at 42

15. Van Bueren G, The International Law on the Rights

of the Child London, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995 at 360.

16. Article 14(1): (1) Everyone has the right to seek

and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right

may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from

non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles

of the United Nations.

17. Article 1(A)(2): A refugee is someone who “owing

to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,

nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,

is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such

fear, is unwilling to avail himself to the protection of that country;

or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his

former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing

to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

18. Article 33(1): Non-refoulement is the principle that

prohibits the forcible return of any person to a country where they risk

facing persecution on return. On http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/65humanitarian.htm

– legislative changes in no way detract from these obligations.


19. The United Nations, “Convention on the Rights

of a Child: United” United Nations Treaty Series, vol 1577 http://www.un.org.Depts/Treaty/final/ts2/newfiles/part_boo/iv_11..html

(29/04/02)

20. Note 13.

21. Note 13.

22. Note 13.

23. Questionable whether Convention fetters executive

powers – Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v

Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273; Submissions to the National Inquiry into Children

in Detention Centres in: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/submissions/index.html#education


24. http://www.immi.gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf

p79

25. Ibid at p87.

26. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf

p57

27. Ibid at p58.

28. Ibid at p87.

29. Art 9(1) states that arbitrary detention is inappropriate

and unjust; art. 9(4) allows for access to lawyers.

30. A (name deleted) v Australia, Communication No. 560/1993,

Human Rights Committee, 59th session, 24 March – 11 April 1997,

UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 dated 30 April 1997, reported in (1997) 9(3)

International Journal of Refugee Law at 506.

31. Ministerial Rlease: www.minister.immi.gov.au/media

_release/media97/97126a.htm

32. Section 51(xix), s51(xxvii), s51(xxviii) Constitution

Act 1901 (Cth)., Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329.

33. Section 65(1) Migration Act 1958.

34. As outlined above, particularly in note 18.

35. The ICCPR art 10(1) applies. Mabo v Queensland (1992)

175 CLR 1@42; Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration v Ah Hin Teoh (1995)

128 ALR 353, referred to in Wu Yu Fang and 117 Others v. The Minister

for Immigration And Ethnic Affairs and Commonwealth of Australia No. WAG

89 of 1995 FED No. 106/96 Immigration per Jenkinson, Carr and Nicholson

JJ.

36. The Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration

Zone) Act 2001 (Cth) – prevents non-citizens who arrive at an “excised

offshore place” from making a valid visa application and allows

for the possible detention and removal from those places of unauthorised

arrivals.

37. Section 256 Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

38. Section 411(1)(a) and (b) Migration Act 1958(Cth)

39. Section 50(b) and (c) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

40. Section 57(1) and (2)(a)-(c) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

41. Immigration and Guardianship of Children Act 1946

(Cth) (“IGOC”)

42. X v MIMA [1999] FCA 995 and [2000] FCA 704, per Justic

North

43. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf

p100

44. Section 420 (1) and (2)(b) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)


45. Section 208(1) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), under (2)

and s210 Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

46. Section 189(1)(a)-(c) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as

per ss198,199 or s200

47. Section 196(3) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

48. Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement)

Act 2002 – From 12 April 2002, the Act amended to allow for the

bringing to, detention and removal from Australia “transitory persons”

in a third country.

49. Section 36(3) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

50. Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone)

(Consequential Provisions Act) 2001 (Cth)

51. Visa Subclass 785 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because

they arrived without valid visas or passports after 20 October, 1999.

52. Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329 – difficult

to say as there was a 2:1 decision on that point but stringent laws by

executive may be said to curtail the court’s powers in this matter.


53. Submissions to the National Inquiry into Children

in Immigration Detention: Education in Immigration Detention Centres in:

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/submissions/index.html#education


54. http://www.immi.gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf

p58 and 71.

55. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf

p101

56. Sections 4A, 4B, 4C Immigration (Education) Act 1971.

57. Ibid at p34.

58. Ibid.

59. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf

p43 – 44.

60. Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous

Affairs “Information Resources – Women and Children in Immigration

Detention – Detention Overview” (viewed 14/6/02 on www.immi.gov.au/detention.women.htm)

at p1-2

61. Ibid at p4.

62. Above n1 at p192.

63. Ibid at p193.

64. Report of Senate Standing Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee

Report on Refugee Detention Centres 2001.

65. Perry, B., Pollard, R., Blakley, T., Baker, W., Vigilante,

D. (1995) Childhood Trauma, the Neurobiology of Adaptation and Use-dependant

Development of the Brain: How states become traits, Infant Mental Health

Journal 16(4) cited in NSW Branch of the Australian Early Childhood Association

“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)

published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p3 and Shore, R (1997) “Rethinking the brain: New Insights into

early development. New York: Families at Work Institute cited in The School

of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University of Western Sydney

“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)

published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.4.

66. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies,

University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and

Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration

Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.5.

67. Note 1 at p41.

68. Ibid at p.44

69. Ibid at p.66

70. Ibid at p.67

71. Ibid.

72. Ibid at p.95

73. Dr Annie Sparrow in Debelle, P & Shelton, R (9/4/02)

“Children draw on their own trauma”, The Age cited in Diversity

Directions Inc “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity

Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention”

(2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.8.

74. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies,

University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and

Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration

Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.5.

75. Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission to

the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into

Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p4 and Australian Association for the Welfare of Child Health “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.3.

76. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health

“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)

published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.3

77. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health

“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)

published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.3

78. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health

“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)

published on

www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at

p.4.

79. Ibid at p.4

80. The Australian Psychological Society “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published onwww.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.5

81. Note 1 at p43.

82. Ibid.

83. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission “Those

who’ve come across the seas: The report of the Commission’s

Inquiry into the detention of unauthorised arrivals” Canberra:HREOC,

1998. Available http://www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/human_rights/asylum_seekers/h5_2_2.pdf


84. Flood, P “Report of Inquiry into Immigration

Detention Procedures” February 2001, p32.

85. Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission to

the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into

Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p5 and The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University

of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity

Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention”

(2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.4.

86. Australian Association for the Welfare of Child Health

“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)

published on

www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at

p.3.

87. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health

“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)

published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.6.

88. Note 1 at p194.

89. Ibid at p31.

90. Ibid at p.46

91. Ibid.

92. Note 1 at p46

93. Ibid at p.48

94. Ibid at p.49

95. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies,

University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and

Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration

Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.5 and The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.7.

96. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health

“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)

published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.4

97. The Mental Health Council of Australia ““Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.4 and 5.

98. Ibid at p.66.

99. Ibid at p.59

100. Ibid at p.63

101. Note 1 at p.63

102. Ibid at p.59

103. Ibid at p.60

104. Ibid at 66.

105. Ibid.

106. Above n1 at p.74

107. Ibid at p.76

108. Burnside, J “Human Rights – Julian

Burnside (a paper presented to SBS staff on 10 December 2001) published

on www.users.bigpoind.com/burnside/HRights.htm

downloaded 20/5/02 at p6

109. Barnados Australia “Submission to the Human

Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children

in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p5.

110. Ibid at p71 On http://neda.org.au/7.html 15/4/02

cited in Diversity Direction Inc “Submission to the Human Rights

and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration

Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p 4 it was explained as approximately four percent of children in detention

have a disability such as cerebral palsy, hearing or vision impairment,

dwarfism, cardiac and genetic disabilities..

111. Schaller J, “Protection of Children and their

Health During Times Of War” ed E Verhellen, Monitoring Children’s

Rights, 1996, The Hague, Martinus Nuhoff Publishers p891 cited in Public

Health Association of Australia “Submission to the Human Rights

and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration

Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p12.

112. Sultan A, O’Sullivan K. “Psychological

disturbances in asylum seekers held in long-term detention: a participant-observer

account.” Med J Aust 2001 and The Australian and New Zealand College

of Mental Health Nurses (Qld Branch) “Submission to the Human Rights

and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration

Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p2.

113. Pynoos, Nader, March, “Post-traumatic Stress

Disorder” ed Weiner, Textbook of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,

1991, Washington, American Psychiatric Press Ltd at p339-348 cited in

Public Health Association of Australia “Submission to the Human

Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children

in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p13; Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission to the Human Rights

and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration

Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p4.

114. Published on www.humanrights.gov.au/media_releases/2002/05_02.html

downloaded 24/4/02

115. Burnside, J “Asylum Seekers, Illegal Immigrants

or Smuggled People?” A speech delivered tot he Politics Society

of Latrobe University, 19 March 2002 published on downloaded 20/5/02 at

p3.

116. Public Health Association of Australia “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (www.users.bigpond.com/burnside/humans.htm

2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p2

117. Ibid at p4

118. Thompson M, McGorry P. “Maribyrnong Detention

Centre Tamil Survey” cited in Silove D, Steel Z, eds The Mental

Health and well-being of on-shore asylum seekers in Australia. Sydney,

University of New South Wales, Psychiatry Research & Teaching Unit,

1998: 27-31.

119. Above n1 at p189.

120. Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p7.

121. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies,

University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and

Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration

Detention” (2002) published on at p.4.www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

122. Sultan A and O’Sullivan, K “Psychological

disturbances in asylum seekers held in long term detention: a participant-observer

account” MJA 2001: 593-596

123. Amnesty International Australia “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p28 and 29

124. Amnesty International Australia “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p29

125. Ibid at p.30

126. Barnados Australia “Submission to the Human

Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children

in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p7.

127. Personal communication with Steve Thompson, Psychologist

from Survivors of Torture, Trauma and Rehabilitation Service in “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p6.

128. Australasian Society for Traumatic Stress Studies

“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)

published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p3.

129. Abramson, L.Y, Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale,

J (1978) “Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74 cited in The Australian Psychological

Society “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)

published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.4.

130. The Australian Psychological Society ““Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p11.

131. Note 98 at p.6.

132. Burnside, J “Asylum Seekers, Illegal Immigrants

or Smuggled People?” A speech delivered tot he Politics Society

of Latrobe University, 19 March 2002 published on www.users.bigpond.com/burnside/humans.htm

downloaded 20/5/02 at p3.

133. Burnside, J “Human Rights – Julian

Burnside (a paper presented to SBS staff on 10 December 2001) published

on www.users.bigpoind.com/burnside/HRights.htm

downloaded 20/5/02

134. Ibid at p.6

135. Note 1 at p.81

136. Ibid at p.82

137. Ibid at p.83

138. Ibid.

139. with the highest population of minors at 47 as

mentioned above at page 2.

140. Above n1 at p.85

141. Ibid at p.152

142. Cited in Amnesty International Australia “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.22 and 23.

143. Amnesty International Australia “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.21

144. South Australian Department of Education, Training

and Employment “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity

Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention”

(2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.8

145. Australian Association for the Welfare of Child

Health “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)

published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.4

146. The Australian Psychological Society “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.8

147. Amnesty International Australia “Submission

to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.21

148. South Australian Department of Education, Training

and Employment “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity

Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention”

(2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm

at p.2 and 3.

Last

Updated14 July 2003.