Commission Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention
here to return to the Submission Index
Submission to the National
Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from
Catholic Commission for Justice
Development and Peace and the Western Young People’s Independent
Network
'DAMAGING
KIDS'
Children in Department
of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs’ Immigration
Detention Centres
“I saw an Afghani guy cut his own throat in my compound –
he was working with me in the kitchen that day, and after work, he went
outside and he cut himself up everywhere. It was really hard. Even the
officers started crying when this happened”. [17–year–old
asylum-seeker]
Summary
and Emotional Abuse of Children
Rights Standards
Executive
Summary
This report focuses
on the experiences of young people in immigration detention centres and
how they felt it affected them. It considers the human rights standards
that Australia has agreed to and how it is respecting them in regards
to children seeking asylum. The report assesses definitions of emotional
and psychological abuse of children under domestic child protection legislation
against disturbing official evidence of self-harm by children and adults
held in detention.
The report concludes
that widespread psychological and emotional abuse of children and young
people is occurring as a result of being incarcerated in Immigration Detention
Centres administered by the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and
Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). The damage to children is profound and may
permanently impair their psychological development and wellbeing as adults.
The problem is systemic and is inherent in DIMIA's policy and practices,
which creates a culture of self-harm and psychological child abuse. Responsibility
for this human destruction and psychological child abuse lies not with
the people detained but with DIMIA.
The report provides
shocking new evidence towards the conclusion above, which indicates the
scale of self-harm in immigration detention centres – information
that DIMIA has been at pains to hide from the public. On 24 October 2001,
the CCJDP applied to DIMIA under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for
statistical information on incidents of self-harm reportable under Immigration
Detention Standards. The following data was received from DIMIA as a result
of this FOI request:
In the eight months
between 1 March 2001 and 30 October 2001 there were 264 incidents of self-harm
reported in Australian Immigration Detention Centres. 238 males self-harmed
in this period and 26 females.
The rates of self-harm
are appallingly high for people in the 26-35-age range: 116 people in
eight months – 105 men and 11 women. They were followed by those
people entering their adulthood aged 20-25 years, of whom 103 had self-harmed
– 98 males and 5 females.
29 children and young
people up to the age of 20 were recorded as having self-harmed in ACM/DIMIA
facilities in eight months; a rate of 3.62 per month.
These statistics
do not record exposure to self-harm by other children and young people,
but the "collateral damage" to children from such exposure is
real.
Self-harm is endemic
in DIMIA's immigration detention centres. There is a pervasive culture
of serious self-harm among adults, which threatens all children in DIMIA's
detention facilities with significant risk of permanent damage to their
social, intellectual and emotional development. The rate of self-harm
amongst children is very high and totally unacceptable. Moreover rates
of self-harming amongst adults is so widespread and high, it can be said
that there is a culture of carnage in DIMIA institutions.
The best interests
of the children are not being followed by DIMIA, for if these criteria
were followed, given the scale of self-harm which DIMIA’s own records
show, any responsible organisation could not keep children in such dangerous
conditions. DIMIA is acting negligently in regards to children and many
of the adults held in its Immigration Detention Centres.
The purpose of DIMIA
is migration, not child protection, and its officers are generally ignorant
of child protection standards under domestic child protection legislation
and professionally ill equipped to make decisions about the welfare of
children who are detained.
There is a high probability
that DIMIA has further information on its records showing that its officers
have knowledge of the scale and degree of self-harm occurring in its facilities
and the damage this is causing to children. To continue to ignore and
hide such mistreatment of children in DIMIA institutions would be ethically
reprehensible and leaves the Commonwealth open to charges of negligence.
As it stands the Commonwealth may well face massive compensation claims
in the future from asylum seekers who are granted refugee status and sue
for damages arising from cases asserting DIMIA's negligence in regards
to failure to care for adults and failing to protect the best interests
of children.
The report includes
testimony of former child detainees, covering areas such as:
- the conditions
under which children are detained;
- health, including
mental health, development;
- education; and
- effects of detention
centre culture on children and young people.
Some of the young
peoples' experiences in DIMIA's detention centres were:
“I said that I would kill myself because I saw people before
me try to hang themselves…”
“Some
people cut themselves with knives, or drank shampoo to kill themselves.
I told some of my friends to do that. Because we couldn’t live
in that condition...”
“Some
of the young people who has (sic) been in for a long time were also
depressed.”
“I saw
a small child hitting his head against the fence because he was so upset
– he had been there for ten months and was asking for his father.”
“I saw
an Afghani guy cut his own throat in my compound – he was working
with me in the kitchen that day, and after work, he went outside and
he cut himself up everywhere. It was really hard.
Even the officers started crying when this happened”.
The report considers
human rights obligations voluntarily undertaken by the Australian Government
in regards to children and concludes that Australia is violating three
United Nations Human Rights Conventions in regards to children, including
(dates of Australia's signature included):
1. The
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990)- for which calls
for governments to abide by the best interests of the child and to only
detain them as a measure of last resort;
2. The
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1975)
– which prohibits arbitrarily detaining people including children;
and
3. Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees (1954)- which prohibits
punishing people seeking asylum by virtue of the illegal nature of their
arrival.
Moreover, the Australian
Government is flouting three different sets of United Nations Standards,
which seek to protect children, including:
1. UNHCR
Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria relating to the Detention
of Asylum Seekers – which recommended children should
not be detained.
2. UNHCR
Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied
Children Seeking Asylum - which recommends that children who
are unaccompanied should not be detained.
3. The
United Nations Standard Minimum rules for the Administration of Juvenile
Justice (The Beijing Rules) which set out standard of treatment
for juveniles which recommends alternatives to institutional detention.
Recommendations
1. The Australian
Parliament urgently convene a joint parliamentary inquiry into the scale
and impact of self-harm on detainees, the legal and financial compensation
implications for current and future governments and to recommend measures
to prevent such damage to human beings in DIMIA institutions and care
in the future.
2. The Australian Government move immediately to implement the standards
for the care of children contained in the following human rights conventions
it has signed and related UN Guidelines:
- The Convention
on the Rights of the Child - abide by the best interests of the child
and use detention as a measure of last resort;
- The International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights – refrain from arbitrarily
detaining children;
- Convention Relating
to the Status of Refugees – refrain from punishing children with
detention by virtue of the illegal nature of their arrival;
- UNHCR Revised
Guidelines on Applicable Criteria relating to the Detention of Asylum
Seekers – respect the provision that states that children should
not be detained;
- UNHCR Guidelines
on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking
Asylum - which recommends that children who are unaccompanied should
not be detained; and
- The United Nations
Standard Minimum rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The
Beijing Rules) which recommends “alternatives to institutionalisation
to the maximum extent possible, bearing in mind the need to respond
the specific requirements of the young.”
3. A humane system
of reception is adopted where people are held temporarily for a specific
period not exceeding 28 days with adults and seven days with children
and their primary carers while health, identity and security checks are
made.
4. Once the needs
of the State to assess health, identity and security risk have been met,
then the Australian Government adhere to UN human rights standards it
has signed, and move quickly to release children and their carers from
detention into the full care of the community (where thousands of other
asylum seekers already reside) with appropriate support.
5. Support for minors
with their families to live in the community could be provided by an expanded
Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme managed by the Australian Red Cross that
already provides income support and Medicare benefits to thousands. This
support should be available for the duration of the assessment of people's
claims and relevant appeals within the Immigration determination system.
The Australian Government should expand funding for this program accordingly.
6. In the case of
unaccompanied minors, the State Governments receive increased funding
from the Commonwealth to expand increased case management, psycho-social
and trauma counselling, income support and education, health and work
entitlements.
7. DIMIA staff, subcontracted
service providers in immigration detention centres, as well as the Minister
for Immigration's ministerial staff, should urgently receive training
about:
- Australia's human
rights obligations and relevant UN Guidelines and standards on detention
of asylum seekers, in particular for children, juveniles, and unaccompanied
minors; and
- definitions of
child abuse – such as psychological and emotional abuse, under
domestic child protection legislation and appropriate actions to prevent
such abuse occurring.
8. Australian MPs
and Senators desist from using terms such as 'illegals', 'queue jumpers',
'forum shoppers' etc and the pejorative notions associated with these
negative labels which hide the fact that it is human beings – children,
parents, brothers, fathers, sons, daughters and mothers, many of who have
fled grave persecution, that Australia is mistreating and causing to self-harm
in its Immigration Detention Centres.
List of
Acronyms
ACM Australasian
Correctional Management
ACS Australian Correctional
Services (a subsidiary of Australasian Correctional Management)
DIMIA Department
of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
IAAAS Immigration
Advice and Application Assistance Scheme
ICCPR International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
IDC Immigration Detention
Centres
IDS Immigration Detention
Standards
JAS ‘Justice
for Asylum Seekers’
UAMs Unaccompanied
Minors
UNHCR United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees
Introduction
The Western Young
People's Independent Network (WYPIN) and the Catholic Commission for Justice
Development and Peace (CCJDP) Melbourne have prepared this report as a
submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)
'National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention'. The report's
launch coincides with the arrival in Australia, in late May 2002, of the
United Nation's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Human
Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson's special envoy to investigate conditions
in Australian Immigration Detention Centres.
As of 1 February
2002, the total number of women and children in mainland Australian Immigration
Detention Centres was 637. This number comprised of 259 adult women, 224
male children, 141 female children. As at 1 February 2002, there were
13 unaccompanied minors (UAMs) in detention. [1] 1147
children and minors were held in detention in 2000. [2]
Mandatory detention of children and their families arriving by boat in
Australia is routine, contrasting with those who arrive by plane and subsequently
claim asylum, who largely remain living within the Australian community.
WYPIN is a youth
service targeting refugee and migrant young people living in the Western
region of Melbourne. WYPIN was established in 1989 by a group of young
people who were interested in challenging racism in the community and
empowering young people to develop programs and activities in line with
their needs and aspirations. WYPIN’s Committee of Management is
made up of young people.
WYPIN's main focus
is as an advocate and voice for young people of refugee and migrant backgrounds
in the Western region. WYPIN runs programs that focus on the educational
and recreational needs of young people as well as focusing on anti-racism
education and settlement issues. WYPIN is well known for using drama and
performance with young people as a community education tool and working
with young people to explore issues around race and ethnicity though drama.
WYPIN supports young
people around a range of settlement issues, including access to education,
employment and recreational services. WYPIN works with young people to
assist them to feel connected to their new community as well as encouraging
them to develop and explore their identity.
WYPIN is seen as
a critical youth voice on refugee issues in the Western region of Melbourne.
As a refugee youth specific service provider WYPIN is particularly aware
of the specific settlement and psychological needs of young refugees.
Based on WYPIN's experience, it is considered that the first 6 months
after arrival in Australia are critical to a young person's settlement
and development. The young people, who have often escaped war-torn countries
and harsh regimes, witnessed or themselves experienced torture and trauma,
require support to deal with these issues, not uncertain periods of incarceration.
The Catholic Commission for Justice Development and Peace Melbourne (CCJDP)
aims to help educate and give leadership to the Catholic and wider community
in the gospel message of justice and in the social teachings of the Church.
The Commission's Charter requires it to work for justice in public, local
and national structures. It seeks to achieve these ends through research,
analysis, working with parish networks, public forums, in schools and
in the media. It actively seeks to explore ways that social justice can
be improved in society and in the performance of mechanisms that have
a role in public life. The CCJDP has raised the issue of violations of
human rights of asylum seekers in a variety of fora including the media,
the lobbying of parliamentarians and producing documents. The CCJDP monitors
development regarding the human rights of asylum seekers via the Australian
Human Rights Register. The CCJDP published a special Refugee Edition of
the Register in December 2001, which documented entries from Non-government
Organisations around Australia.
In addition to the
promotion of and respect for universal human rights and standards that
will be referred to throughout this submission, the CCJDP uses the principles
of Catholic social teaching to test the justness of public policy. [3]
Pope John Paul II has voiced his concern about States having “contempt
for the fundamental human rights of so many people, especially children…”.
Additionally, the
Church has clear positions on the rights of asylum seekers. Pope John
Paul II points out that refugees however they might arrive in a country
– illegally or not - still have their human rights:
His irregular
legal status cannot allow the migrant to lose his dignity, since he
is endowed with inalienable rights, which cannot be violated nor ignored.
Moreover, the Catholic
Church does not endorse sweeping State powers to detain all asylum seekers.
The ‘Pontifical Council for Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant
People’ warned that:
A person applying
for asylum should not be interned unless it can be demonstrated that
he or she represents a real danger, or there are compelling reasons
to think that he or she will not report to the competent authorities
for due examination of his of her case. Moreover such people should
be helped with access to work and to a just and rapid legal procedure.
Finally, in its Statement of March 22, 2002, the Australian Catholic Bishops’
Conference expressed concern about the detention of asylum seekers and
minors by the Australian Government:
Mandatory detention
is itself a matter for concern: alone among the nations, Australia excludes
any discretion being exercised as to whether, in particular cases, detention
may be inappropriate or should be abbreviated…. Many asylum seekers,
including whole families, have been detained for more than a year. The
Church’s pastoral care of asylum seekers convinces us that detention,
beyond the minimum time necessary for carrying out security and health
checks, identity checks and the lodgment for Protection Visas, is deeply
destructive of human dignity. This is particularly true of children.
The Interviews
WYPIN and CCJDP conducted interviews on 4 April 2002 with four minors
who had experienced periods of detention in Australian immigration detention
centres in 2000-2002. WYPIN and CCJDP were concerned that the minors understood
the purpose of the HREOC Inquiry and why they were being asked to voluntarily
participate in providing testimony. The participants all consented to
having their testimony used for the purposes of the ‘National Inquiry
into Children Held in Detention’. In addition to initial discussions
with the minors via phone, inviting them to participate on a voluntary
basis, time was spent in a group discussing the aims and nature of the
Inquiry and issues of confidentiality. While not all of the four wished
to remain anonymous, WYPIN and CCJDP have maintained the anonymity of
the interviewees and refer to them by letters eg. 'A' etc. To further
protect the identity of the interviewees, WYPIN and CCJDP will not refer
to the exact dates of their detention (the length of period of detention
will be described).
This report is also
seen as a critical opportunity for minors who have been in detention to
voice their experience and be heard. The young minor participants expressed
a strong wish for their experience to be heard and documented so that
other young people would not have to suffer like them. The interview process
was also part of a cathartic and healing experience for the minors to
be heard and validated.
In preparing this submission, WYPIN and CCJDP have attempted to adhere
to the standards contained in the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), February 1997 Guidelines on Policies and Procedures
in Dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum, which states:
Unaccompanied
children have often had little or no choice in the decisions that led
to their predicament and vulnerability. Irrespective of their immigration
status, they have special needs that must be met.
WYPIN and CCJDP hope
that the information contained in this submission will assist the Australian
Parliament in reforming the Australian Immigration Detention System by
introducing standards, such as the one above, which have hitherto been
lacking in many areas in regard to children seeking asylum in Australia.
In addition to the
testimony provided, there are three additional accounts of abuse of children
in DIMIA facilities which were first aired in the publication Migration
Action, in October/December 2000. [8] These reports raise
disturbing questions about the mode of operation of Australasian Correctional
Management (ACM). The allegations have not been independently investigated.
AGE
The testimony provided in this submission comes from minors aged 15-18
(all were under 18 when in detention).
- Interviewee 1.
‘B’ was born in 1985 and was held in detention for six months
at Woomera Immigration Detention Centre (IDC).
- Interviewee 2.
'A' was born in 1986. He was held in Curtin IDC for three months
- Interviewee 3.
'M' was born in 1984. He was held in Woomera IDC for 4 months.
- Interviewee 4.
'N' was born in 1984 and was held in Curtin IDC for 4 months.
Reports suggest that
senior DIMIA Officers in Canberra and staff within the Minister of Immigration's
office have a low regard for the human rights of adolescents held in Australian
immigration detention centres. This is on the basis that they are no longer
children, have come from war-torn countries where people allegedly 'grow
up more quickly' or already may be performing adult roles in such societies
in areas of marriage, work or combat. [9]
This line of thinking
implies that such adolescents are not going to have the same needs as
their Australian peers or the younger children in DIMIA's centres. Such
thinking flies in the face of the understanding of the UNHCR which notes
that 18 years is the common and internationally accepted legal defining
line and that for practical reasons, adolescents still have the rights
of children. Adolescents may have adult bodies and fulfil some adult roles
but their emotional maturity, judgement and social status are not the
same as that of adults with life experience. The UNHCR argues adolescents
need 'special care and assistance' while they are 'developing their identities
and learning essential skills'. [10] For the purposes
of this submission, in accordance with UNHCR practice and opinion, adolescents
are considered children and the standards of the Convention on the Rights
of the Child (CROC) apply.
Testimony
This section focuses
on the experiences of young people in detention and how they felt it affected
them. It considers:
- the conditions
under which children are detained;
- health, including
mental health, development;
- education; and
- security practices
in detention.
i) Minors'
Experience of Detention
Minors clearly felt that detention was not a good place for them. Their
experience of it was of being imprisoned. They further indicated that
detention periods should be short and that ongoing detention was problematic
for people's sense of wellbeing.
'M' reported that
when he arrived at Woomera he realised he was being detained. “First
when I got there, it looked like a gaol. First it was normal. But then
I got to know people who had been there for two and half years, and I
worried that I could be held there for that long”.
'A' expressed similar
concerns, “Some of the young people who had been in for a long time
were also depressed…it’s OK to be in detention centres for
one or two months, but after then, everyone wants to go, they want to
get out.”
'N' reinforced this,
“It’s good for people to be in a detention centre for a short
time… everyone wants to get out as soon as they can from detention.”
‘B’,
after spending six months in Woomera Immigration Detention Centre, wanted
to send this message to Australians:
We don’t
want this life in prison. If we wanted to be in prison, we would stay
in our own countries. We want a life here, schooling. We don't want
to be in a prison in the middle of the desert.
The location in the
desert compounded for ‘B’ the sense of being unheard and abandoned.
He saw this isolation as the reason that the protests against these conditions
were not understood in the wider Australian community:
On TV they
show all the fires and people trying to escape the detention centre,
but they don't show why. On the news they say we are uncivilized. But
what can we do? In the desert who can hear us?
In addition to the
psychological sense of abandonment, ‘B’ found the desert environment
harsh and the physical impact tough with temperatures reaching up to 50
degrees, he believed. This made the rooms very hot as the bricks warmed
up.
ii) Amenities
The Minister for Immigration makes much of the level of amenities available
to people held in immigration detention centres. DIMIA's website proclaims:
Suitable accommodation
for family units and children are made available where possible and
recreational facilities including playgrounds, toys and games are provided.
So how do children
experience Australia's immigration detention centres? The minors noted
that after the initial period of arriving and settling into detention
centres, the allure of such facilities paled against the reality of continuing
detention and separation from loved ones. In general, minors had no major
complaints about the level of amenities: it was the culture of Australasian
Correctional Management (ACM)/Department of Immigration, Multicultural
& Indigenous Affairs’ (DIMIA) centres that they had strong feelings
about.
‘B’ said
that there were public bathrooms for everyone at Woomera Immigration Detention
Centre (IDC) however, “The water wasn't fresh, we would see insects
in the food.” There were nine people in one room, he said. “In
my donga, there were just two people in each room as it was for people
under 18.” He observed that while accommodation was "OK",
there was a larger institutional imperative of controlling people which
was not lost on him and was seen in a punitive light:
They kept the
people separately, and when you make problems, you are sent to another
compound. Like Oscar [compound], that's where they send people who make
trouble.
A sense of being
transient and homeless was reinforced by the institutional nature of the
immigration detention centres - 'N' reported that he was moved three times
at Curtin in three and half months. So too, was ‘B’ who reported
that,
After your
first interview, you are moved to a new compound, so that you can't
tell the people in your compound who hadn't had an interview what happens.
I was moved three times while I was in Woomera. The same thing happens
after your second interview with a lawyer – you are moved.
'A' who was held
at Curtin IDC said that the food was “OK and enough” and there
was a place to play football, basketball, soccer, and table tennis. He
noted that Curtin lacked a specific prayer room so people had to “pray
the Jummah outside. But you could pray in your room if you liked.”
Having acknowledged the amenities 'A' combined these two observations,
which reveals the reality for young people:
There were
sports for young people, and videos and computers. I was very happy
in the camp. They made the young people happy – they looked after
them [then he observes] There were people cutting their wrists –
they had been held there a year. I would do that too if I was there
for a year. It was OK for me, ‘cause I was there for only a few
months, and they used to take the young people out to go swimming. But
only the young people…
The damaging environment
of prolonged detention and consequent self-harm on people negates that
provision of material amenities. 'A' found that “In the beginning
I would play with other people in the detention centre, but I stopped
because I was thinking of my family – I was feeling sad.”
'M'’s experience
reinforces the view that ongoing detention quickly leads to depression,
“I would just sleep all the time. You can play sport, but you get
bored quickly. I asked for many things, like gym equipment, which they
promised to bring but never did.” 'A' attempted to resolve his depression
by working in the kitchen:
I would work in the kitchen for 12 hours every day and was paid $1 a day.
They (ACM) asked me to work. Cooking, cleaning, washing. Other people
worked there too. [Identifying details removed].
Employing someone
under the age of 18 in the kitchen for 12 hours at a rate of $1 per day
is a violation of children's rights, being exploitation of their labour.
This could allow a company like ACM to save on staff wages and keep their
overheads down.
iii) Health
The minors’ opinions about medical services varied depending on
the detention centre - one considered Woomera particularly bad. 'M' had
a difficult time when he was sick with a skin 'disease' [possibly a psychological
reaction to stress] and the ACM officers would not take him to see a doctor.
It took two to three weeks before they brought him to a doctor and only
after he had a written a letter stating he “did not want to live.”
'N' however had a
different experience at Curtin – when he was sick, a nurse came
at once.
‘B’ believed
there was not good medical treatment at Woomera IDC if you got sick. People
were susceptible to sore throats and flu he noticed. People had to wait
at Woomera to see a nurse: “It took one week until I could see a
doctor. If you want to see someone faster, you can only see a nurse.”
He also revealed "some people had broken arms, but they [ACM] wouldn't
send them to a doctor, they just bandaged their arms.” These were
people who had self-harmed by slashing their wrists.
‘B’ had a good opinion of the psychologist whom he had reason
to use on many occasions:
The psychologist
was very merciful to me [sic]…I asked to help me out of humanity
not because of his job. So he rang my case officer and he said that I
had my visa [approved by DIMIA] two months ago, but ASIO still hasn’t
(sic) processed my application.
iv) Education
The human right to education was not emphasised very much, perhaps because
it did not feature prominently in the lives of the minors who experienced
detention in ACM/DIMIA Centres. A picture of minimal classes with students
barely engaged emerges - a lackadaisical affair due to the detention environment,
which militates against classroom education. 'N' reported that he went
to class every day at Curtin, where there were 20 other children learning.
However, after a while, “I did nothing all day in the detention
centre. We had two hours of classes each morning, and they gave us books
on homework.”
'N'’s testimony
corroborates the views of the Western Australian Inspector of Custodial
Services, Professor Richard Harding, who recounted his visit to Curtin
on 25 June 2001 in a speech last year where he described education as
a 'charade'. Professor Harding said:
ACS/DIMA [Australian
Correctional Services – a subsidiary of ACM, and the Department
of Immigration etc] had been very anxious that one should arrive progress.
A glossy brochure indicated that children were receiving five hours’
before 9.00am so as to be able to see the Centre’s education classes
in daily education in four different groups. In reality, they were receiving
one hour’s education. Teaching took place between 9.00am and 10.am;
thereafter, the children stayed in the teaching area until 11.00am during
which time some contact with teachers might occur; then there was a
lunch break until 1.00pm; and after that so-called ‘homework’,
if the children felt like doing it. The so-called ‘education program’
was largely a charade though doubtless five hours’ full education
was being paid for and signed for and signed off by the Canberra based
‘monitors’. [12]
The ACM and DIMIA
schooling program at the Curtin IDC centre is being replicated at Woomera
IDC. ‘B’ explained further that at Woomera IDC there was “only
a school for language”, one hour a day for those under 18 years
old. The education programs at Curtin and Woomera IDCs seem to be Australia's
21-century equivalents of Dickens’ Dotheboy’s Hall in 'Nicholas
Nickleby', with as much pedagogical integrity as the classes of Dickens'
school principal, Squeers.
Moreover, ‘B’
found that being detained interfered with his ability to study:
I chose not to go to school each day, because your mind cannot concentrate
– my mind is on my family and what I'd see happen to people in the
detention centres.
What exactly are
minors seeing at detention centres that might distract them from the ACM
and DIMIA's educational offerings?
v) ACM Security
and its Effects on Minors
The effect on minors of being detained and becoming the subjects of security
works on several levels. Firstly, it operates on the level of interpersonal
relationships between the minors and the institution’s officers
– the ACM guards. Secondly, there are the effects of detention on
adults and the flow-on effect that can have on children and minors. And
finally, there are the wider institutional relationships with minors as
'detainees'.
The minors had different
views about the guards. 'A' thought that the officers at Curtin were good.
“If you need something, you just asked them and they would go and
get it for you.” ‘A' reveals why he might have no reason to
complain, however “I didn't have any problems with the guards while
I was in gaol” [authors’ emphasis]. His sense
that he was being imprisoned is clear and the fact that ACM guards seemed
friendly and obliged with small requests must indeed have been reassuring.
Later 'A' revealed, “I didn't want to make trouble”.
The relationships
at Woomera IDC between minors and ACM guards seem more problematic with
alleged behaviour spanning verbal put-downs and intimidation to physical
abuse by guards. Minors acknowledged that guards were people and represented
a variety of personalities – some who acted well towards them and
some who did not.
‘B’ thought
that some of the ACM officers were “very good and nice”, but
others would disparage the minors and other asylum seekers by stating
that “you came here illegally.” The minors felt such put-downs
keenly; again ‘B’ went to the ACM office with a request but
was brusquely shouted at to “go away”. ‘B’ continued:
I said to
her, this is not the right way to deal with us. You could say “Sorry
the office is closed, or come back before five o’clock?”
And she said “You come here illegally to this country and then
you answer back to me?” She said this to me after I leave my family,
after they sold all their things, their stock, and their cows, to protect
me.
‘B’ reported
that he was called both by his name by the guards and by number at times.
'M' imparted a sense
of arbitrary behaviour of guards –“One day they be smiling
at you, the next day they would be hitting you”. He continued, “Some
of the officers threatened [us] like animals. They would just say 'go
away' and not do anything from them unless we would say please.”
He added, “You need to do things to get the officers' attention,
like try to kill yourself…”
This unpredictability
was deeply upsetting for 'M' who was told by a guard to go to sleep one
night. “I told him I wasn't tired, so he slapped me. If I had a
knife, I would have killed him. My own father had never hit me. I wanted
to attack him back.”
Such intense feeling
is normal in an adolescent but what is abnormal is the institutional context
that gives rise to such interactions between juveniles and guards. The
United Nations Standard Minimum rules for the Administration of Juvenile
Justice (The Beijing Rules) are relevant in considering the institutional
effects of Australian detention policies on minors. [13]
The Beijing Rules distil the collective wisdom of many nations in dealing
with juveniles in institutions and find that:
The many adverse
influences on an individual that seem unavoidable within any institutional
setting evidently cannot be outbalanced by treatment efforts. This is
especially the case for juveniles, who are vulnerable to negative influences.
Moreover, the negative effects, not only of loss of liberty but also
of separation from the usual social environment, are certainly more
acute for juveniles than for adults because of their early stages of
development.
The propaganda disseminated
by the Government around 'illegal' immigration could adversely influence
the treatment of asylum-seekers by ACM guards. Currently such information
is not being countered by adequate education of personnel in sub-contracted
services for detention centres. This is in regard to both Australia’s
human rights obligations (that is Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating
to the Status of refugees that prohibits the punishment of refugees for
entry), and in the management of minors and juveniles, as recommended
in the Beijing Rules. These state in Rule 22.1:
Professional
education, in-service training, refresher courses and other appropriate
modes of instruction shall be utilised to establish and maintain the
necessary professional competence of all personnel dealing with juvenile
cases.
Currently DIMIA,
ACM and other sub-contracted service providers display high levels of
ignorance about UN standards for treatment of asylum seekers and in particular
juveniles and children. Professor Harding, the Western Australian Inspector
of Custodial Services, has observed, “DIMIA is not in reality an
agency that is concerned with accountability; it is in effect an operation
agency”. [14]
More problematic
again are the adverse psychological effects on minors of interacting with
depressed and anxious adult asylum seekers, particularly those who have
been detained by the Australian Government for periods of a year or more.
What did the minors observe and feel during their stay in the ACM/DIMIA
Immigration Detention system?
vi)
Self-harm in ACM/DIMIA Detention Centres and its Effects on Minors
The Department takes its duty of care towards all detainees, especially
women and children, very seriously.
DIMIA Website 2002 [15]
When 'A' arrived
at Curtin, he was surprised at the aberrant behaviour of people:
The people
who had been in the detention centre were making trouble every day,
every week. They’d cut themselves, or jump out of buildings, or
be rude to the officers. I had never seen that sort of behaviour before…
The levels of depression
and frustration within immigration detention centres are high and disturbances
are regular, if not endemic. Professor Harding considers that
The conditions
that exist at Curtin Centre are almost intolerable. It is no coincidence
that riots do occur in a system that lacks accountability. Riots occur
for a reason; they are seldom mindless or the work of ‘rabble-rousers’.
Anyone who knows the simplest thing about prison riots knows also that
unacceptable conditions against which there is no recourse, and thus
in relations to which there is a profound sense of inequitable treatment,
are the precursor to riots. [16]
'A' observed upon
his arrival at Curtin, “Some people seemed depressed, or sick.”
He reported with adolescent nonchalance, that, at Curtin: “There
were people cutting their wrists, but I didn't care about that. It's up
to you if you want to cut yourself.”
'A' recognised that this self-harm was a result of desperation arising
from the arbitrary nature of the periods of time people could spend in
Australian detention: “I could understand why they were cutting
themselves – they had been there for a year.” 'A' felt his
own coping mechanisms would be exhausted if he was held for a prolonged
period: “I would do that too [cut oneself] if I was held there for
a year.”
'M' revealed that
at Woomera IDC:
I also saw
people sew their lips - a friend of mine did this because he was there
for two years, and they kept asking him to wait for his visa. In the
end he asked to be sent back to Iran.
'A' observed the
psychological damage this was causing other children: “Some of the
young people who has been in for a long time were also depressed.”
'M' said that at
Woomera IDC:
I saw a small
child hitting his head against the fence because he was so upset –
he had been there for ten months and was asking for his father.
'M' recounts that
the frustration of detainees would spill over into rioting and self-harm:
At the camp they would start to burn things. I saw an Afghani guy
cut his own throat in my compound – he was working with me in
the kitchen that day, and after work, he went outside and he cut himself
up everywhere. It was really hard. Even the officers started crying
when this happened.
‘B’ paints
a grim picture of the Woomera IDC and the effect that witnessing adult
self-harm had on himself and his peers:
Some people
cut themselves with knives, or drank shampoo to kill themselves. I told
some of my friends to do that. Because we couldn’t live in that
condition.
‘B’ also
developed the following understanding of the different ACM responses to
his psychological needs:
Sometimes I’d
go to the psychologist, and tell them I was remembering my family, and
he would always agree with me, and suggested that I didn’t remember
my family as much. If you asked the officer to see the psychologist,
they would say it would take seven days. But if you attacked the office
by throwing stones, or by cutting yourself, they would take you straight
away. But if you asked respectfully, they would take seven or ten days.
Inevitably, the minors
are affected by the culture of despair and self-harm surrounding them
and begin to form irrational desperate responses. ‘B’ manifested
suicide ideation as a learnt behaviour arising from the observation of
others’ behaviour that engaging in self-harm is the best way to
achieve a positive response from those controlling one’s destiny.
In some senses, self-harm is a rational response to the irrational nature
of an inhumane system. ‘B’ told the psychologist: “I
said that I would kill myself because I saw people before try to hang
themselves and one week later they get visas [sic]. And told my friends
that if we’d done it [self-harm] in the first month [of their arrival]
we’d get visas.”
‘B’ recounts
how minors became involved in self-harming behaviour during a hunger strike
undertaken by a large group of people at the Woomera IDC:
When [we] arrived
at the detention centre it took 25 days for three interviews
[he is referring to interviews conducted by DIMIA and IAAAS], [and]
after one and half months some people got their first visa. There were
seven of us that were under 18. The people that arrived with us got
visas after two months, but the boys under 18 didn’t get a visa
after five months – four months after the third interview.
I told my friends
we had to do something so we wrote a letter to DIMIA saying we’ll
wait a week and if we don’t get a visa by then, we will kill ourselves
and you will be responsible for this. Seven Iraqis and 15-16 Afghanis
[signed]. No one from the under 18s got visas which is why we wrote
a letter to DIMIA.
So they sent
someone from DIMIA about one day after and they said that they were
still thinking about it. Two days later they sent someone for the
Human Rights [HREOC?] – they called me and two of my friends.
So I told them everything that is going on in the detention centre.
I told them
no parent would leave a child alone their age unless it was too dangerous
for them to stay in their own country.
We don’t
want this life in prison. If we wanted to be in prison we would stay
in our own countries. We want a life here– schooling. We don’t
want to be in prison in the middle of the desert.
We are not
responsible if we kill ourselves, but you are.
One day after
we told all this to the Human Rights Commission, (I spoke to them for
one hour) they sent someone from the South Australian Government.
Before we sent
the letter to DIMIA we had a hunger strike for five days, and then we
sent the letter.
We told them
that we would kill ourselves on Friday if they did not do something,
so on Tuesday and Thursday we got our visas.
It took five
months for them and they did nothing. So we wrote them this letter they
could suddenly let us out a few days later. Why?
vii) The
Impact of Detention.
The four minors interviewed for this submission manifested different legacies
from their experience within the government’s immigration detention
centres.
After enduring four
months at the Woomera IDC, 'M' was given no time to take in the news and
farewell people: “When my visa came I had one hour to leave. I couldn't
say goodbye to my friends. I saw them handcuffed on TV [during coverage
of a disturbance].” Despite his sudden departure, 'M' is suffering
a form of post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of Australian immigration
detention policy:
I have nightmares
about detention centres, and flashbacks that come all of a sudden, like
of that guy that slashed himself. I have flashback everyday. I think
of all the people at the detention centre – not just of the guy
who cut himself…. I get headaches now, thinking about family and
friends.
'N' was more simple
and succinct in his feelings displaying the frailty of a teenager thrust
into a situation out of his control: “It was hard in detention,
because I didn't know anyone. I came alone.”
‘B’,
who experienced hunger strikes, said “I want to use my name [for
the interview] because I lived in the conditions in the detention centre
and I am sad about the people in there…” He continued:
I am trying
to remember people in the detention centre because it is not right for
them to be there. I was very happy to be at the rally for refugees because
I felt that there were people who wanted to help me and agreed with
me. The people in detention centres are also human, they are children,
and they have feelings. I am trying to forget the detention centre,
but I try to remember the people.
All of the young
people, while loving the freedom which is the right of young people (‘A’
said, “It was good to get out of the detention centre. I have a
lot of friends now”), are finding it difficult living in the community
because of the range of burdens weighing upon them – their ordeals
in Australia’s immigration detention centres being just the most
recent.
Most were missing
their families terribly and feeling separation anxiety and guilt. 'A'
confessed, “Whenever I don't do anything, its impossible not to
think about my family. Everyone is like that. This is my first time away,
I miss my family.”
'N' found it impossible
to communicate with his family: “I haven’t had contact with
my family, “he lamented, “as they are not in the city. I've
tried to send letters to Pakistan in the hope that someone will take it
across the border.”
'M' could speak to
his family: “They tell me to finish my studies, be patient, every
day is a new day.” However after enduring six months in the Woomera
IDC, “I don't want to bring my family here any more because Australia
has been a sad experience…”
All of the minors
were on Temporary Protection Visas, and their feelings of insecurity and
uncertainty about their status lead to difficulties with settlement and
problems focussing on education. ‘N’ worried: “I want
to keep studying, but I don’t get enough money from Centrelink.
I’m finding it really hard to live with the small amount of money
I am given. I just don’t get enough money for all the expenses I
have. But I’d really like to keep studying.” Nevertheless,
the future was uncertain, “I don’t know what will happen to
me after three years.”
'M' also felt insecure:
I am not sure
about my future. I still have to wait three years for my visa –
I don't know what to do. I can't make any decisions because I don't
know what's going on with my visa, if [my country's situation] changes,
they [DIMIA] might send me back.
'M' believed that,
“The public don't know what is going on in the camp. They know nothing
about what is going on inside.” The humanity and empathy of the
young asylum seekers shines through in 'M's deep conviction that:
It’s not just
young people that shouldn’t be in the detention centres –
no one should be there. These people are escaping wars, trying to get
a better life and then they are placed in places like Woomera. It is unfair….
‘B’ didn't
want to talk about his current situation – he was still preoccupied
with the fate of people in detention: “The permanent visa [for himself]
isn't important for me as the people in the detention centre…for
five months we had no rights, no human rights, no children's rights…”
Psychological
and Emotional Abuse of Children
This Section examines
legal and psychosocial conceptions of what children are experiencing in
IDCs and who is responsible. It contains three reports with allegations
of abuse occurring in IDCs which were first aired in Migration Action
Journal in October/September 2000. It contains disturbing new data, obtained
from DIMIA, about the scale of self- harm in DIMIA’s institutions.
i) Defining
Abuse
Child abuse is where an act, or a failure to act, on the part of an adult,
endangers or impairs a child's physical or emotional health and development.
Abuse is not accidental but neither is it always the intention of the
person to inflict harm or injury. This may be the case where institutions
are responsible for the abusive policies or procedures that threaten,
or damage, the child’s development. The Victorian Children’s
and Young Person’s Act 1989 s.63, for example, defines abuse in
terms of ‘significant harm’, that is the effect of abusive
acts on the child. Types of abuse include:
- Neglect,
which is the failure to provide the child with the basic necessities
of life such as food, clothing, shelter, medical attention or supervision,
to the extent that the child's health and development is, or is likely
to be significantly harmed.
- Sexual
abuse
- Physical
abuse
- Emotional
abuse
,which occurs when the child's parent or care giver repeatedly rejects
the child or uses threats to frighten the child. This may involve name-calling,
put-downs, or continued coldness from the parent or the care giver to
the extent that it significantly damages the child's physical, social,
intellectual or emotional development.
Evidence:
There must be evidence of the child's need(s) not being met as a result
of a care giver or parent failing to exercise care. This is not, in the
first instance, a question of responsibility, but rather whether there
has been an act of omission in care, which has an impact on the child.
For instance, a parent may be prevented from exercising care as a result
of government policy: a child may attempt to self-harm, as a result of
being held in an Australian immigration detention centre in a culture
where self-harm is endemic.
Allegation
1. 'ACM staff terrorise youngster'
An [nationality removed] man 'Tahseen' arrived in Australia in 1999
with his [age removed] year old daughter 'Zenab'. They have since been
released from immigration detention.
On 4 June 2000,
prior to a 'break out' at Woomera IDC in early June, ‘Tahseen’,
who was considered to be a trouble maker because he was more vocal about
his human rights, was put into a separate prison at the centre. The
prison had separate cells and a central space.
Later, his
daughter was put in the cell with him, as she had no one to look after
her - her mother already being deceased. There were 25 people in the
prison, including 23 adult men, a male [age removed] child and ‘Zenab’.
When ACM placed the child with adult detainees in prison, they violated
the child's rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child that
the Australian Government brought into force in Australia in 1991.
The child was
held in the prison until 13 June 2000. On 8 June, while other detainees
had broken out of the centre, ACM guards came to the prison section
wielding sticks with the apparent intention of beating the prisoners.
‘Zenab’ became uncontrollably upset. Throughout her period
in the internal prison, and since then, she has suffered from terrible
nightmares and anxiety attacks. Since her release she continues to bed-wet
and wet herself during the daytime. She did not have these difficulties
before. Although clinic staff saw her, her father complains she received
no treatment at all. A medical discharge card given to her upon release
from detention puts her condition down to participation in the 'breakout'
however she was behind bars for nine days during the 'breakout'.
Types of Evidence
The evidence required to make a notification of child abuse occurring
in Victoria, for example, includes:
Emotional
Abuse:
- Displaying low
self esteem
- Tending to be
withdrawn, passive, tearful
- Displaying aggressive
or demanding behaviour
- Being highly anxious
- Showing delayed
speech
- Acting like a
much younger child - eg soiling, wetting pants
- Displaying difficulties
in relating to adults and peers
Neglect:
- A child is not
being adequately housed, constantly moving, or denied housing
- Medical needs
not being attended to.
- Inappropriate
clothing eg. summer clothes in winter
- Poor hygiene
- Malnutrition
- Frequent hunger
- Left unsupervised
for long periods of time
Some of the minors
spoke about their experience in DIMIA's detention centres.
“I said that I would kill myself because I saw people before
me try to hang themselves…”
“Some
people cut themselves with knives, or drank shampoo to kill themselves.
I told some of my friends to do that. Because we couldn’t live
in that condition...”
“Some
of the young people who has been in for a long time were also depressed.”
“I saw
a small child hitting his head against the fence because he was so upset
– he had been there for ten months and was asking for his father.”
“I saw
an Afghani guy cut his own throat in my compound – he was working
with me in the kitchen that day, and after work, he went outside and
he cut himself up everywhere. It was really hard. Even the officers
started crying when this happened”.
ii) Scale
of Self-harm in ACM/DIMIA Detention Centres
Under the General Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and
Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd (clause 4.3), ACM is required
to "provide reports in the medium which allows the Commonwealth to
access the information in the manner that best fulfils the requirements
of the Immigration Detention Standards…" [17]
. On 24 October 2001, CCJDP applied to DIMIA under the Freedom of Information
Act 1982 for statistical information on incidents of self-harm between
1 October 2000 and 31 October 2001 reportable under Immigration Detention
Standards [the request is contained in the appendices]. Subsequent discussions
with DIMIA in February 2002 revealed that the cost of providing the level
of detail requested by CCJDP would run into tend of thousands of dollars.
This was prohibitive and a disincentive to pursuing the original request
so we agreed to DIMIA's suggestion that we receive statistics without
much of the requested detail such as nature of self-harm and ACM/DIMIA's
response. Data was received from DIMIA on 23 April 2002 showing incidents
of self-harm from 1 March 2001 – 30 October 2001 and is attached
in the appendices.
In the eight months
between 1 March 2001 and 30 October 2001 there were 264 incidents of self-harm
reported in Australian Immigration Detention Centres. 238 males self-harmed
in this period and 26 females. Suggestions made by some observers, that
despairing people self harm in detention centres on a daily basis are
true.
The rates of self-harm
are appallingly high for people in the 26-35-age range: 116 people self-harmed
in eight months – 105 men and 11 women.
They were followed
by those people entering their adulthood aged 20-25 years, of whom 103
had self-harmed – 98 males and 5 females.
Immediately, we begin
to understand why adolescents - particularly males - might be depressed
and begin to manifest suicide ideation, influenced by their older friends
and acquaintances among the incarcerated. The Table below shows that 29
children and young people up to the age of 20 were recorded as having
self-harmed in ACM/DIMIA facilities in eight months; a rate of 3.62 per
month. These statistics do not record exposure to self-harm by other children
and young people, but the "collateral damage" to children from
such exposure is real.
Minors and
young adults self - harming in DIMIA's Immigration Detention Centres
March 2001 - October 2001
29 self-harmed in the 8-month period above: 22 males and 7 females:
- 2 children 0-2
years old had participated in a hunger strike
- 3 children 3-5
years old had participated in a hunger strike
- 1 child 3-5 had
'voluntarily starved’ himself
- 2 children 5-8
had participated in a hunger strike
- 2 children 9-12
had participated in a 'voluntary starvation'
- 8 children 13-16
had self-harmed – 5 had 'voluntarily starved'
- 2 minors, aged
17 years, had self-harmed
Additionally, 9 young
adults 18-20 had self-harmed:
- 7 males and 2
females of whom 3 had 'voluntarily starved'
N.B See
comments below about 'hunger strikes' and 'voluntary starvation'
Source: DIMIA April 2002.
For the purposes of this data, self-harming includes 'voluntary starvation'
and hunger strikes. CCJDP has requested further clarification about these
terms and others from DIMIA on 23 April 2002, and is still waiting for
a reply. There is some variation to terms used in the DIMIA statistics
and until DIMIA provide some further clarification on these terms, we
rely on the opinion of former ACM staff members at Woomera IDC that these
variations are due to slightly different terms being used by individual
ACM employees when making notifications of self-harm rather than different
categories per se.
The views of former
Woomera health workers, who spoke to CCJDP on condition of anonymity,
is that the recording of children's participation in hunger strikes and
as 'voluntary starvation' is not due to allegedly manipulative parents
forcing their children not to eat, but rather refers to children profoundly
affected by the severe depression and psychological trauma of their parents
and other adults, and who withdraw from eating as one form of manifesting
their own severe stress and trauma. [18]
The issue to be considered is whether any children and their parents should
be held at all in an environment where such severe psychological stress
in the norm.
Professor Patrick McGorry, Director of the Department of Psychiatry, University
of Melbourne Youth Program, argues that a recent study showed that detained
asylum seekers had experienced twice the level of war trauma exposure
of those asylum seekers in the community. [19] Over
70% had been tortured and 90% experienced severe trauma. He found that
"Those who had suffered the most serve persecution are perversely
at most risk of detention in Australia. This is not really surprising
because these are the people most desperate to leave and hence the most
likely to enter 'illegally'". [20]
DIMIA asserts that:
The Department
is committed to ensuring that children held in immigration detention
receive appropriate care. A permanent working party of senior departmental
officers meets on a fortnightly basis to review of all detention cases
and, in particular, cases of concern such as children. [21]
DIMIA has an agreed
set of standards [immigration Detention Standards – [IDS] with ACM
for treatment of people. DIMIA's website proclaims:
The IDS outline
the quality of life expected in the centres and take into consideration
individual needs such as the gender, culture and age of the detainees.
Emphasis is
placed on the sensitive treatment of the detention population which
may include torture and trauma sufferers, family groups, children, the
elderly, people with a fear of authority, and those who are seeking
to engage Australia's protection obligations under the Refugee Convention
… [22]
Professor McGorry
disagrees:
Clinical and
research evidence clearly shows that detention is psychologically harmful
to traumatised refugees exposed to it. The recovery environment after
trauma is critical to recovery and the ambient stress and trauma of
the detention environment is not only nontherapeutic but frankly toxic.
Medical and psychiatric care in these environments is substandard. [23]
The CCJDP FOI data
obtained from DIMIA, showing endemic self-harm, demonstrates that these
ACM/DIMIA standards are meaningless in practice in DIMIA's detention centres.
There is a culture of human carnage under DIMIA management. There is a
pervasive culture of serious self-harm among adults, which threatens all
children in DIMIA's detention facilities with significant risk of permanent
damage to their social, intellectual and emotional development. The rate
of self-harm amongst children is very high and totally unacceptable.
iii) Child
Protection
The recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by DIMIA and the former
South Australian Liberal Government in December 2001, reveals that DIMIA
is responsible for all children in its detention centres. South Australia's
Family and Youth Services (FAYS) Department does not have ultimate responsibility
for responding to abuse of children and there are clear limits to State
power to protect the best interests of the child:
4.1 DIMA maintains
the ultimate duty of care for all immigration detainees. That is, the
ultimate responsibility for the welfare of unlawful non-citizens in
immigration detention remains with DIMA. The day to day operations of
detention services have been contracted out by DIMA to a private detention
services provider.
4.2 FAYS has a
legal responsibility to investigate child protection concerns for children
in immigration detention in South Australia. However, any interventions
undertaken to secure the care and protection of detainees must be actioned
by DIMA. DIMA will consider carefully FAYS recommendations to ensure
that the best interests of the child are protected. [24]
The states and territories
have had legislation to protect children from such abuse for a decade
or more. The definition of child abuse in South Australia clearly covers
the psychological and emotional abuse of children occurring in ACM/DIMIA
institutions:
CHILDREN’S PROTECTION ACT 1993 - SECT 6
Interpretation
“abuse or neglect”, in relation to a child, means—
“(a)”
sexual abuse of the child; or
“(b)”
physical or emotional abuse of the child, or neglect of the child, to
the extent that—
(i) the child has
suffered, or is likely to suffer, physical or psychological injury detrimental
to the child’s wellbeing; or
(ii) the child’s
physical or psychological development is in jeopardy…,
Western Australia
The Western Australian Family and Children's Services describe abuse and
its consequences in the following ways [emphasis in bold is authors]:
The following
definition of child maltreatment has been formulated by child protection
professionals. The wording of these definitions is important because
of the legal implications related to child maltreatment.
Child maltreatment
occurs when a child has been subjected to sexual, emotional or physical
actions or inactions, the severity and/or persistence of which has resulted
in significant harm or injury to the child; or where a child has been
exposed or subjected to exploitative or inappropriate sexual acts.
The description
of child maltreatment includes situations where a child is denied available
food, shelter, medical attention or supervision to the extent that the
child has suffered significant harm or injury…..
Emotional
maltreatment describes significant impairment of a child’s social,
emotional, cognitive and intellectual development, and/or disturbance
of the child’s behaviour which result from behaviours such
as persistent hostility, rejection or scapegoating.
All
forms of maltreatment are likely to result in emotional problems for
the child, particularly a lack of self-esteem and a distrust of adults.
The longer the maltreatment continues the more serious the effects.
Maltreated children are more likely than other children to be self destructive
or aggressive, to abuse drugs and alcohol, or to become young offenders
or ‘street kids’. In some situations maltreatment may result
in permanent physical damage and even death.
In the longer
term adults who have been maltreated may be more likely to maltreat
their own children and can often experience difficulties in forming
satisfactory relationships with other adults.
Treatment and
counselling services for children who have been maltreated assist in
working through the trauma and in reducing the effects of the maltreatment.
The most serious effects are likely to occur when no one takes
action to stop the maltreatment and protect the child.
Physical or
behavioural signs can assist in recognising child maltreatment. Injuries
to a child such as bruises or fractures may be a sign of maltreatment
although it must be remembered that such injuries are also seen in children
who are not maltreated. It is the persistent occurrence of injuries
which may be cause for concern.
Behavioural
changes in a child can also be a sign of maltreatment. For example a
child suddenly being highly anxious or withdrawn for no apparent reason
may be a cause for concern. However a child’s behaviour is likely
to be affected if he or she is under stress and there can be many causes
of stress including child maltreatment. It is important to find out
specifically what is causing the physical and/or behavioural signs you
can see. [25]
Keeping children safe
The State child protection agencies have the power to investigate notifications
of child abuse in Commonwealth facilities but can only make recommendations
to DIMIA. These may or may not be acted upon. The best interests of the
children are not being followed by DIMIA, for if the criteria above were
followed by DIMIA, given the scale of self-harm which FOI searches have
revealed, any responsible organisation could not keep children in such
dangerous conditions.
The feeling among
many professionals working with the child victims of institutional abuse
in DIMIA's facilities is that the criteria used for DIMIA's responses
to child abuse notifications are rarely in the ‘best interests of
the child', or that of the mass of children detained. Rather, they are
in the 'best interests of the Department' on a case by case basis according
to the political risk that public awareness of children's self-harm could
cause. Such treatment of children in Commonwealth care is not surprising
in a Department that is running large institutions that control many thousands
of human beings, but does not directly employ social workers and psychologists
at a senior level to advise it about the effects of its policies on those
human beings. The purpose of DIMIA is migration, not child protection,
and its officers are ignorant and professionally ill-equipped to make
decisions about the welfare of children who are detained.
CASE 2. Physical Abuse of an Child in ACM/DIMIA Detention Centre and Failure
in Medical Treatment
'Isa' and her three children, now released, spent nine and a half months
in detention [detention centre removed] in contravention of three UN Human
Rights Conventions that are in force in Australia. Her children were aged
[age removed] (‘Mohamed’), [age removed] (‘Nadia’),
and [age removed] (‘Katrina’) at the time. ‘Isa’
had a protracted battle with the Department of Immigration, Multicultural
and Indigenous Affairs to arrange for the eldest daughter to attend school
outside the detention centre. Inside the detention centre, ‘Mohamed’
was expected to do his schooling by correspondence or participate in the
daily English class run for other detainees. He already had excellent
English. Through ‘Isa'’s persistence and complaints, eventually
he was permitted to attend the local school.
‘Nadia’
was deeply traumatised by her previous experiences and, as the family's
detention dragged on, she became more depressed and manifested symptoms
of posttraumatic stress disorder. She would frequently sit in a dark room
rocking and crying. She refused to play. She did not sleep. Despite numerous
complaints, no psychologist was organised by ACM/DIMIA. Eventually when
a private psychologist was organised, their report was alarming about
the mental well being of the child. A day or two after being visited by
the psychologist, the mother was quite seriously assaulted by another
woman detainee and ‘Nadia’'s wrist was broken. It was around
two weeks before the child was taken to the hospital where an X-ray confirmed
that her wrist was broken. During that time, the child was crying and
clearly in pain, with the mother strongly advocating to the detention
centre that her child be taken to hospital. Written complaints about the
failure to investigate the cause of the broken wrist were put to ACM.
ACM investigated the case and concluded there was no basis to the complaint.
However the cause of the broken wrist and the two-week delay in medical
treatment were not officially discovered.
iv) Professional
Negligence
Based on the information obtained under Freedom Of Information (FOI) shown
above, there is a high probability that DIMIA has further information
on its records showing that its officers have knowledge of the scale and
degree of self-harm occurring in its facilities and the damage this is
causing to children. The conclusion drawn on the basis of the evidence
above is that significant harm is occurring to large numbers of children.
The sheer scale of self-harm in these facilities - 264 incidents reported
in just 8 months - indicates not just profound damage to the adults, but
is particularly damaging to the psychological and emotional development
of children. To ignore such treatment of children in DIMIA institutions
would be ethically reprehensible and leave the Commonwealth open to charges
of negligence. The possibility of future criminal charges being laid against
ACM and DIMIA officials for failing to respond and remove children from
these environments is real, as are future compensation claims by asylum
seeker children granted refugee status who become future Australian citizens.
CASE 3. ACM/DIMIA
Place Children in Solitary Confinement, and Starvation
[Name removed] was
held in [name of detention centre removed] with his [son - age removed]
[name removed]. Both had been in detention for more than [number removed]
months. The child was [number removed] months upon his arrival in Australia.
His mother and two other siblings are still in [country of origin removed].
In July 2000, [the father] participated in a hunger strike against conditions
in detention. At 4am on 31 July 2000, 19 people including [the father]
and his son were transferred to [another] detention centre. Amongst the
19 were five male children aged [ages removed]. The adults were handcuffed,
some with plastic cuffs and those considered to be troublemakers with
metal cuffs. [The father] asked one of the guards to undo his handcuffs
so that he could hold his child. The guard did so. Two other guards came
up to the father challenging why his handcuffs were off. [The father]
complained that his hair was pulled and his child, who was clinging to
his leg, was pushed away roughly by the guards. [The father] challenged
the guard's treatment of his child and the guards put the child into plastic
leg locks. The child was left in leg locks for around 45 minutes. They
were taken off prior to leaving the detention centre.
The plane to [detention
centre removed] was privately chartered. Guards were on board. One father
was there with his two children who were talking to each other. The guards
told them to be quiet. The father challenged the guards' harsh words and
the older child (aged [removed]) was handcuffed. He was handcuffed throughout
the plane journey.
For around 32 hours,
three of the five children did not have any food. None of the children
were participating in the hunger strike. The children had their last food
at around 8pm on the Friday night. They were awoken during the night and
told to be ready for transfer at 4am the next morning. On the plane, sandwiches
were offered to the two children who were awake. The parents of the three
children who were asleep asked if they could take sandwiches for their
children to eat later when they woke. They were refused. Upon arrival
at Port Hedland, the appointed dinnertime was already over. The parents
asked for food for the children but were told that they would have to
wait until breakfast at 7am the next morning. Hence three of the children
had no food for 32 hours.
Upon arrival at [detention
centre removed], all 19 people were put into individual isolation cells
including children who were held in isolation for around two hours before
being reunited with their parents. [Name removed] continued with the hunger
strike for a further three days after arriving at Port Hedland. Guards
threatened that he would die in there and no one would know what happened
and no one would care for his son. He was told that he would be deported
if he continued with the hunger strike. He was told that if he broke the
hunger strike he would be released into the general community.
Eventually he broke
his hunger strike but he was not released from the cell for a further
ten days. For the whole 13 days, his son was held with him in a one-person
cell without windows, a shower or a toilet. No bedding was provided for
the child.
Twice a day they were taken for a few minutes to the toilet. At other
times his son needed to go to the toilet. [Name removed] would bang on
the door but no guards would come and his child would soil the floor.
There were no toys or any other items for the child to play with. Aside
from the trips to the toilet, they were both held in this cell for 24
hours per day.
On 20 August 2000,
[the father] and [his son] were transferred back to Villawood detention
centre. [The father] tried to arrange for his son to be seen by the detention
centre doctor but the doctor was always busy. The nurse tried to make
the appointments with the doctors but they did not happen. ‘Baban’
became very worried about his son, because since the experience of being
locked in the isolation cells, the child's demeanour had markedly changed.
[His son] was not eating or sleeping very well, cried almost continuously
and was very angry. [His son] became sick and [The father] again tried
to be seen by the detention centre doctors. [The father] asked for friends
to bring medication in for his son, but this is not allowed. Two NSW Department
officers were told of the condition of [his son] and arranged for a psychologist
to visit.
[The father] says:
“Yesterday
he [his son] went to bed at around 1am and 6am he woke and he wakes up
three to four times in the night screaming. He did not use to be like
this. He is not eating. I cannot get any help here and I don’t know
what to do. What could any parent do in this terrible situation? I cannot
protect him from this treatment. This is what has happened to my child.
“I never want
to remember everything that has happened to my child. It was very hard
for him especially in the cell. The child wouldn’t run or play,
there were no toys, nothing for him to do at all. When I remember those
times I get really upset.”
Rights Standards
i) Australia
and Human Rights Standards
This section examines the provisions made by Australia to implement its
international human rights obligations regarding child asylum seekers,
including unaccompanied minors.
The Australian Government
is has voluntarily agreed to adhere to three United Nations Human Rights
Conventions in regards to children, including:
4. The
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990) - which calls
for governments to abide by the best interests of the child and to only
detain them as a measure of last resort;
5. The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights
(1975) – which prohibits arbitrarily detaining people including
children; and
6. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1954)-
which prohibits punishing people seeking asylum by virtue of the illegal
nature of their arrival.
The dates that the
Australian Government voluntarily ratified these treaties – that
is, formally agreed to adhere to them, are shown above. Based on what
we know about experiences of children in detention, the Australian Government
is violating the human rights of children seeking asylum.
Moreover the Australian
Government has flouted three different sets of United Nations Standards
which seek to protect children, including:
4. UNHCR
Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria relating to the Detention of
Asylum Seekers – which recommended children should not
be detained.
5. UNHCR
Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children
Seeking Asylum - which recommends that children who are unaccompanied
should not be detained.
6. The United
Nations Standard Minimum rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice
(The Beijing Rules) which set out standard of treatment for juveniles
which recommends alternatives to institutionalisation be taken.
In June 1999, the
Executive Committee of the UN High Commissioner's for Refugees Program
examined the situation of detaining asylum seekers. [26]
This UN Standing Committee was concerned with the States increasingly
resorting to the institutionalisation of detention of asylum seekers.
The Committee stated that it
…deplores
that any countries continue to routinely detain asylum seekers (including
minors) on an arbitrary basis, for unduly long periods, without giving
them adequate access to UNHCR and to fair procedures for timely review
of their detention status.
Such detention is
arbitrary when it is not accompanied by fair and efficient procedures
for review. It may also be arbitrary if it is disproportionate, or indefinite.
In Australia in 1999-2000, more than 2,500 asylum seekers were held more
than six months in mandatory detention.
The Australian Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has noted:
When prolonged
detention occurs, conditions for people can become unacceptable. Provisions
for education, health, welfare, recreation, provision for religious
and cultural observances, which might be acceptable in the short term,
become inadequate and unacceptable in the long term. [27]
The policy of mandatory
detention leads to prolonged detention in many cases. These human rights
conventions also include Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states “Detention must be subject
to judicial or administrative review to ensure that it continues to be
necessary in the circumstances.”
At present, the Australian
Government is not adhering to Article 9 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which successive Australian Governments
of both political parties had voluntarily agreed to respect after it was
signed. It entered into force in Australia on 10 December 1975. In 1999/2000
in Australia:
- 1571 refugees
were held in mandatory detention for periods between 6 and 9 months;
- 834 refugees
were held in detention for periods of between 9 and12 months;
- 192 were held
for 12 to 24 months;
- 27 were held
for 24 to 36 months; and
- 11 were held for
more than 36 months. [28]
Many of those detained
for such lengthy periods of time are children. As a result, the Australian
Government is currently violating human rights of people claiming asylum
by arbitrarily detaining many of them.
The Executive Committee
of UNHCR (hereon ‘the Committee’) noted that such practices
were inconsistent with established human rights standards and urged States
to explore more actively all feasible alternatives to detention. The Committee
stated that “ the right to liberty is a fundamental human right
set out in universal and regional human rights agreements.” [29]
ii) The UNHCR
Guidelines on the Detention of Asylum Seekers
The UNHCR Committee refers to the UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable
Criteria Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers [30]
[hereon referred to as the Guidelines], which could be considered best
practice standards. The UNHCR Guidelines are unequivocal:
The Detention
of asylum seekers is in the view of UNHCR inherently undesirable. [31]
The UNHCR Guidelines
are explicit about detention of persons under the age of 18 too:
Minors who are asylum seekers should not be detained.
[32] [UNHCR's emphasis]
The Australian Government
currently flouts UNHCR's stipulation on not detaining asylum-seeker children.
Given that the Guidelines are not an international treaty, and do not
bind Australia in a legal sense, should we expect Australia – a
sovereign state and founding member of the United Nations – to adhere
to the 'guidelines' of a UN agency charged with the responsibility of
dealing with refugees and asylum seekers?
The Guidelines are
important and relevant to Australia because they are based on a number
of international human rights treaties and standards that Australia has
voluntarily ratified (and has been involved in creating) and they make
the case for not detaining asylum-seeker children. The UNHCR's Manual,
Refugee Children: Guidelines on Protection and Care [33]
reinforces this position of treating asylum seeker children as beings
who possess human rights, arguing that international treaties are important
to refugee children because they set standards. When a State such as Australia
ratifies a treaty, the State promises to the international community (and
its own people) that it will conduct itself according to the standards
in the treaty. Australia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the
Child [CROC] in 1989. It entered into force on 7 December 1990. The CROC
is important to minors seeking asylum because it sets out the following
standards, which Australia has agreed to abide by:
- Article 37 of
the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CROC). This requires States
to ensure that detention of minors be used only as a measure of last
resort and for the shortest possible time.
- Article 2. This
requires that States take all measures appropriate to ensure that children
are protected from 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;
- Article 3. This
provides that in any actions taken by State parties concerning children,
the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration;
- Article 9. This
grants the right not to be separated from their parents against their
will;
- Article 29. Education
of the child shall be directed to the development of the child's personality,
talents and mental and physical abilities.
The full legal impact
of Australia's signing of the CROC cannot be felt under Australian law
as Commonwealth parliamentarians have failed to bring any of the provisions
of the CROC into Australian legislation. Nevertheless, Australia's decade-old
ratification of the CROC has the powerful moral effect of a set of internationally
recognised universal human rights as well as being the most ratified human
rights convention. Australia agreed to uphold universal human rights when
it signed the UN Charter in 1947 and became a member of the international
community. To ignore or flout such international human rights standards
leads not only to Australia's current violation of the human rights of
children seeking asylum, but threatens to weaken the international system
of protecting the human rights of children.
The Australian Government
incarcerated 1147 asylum seeker children in 2000 and has detained hundreds
more in 2001-2. At best, little or no effort has been made by the Australian
Government to abide by UN human rights standards for children seeking
asylum, and the Commonwealth Parliament should as a matter of urgency
adopt the UNHCR guidelines on asylum seekers and implement its recommendations
in regard to children.
iii) Mandatory
Detention of Child Asylum-Seekers and Punishment
The UNHCR Guidelines state that there should be a 'presumption against
detention'. This is based on two grounds: one of principle and one based
on experience. The principle is embodied in Article 14 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights which states that the right to seek and enjoy
asylum is a basic human right while UNHCR's experience shows that:
The position
of asylum seekers differs fundamentally from all other-ordinary immigrants
in that they may not be in a position to comply with legal formalities
of entry. This element, as well as the fact that asylum seekers have
often had traumatic experiences, should be taken into account in determining
any restorations on freedom of movement based on illegal entry or presence.
The accounts of the
minors illustrate the trauma that asylum seekers carry as a result of
the separation from their family and the dangerous flight to asylum. One
of the minors, 15 year old 'A' made the journey to Australia reluctantly,
filled with grief at leaving his home and family: “I didn’t
want to come here, but my mother said the Taliban would kill me. I didn’t
even know where Australia was.” It took ‘A’ one month
and 14 days to reach Australia. In Indonesia he embarked upon a voyage
where he feared for his life:
On the boat
there were about 300 people. I was scared on the boat. It was small,
and there were many people, it didn’t seem safe. I was scared.
People honestly thought they were going to die before they reached Australia.
Another 17-year-old
minor, ‘M’ had suffered significant distress growing up. His
family house was burnt in 1991 possibly as a result of the conflict surrounding
‘Operation Desert Storm’ against Iraq. The Iraqi government
in 1996 was arresting people in his area and they fled to Iran. [35]
Detention of a minor can compound such distress and exacerbate trauma.
The Committee further
pointed out that Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status
of refugees prohibits the punishment of refugees for illegal entry. Australia
signed this UN Convention in 1954. Since the introduction in 1992 of mandatory
detention for unauthorised arrivals, which falls disproportionately upon
asylum-seekers who arrive by boat on our northern shores, violation of
Article 31 has become routine in the Australian immigration detention
system.
A 16-year-old minor,
‘B’, explained the reality of childhood and youth for him
and how he felt about being ‘illegal’:
In my country,
if your father, or cousin, or brother had a problem with the government,
like saying something bad about the government in front of people, or
avoiding military service, if they can’t catch your father or
brother, they will catch you instead. And they will tell your family
that they will not release you until the father or brother come and
that you will be kept in jail and eventually executed. …My cousin
didn’t want to do army service, which means they would come for
me, and then they ask (DIMIA) why do you come here illegally? They don’t
know what is happening in my country now.
The Committee observed
that minor asylum seekers are regularly detained or threatened with detention
because of their own, or their parents', illegal entry into the country.
Such detention, the Committee said, "can pose grave risks to their
well being, their education and their psychological development."
[36] Australia routinely incarcerates children and their
families who arrive by boat without a visa.
iv) Unaccompanied
minors
The UNHCR has a separate set of standards for unaccompanied minors that
are also based on human rights principles and mutually reinforce the other
UNHCR guidelines already discussed. The UNHCR guidelines on Policies and
Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum [37]
also assert the guiding principle in any childcare and protection action
is the principle of the "best interests of the child", and that
unaccompanied minors are entitled to "special care and protection".
Unaccompanied minors should not be kept in detention, the Guidelines observe,
and continue:
States which,
regrettably and contrary to the preceding recommendation, may keep children
seeking asylum in detention, should, in any event, observe article 37
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to which detention
should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest
appropriate period of time….
The Guidelines on
Unaccompanied minors also illustrate where Australia is currently failing
these groups of children:
- They must not
be held under prison-like conditions.
- The underlying
approach to such a progamme (sic) should be ‘care’ and not
‘detention’.
- Facilities should
not be located in isolated areas where culturally–appropriate
community resources and legal access may be unavailable.
All six of Australia's
immigration detention centres possess prison-like conditions, surrounded
as they are by palisades, barbed wire and managed by a prison management
company, Australasian Correctional Management (ACM). Moreover the programs
run by ACM for children cannot transcend the prison-like environment and
the fact that people are detained undermines the duty of care to ensure
the best interests of the child. Three of the six centres – Port
Hedland, Woomera and Curtin fail the last test, as they are in remote
areas where culturally appropriate community resources are not available.
The testimony that is provided in this report is evidence towards this
conclusion.
How might the current
system be improved?
v) The Guidelines
and Alternatives to Detention
In August 2000, the UN Economic and Social Council's Sub-commission on
the promotion and protection of human rights, encouraged states to "adopt
alternatives to detention" of asylum seekers. [38]
The UN's views were informed by UNHCR's Guidelines on Applicable Criteria
and Standards relating to Detention of Asylum Seekers. The UNHCR Guidelines
argue that the detention of asylum seekers is "Inherently undesirable.”
This is even “more so” in the case of vulnerable groups such
as single women, children, unaccompanied minors and those with special
medical and psychological needs.
The Guidelines assert
a 'general principle' that asylum seekers should not be detained. Under
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to
seek and enjoy asylum is recognised as a basic human right. In exercising
this right asylum seekers are often forced to arrive at or enter a territory
illegally. The Guidelines argue that the circumstances of asylum seekers
differ fundamentally from that of ordinary immigrants in that they are
not able to comply with legal formalities for entry. This fact coupled
with the fact that many asylum seekers have suffered trauma, “should
be taken into account in deterring any restriction on freedom of movement
based on illegal entry or presence.”
The UNHCR guidelines
reinforce Article 9 of the ICCPR, arguing that detention "must be
subject to judicial or administrative review to ensure that it continues
to be necessary in the circumstances." The Guidelines argue that
detention should only be resorted to in case of necessity, and therefore
the detention of asylum seekers who come "directly" in an irregular
manner (such as unlawful non–citizens) should not be automatic nor
should it be unduly prolonged." The Guidelines suggest that this
should apply to asylum seekers pending determination of their status.
The Guidelines recommend that detention should only take place after a
full consideration of all possible alternatives. In assessing whether
detention of asylum seekers is necessary, the Guidelines state that account
should be taken of whether it is reasonable to do so and whether is “proportional
to the objectives to be achieved." It should only be imposed in a
non-discriminatory manner for a minimal period.
The UNHCR Guidelines
are clear that detention should only be resorted to in three instances:
1. For preliminary interviews while identifying the basis of an asylum
claim. It is not to be used or extended while determination of the claim
is occurring.
2. When it has been established that an asylum seeker has had an intention
to mislead or refusal to cooperate. Travelling with fraudulent documents
or without documents are not sufficient grounds in themselves, particularly
the latter, as asylum seekers have may not have been able to obtain
genuine documents in their country of origin.
3. To protect national security and public order in cases where there
is evidence that the asylum seeker has criminal connections or record.
As an aside, on the
above point of security, it is interesting to note that minors had indirectly
heard of ill-considered allegations made against asylum seekers by the
former Defence Minister Peter Reith during the last Federal election,
that some may be terrorists. ‘B’ noted without prompting,
in regard to the length of time it took to be processed by DIMIA and ASIO:
"If you are a terrorist or spy, you don't come by boat."
vi) Improving
the Standards of Care for Children in Detention
Contrary to the alarming assertions put forward by the Government, which
suggest that all who are concerned about human rights of asylum-seekers
wish to abandon management of the borders and allow people seeking asylum
to freely enter the country, WYPIN and CCJDP share a more rational view
with many other responsible refugee organisations. WYPIN and CCJDP acknowledge
both the legitimate need of the state to manage borders and immigration
and the expectation of the Australian public that border management is
done professionally and effectively. WYPIN and CCJDP do not support the
recent manufacturing of a sense of hysteria around the issue of “border
control,” the down-playing of Australia's humanitarian obligations
to assist those seeking asylum, or ill-willed assertions that people seeking
asylum threaten national sovereignty or are potential terrorist threats.
Such hysteria, while undoubtedly bringing political benefits, makes for
irrational policy development which can be illogical, inhumane, costly
and unsustainable – such as the creation of the Pacific detention
centres. These remote centres are gravely worrying due to the lack of
public scrutiny of conditions and the welfare of people, particularly
children and young people.
WYPIN and CCJDP support
a humane system of reception where people are held temporarily while health,
identity and security checks are made. The introduction of standards based
on UNHCR Guidelines would be a crucial and humane advance on the current
system where publicly responsible standards are ill defined or absent
all together.
Children and their
carers should not be detained, however, for a period longer that 7 days
for children and their primary carers and 28 days for adults. After that
they should be released into funded support programs that allow them to
reside within the community while their claims are processed.
The arguments put
up against the community release of children and their carers are built
on hollow foundations. Most people who arrive by plane and then claim
asylum remain living in the community while their claim is processed.
The professed fear of people released from detention absconding is rather
exaggerated given that two thirds of asylum seekers – numbering
several thousands - already live out of detention in the community and
manage to comply with DIMIA reporting requirements. This has always been
the case of course; DIMIA statistics reveal that no unauthorised asylum
seeker released on a bridging visa in Australia from 1996-1998 failed
to meet their reporting obligations to DIMIA. [39] Assertions
about Australia not having a national identity card system are misleading.
Such records are unnecessary in the existing DIMIA compliance system for
people in the community. This has a high degree of implicit compliance
through the fact that people rely on certain government-provided benefits
for their livelihood, and have a vested interest in seeing their claim
through. Similarly, an experiment in the US of 640 detainees released
into the community had a 95% rate of compliance on release. [40]
In Sweden, there has proven to be a high level of compliance with decisions,
with very few asylum seekers absconding while under supervision. A system
of release into the community, after initial health and security checks,
has brought significant reduction in the use of taxpayers' money and in
public outcry. Sweden now has the lowest levels of illegal immigrants
living in the community in Europe, with research showing that resettled
refugees integrate quickly into the community with no increase in levels
of welfare dependency or crime. [41]
Support for minors
with their families to live in the community could be provided by an expanded
Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS) managed by the Australian Red Cross
that provides income support and Medicare benefits. Such a system could
provide an expanded range of supports from welfare agencies and a national
case management system for asylum seekers [as advocated by ‘Justice
for Asylum Seekers’ (‘JAS’) ]. [42]
The average cost
of keeping a child or adult in a mainland detention centre has increased
from the table above to $120 per day. Costs vary from centre to centre
as they include expenses such as those for employees, travel, motor vehicles,
telephones, interpreting costs, depreciation and other administrative
costs.
By comparison, many asylum claimants living in the community are eligible
for a period of time for the Government funded ASAS which is managed by
the Australian Red Cross. In 2000-1, 2,691 people were claiming asylum
received ASAS payments averaging at 89 per cent of the Centrelink special
benefit. [43] A single male over 21 is paid approximately
$400 per fortnight on the scheme, while a couple without dependants are
paid approximately $600. Administration costs for the scheme runs at an
average of 12 per cent and it cost the public purse $11,185,000 in 2001,
up from $9,950,000 in 1999-2000.
ASAS provides a casework
service and limited financial assistance to asylum seekers in the community.
Casework services offer:
- crisis intervention
and needs assessment
- counseling
- administration
of limited financial assistance, health care and pharmaceutical program
- referral to other
agencies (legal, medical, specialist counseling, social, education,
material-aid, housing)
- advocacy
- group work
- administration
of limited emergency relief funds. [44]
Ongoing assistance
is subject to continuing needs assessment by Red Cross ASAS caseworkers.
Asylum seekers who
meet certain exemption criteria may qualify for ASAS payments within the
six-month waiting period.[45] Assistance is also available
for health and character check costs associated with the Protection Visa
application process.
In the case of unaccompanied
minors, the State Governments have existing funding relationships with
the Commonwealth to provide case management, income support and education,
health and work entitlements. This support should be available for the
duration of the assessment of people's claims and relevant appeals within
the Immigration determination system.
The Guidelines argue
that there should be a “presumption against detention” particularly
where alternatives are possible:
- monitoring mechanisms
– such as reporting obligations; or
- guarantor requirements.
WYPIN and CCJDP
support the use of the former: monitoring systems such as a reporting
obligation which could be exercised by DIMIA creating a compliance desk
for minors which could liaise with bodies caring for the minors such as
Red Cross or the State Government-based unaccompanied minors programs.
For example, if the minor is receiving ASAS payments via the Australian
Red Cross, then Australian Red Cross could provide DIMIA's compliance
unit with notification of where the minor and their carers are living
and give regular reports that the minor or their guardian have checked
in to Australian Red Cross to receive their payments.
Similarly, if State
refugee minor programs are supporting the minor, then those programs could
ensure that the minors remain in contact and similarly provide data about
contacts made with the minors to DIMIA. In both cases (with ASAS or the
unaccompanied minor programs), the compliance should be unobtrusive and
should not impart a sense to the minor that they are being punished. In
both cases, legal responsibility for compliance should remain with DIMIA
unless guardianship is otherwise delegated by DIMIA to a State Government.
The role of ASAS and the State's unaccompanied minors’ programs
should be to provide a flow of information to DIMIA to ensure that the
minor is available and contactable and conversely to assist with advocating
the minor's situation to DIMIA.
Because of limited
financial resources in the community, WYPIN and CCJDP do not support the
concept of financial guarantors, believing such mechanisms to be inappropriate
and an inefficient use of community funds. Taxpayers are already voluntarily
supporting asylum seekers in the community and have better uses for their
money than to be paying bonds to DIMIA
The Department of
Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs is responsible for Immigration
Detention Centres where there is an endemic culture of self-harm amongst
detainees. The Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs is exposing children to this culture of self-harm and as a result
is causing serious harm to occur to children and young people where the
development of the child is threatened or damaged. This is best described
as institutional child abuse.
Such abuse has arisen
because of the disregard for the human rights of asylum- seeker children
by successive Australian Governments since 1992. This institutional abuse
is a human tragedy that will leave a legacy of scars for a generation
because Australia’s Immigration Detention Centres further damage
children, who have already suffered considerable trauma and persecution
in their home countries. As adults, they will struggle to come to terms
with their compounded suffering. The human cost of the Australian Government's
violations of the human rights of asylum-seeker children is incalculable.
The disturbing testimony provided above reflects the experiences of just
four young people. However, thousands of children and adolescents have
been incarcerated in Australia's Immigration Detention Centres in the
past decade.
The Department of
Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has shown that it uses
inappropriate, unprofessional and dangerous means in handling the best
interests of the children in its care. It is an inappropriate body to
be dealing with children, lacking transparency and accountability in regard
to its management of the immigration detention centres. DIMIA seems to
lack any sense of awareness of the internationally agreed human rights
standards or domestic legislative requirements required protecting children
and for them not to be held in detention. The responsibility for the daily
care of children should be removed from DIMIA immediately and transferred
to more experienced and professional bodies at such as the Australian
Red Cross, and state-based unaccompanied minors’ programs.
Australia should
immediately stop the damaging detention of children and young people.
Australia should immediately release children and their carers into the
community alongside the thousands of other asylum-seekers already living
freely in our society. Unless the Australian Parliament realises the enormity
of the tragedy of asylum-seeker children unfolding in DIMIA's detention
centres, and moves quickly to remedy this terrible damaging of the young,
then it will stand condemned as making Australia a violator of the human
rights of children. Current and future governments could be held accountable
in the courts for the damage it is knowingly doing to young people. The
risks of self-harm in detention centres are now too well known and any
attempt to dismiss the risk of harm to young people and children in DIMIA
centres could be seen as negligence. DIMIA could be responsible for a
new generation of profoundly damaged young people coming into our society
or being returned as damaged people to the countries whence they fled.
Attachments
1. CCJDP
request to DIMIA regarding incidents of self-harm in detention centres
24 October 2001
2. DIMIA's
data on Incidents of self-harm in Australian Immigration Detention Centres
23 April 2002
Attachment 1: CCJDP request to DIMIA regarding incidents of self-harm
in detention centres 24 October 2001
The Catholic Commission
for Justice Development and Peace would like to apply for the following
information from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs:
1. Statistical details
about Incidents of Self-harm from 31 October 2000 – 31 October 2001
(reportable though Incident Reporting Procedures detailed in Operational
Orders) in Curtain Reception Centre, Woomera IDC, Port Headland Reception
Centre, Perth IDC, Villawood IDC and Maribyrnong IDC; in particular to
include:
- Dates of all
incidents
- Nature of incidents
(describe act of self harm)
- Age, sex and
nationality of person committing self harm (names and ID not required)
- Numbers of days,
person committing self harm, had been held in detention
- Action taken
by ACM and/or DIMA in response to self harm detailing medical referral
(if occurred)
2. Statistical details
of incidents of solitary confinement from January 2001 – 31 October
(reportable though Incident Reporting Procedures detailed in Operational
Orders) in Curtain Reception Centre, Woomera IDC, Port Headland Reception
Centre, Perth IDC, Villawood IDC and Maribyrnong IDC; in particular to
include:
- Dates of all
incidents and duration of solitary confinement
- Reason for solitary
confinement
- Age, sex and
nationality of person held in solitary confinement
- Any comments
or reasons about extension of solitary confinement by Australian Correctional
Management staff and /or DIMA.
3. Statistical details
of incidents of hunger strike from January 2001 – 31 October (reportable
though Incident Reporting Procedures detailed in Operational Orders) in
Curtain Reception Centre, Woomera IDC, Port Headland Reception Centre,
Perth IDC, Villawood IDC and Maribyrnong IDC; in particular to include:
- Dates of all
incidents and duration of hunger strike
- Numbers of people
making hunger strike
- Age, sex and
nationality of persons holding hunger strikes
- Nature of actions
taken by Australian Correctional Management staff in response to incidents
of hunger strike
4. Correspondence
between DIMA and ACM pertaining to the above incidents
We will not be requiring
names of ACM or DIMA officials, or the personal details or ID about persons
held in detention centres, beyond general statistical information about
age, gender and nationality.
Attachment 2: DIMIA's data on Incidents of self-harm in Australian Immigration
Detention Centres 23 April 2002
Incidences
of self harm in Australian Immigration Detention Centres
1 March – 30 October 2001
This is a copy of
data provided by DIMIA. Numbers have been added to the original and it
has been reformatted for electronic communication.
Incidence Of Self Harm Age Gender
1 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Minor 0-2yrs Male
2 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Minor 0-2yrs Female
3 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Minor 3-5yrs Female
4 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation - Adult 3-5yrs Female
5 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Adult 3-5yrs Female
6 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Minor 3-5yrs Male
7 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Minor 5-8yrs Male
8 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Minor 5-8yrs Male
9 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation - Minor 9-12yrs Male
10 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation – Minor 9-12yrs Male
11 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation - Minor 13-16yrs Male
12 Self Harm – Adult 13-16yrs Male
13 Self Harm – Hunger Strike – Minor 13-16yrs Female
14 Self Harm – Minor 13-16yrs Male
15 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation - Minor 13-16yrs Male
16 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation-Minor 13-16yrs Male
17 Self Harm – Minor 13-16yrs Male
18 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Minor 13-16yrs Male
19 Self Harm – Minor 17yrs Male
20 Self Harm – Minor 17yrs Male
21 Self Harm – Adult 18-20yrs Male
22 Self Harm – Hunger Strike – Adult 18-20yrs Female
23 Self Harm – Attempted 18-20yrs Female
24 Self Harm – Adult 18-20yrs Male
25 Self Harm – Adult 18-20yrs Male
26 Self Harm – Attempted 18-20yrs Male
27 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Adult 18-20yrs Male
28 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation - Adult 18-20yrs Male
29 Self Harm – Attempted 18-20yrs Male
30 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
31 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
32 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
33 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
34 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Adult 20-25yrs Male
35 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
36 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
37 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
38 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation - Adult 20-25yrs Male
39 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
40 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Adult 20-25yrs Male
41 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
42 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
43 Self Harm - Adult 20-25yrs Male
44 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
45 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
46 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation - Minor 20-25yrs Male
47 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
48 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
49 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Female
50 Self Harm – Adult 20-25 yrs Male
51 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
52 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
53 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
54 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
55 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
56 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
57 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
58 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
59 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
60 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
61 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation – Adult 20-25yrs Male
62 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
63 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
64 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
65 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
66 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
67 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
68 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
69 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Female
70 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
71 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
72 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
73 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
74 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
75 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
76 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
77 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
78 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
79 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
80 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Minor 20-25yrs Female
81 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
82 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation – Adult 20-25yrs Male
83 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
84 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
85 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
86 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
87 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yre Male
88 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
89 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Adult 20-25yrs Male
90 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
91 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Adult 20-25yrs Male
92 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Adult 20-25yrs Male
93 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Minor 20-25yrs Male
94 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
95 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
96 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
97 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
98 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Adult 20-25yrs Male
99 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
100 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
101 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
102 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
103 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
104 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
105 Self Harm - Attempted 20-25yrs Male
106 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
107 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
108 Self Harm – Hunger Strike – Minor 20-25yrs Male
109 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
110 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
111 Self Harm – Attempted 20-25yrs Male
112 Self Harm – Adult 20-25yre Male
113 Sod Harm – Adult 20-25yrs Male
114 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
115 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Adult 26-35yrs Male
116 Self Harm – Hunger Strike – Minor 26-35yrs Female
117 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
118 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
119 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
120 Self Harm - Hunger Strike - Adult 26-35yrs Male
121 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
122 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Female
123 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
124 Self Harm - Attempted 26-35yrs Male
125 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
126 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
127 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
128 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
129 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Male
130 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
131 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
132 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
133 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
134 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
135 Self Harm – Hunger Strike - Adult 26-35yrs Female
136 Self Harm – Hunger Strike - Adult 26-35yrs Male
137 Self Harm – Hunger Strike - Adult 26-35yrs Male
138 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
139 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
140 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
141 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation - Adult 26-35yrs Male
142 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
143 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
144 Self Harm - Attempted 26-35yrs Male
145 Self Harm - Attempted 26-35yrs Male
146 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
147 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
148 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
149 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
150 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
151 Self Harm - Adult 28-35yrs Male
152 Self Harm - Adult 26-3Syrs Male
153 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
154 Self Harm - Hunger Strike - Adult 26-35yrs Male
155 Self Harm - Hunger Strike – Adult 26-35yrs Male
156 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
157 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
158 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Male
159 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
160 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Female
161 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Male
162 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
163 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Minor 26-35yrs Male
164 Sod Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
165 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
166 Self Harm – Hunger Strike - Adult 26-35yrs Male
167 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Female
168 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
169 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
170 Self Harm - Hunger Strike - Adult 26-35yrs Male
171 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
172 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Female
173 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
174 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
175 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
176 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
177 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
178 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Female
179 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Male
180 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
181 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
182 Self Harm –Adult 26-35yrs Male
183 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
184 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Male
185 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Male
186 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
187 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
188 Self Harm - Hunger Strike - Adult 26-35yrs Male
189 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
190 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
191 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
192 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
193 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
194 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
195 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
196 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
197 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
198 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
199 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
200 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Male
201 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
202 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
203 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
204 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
205 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Female
206 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
207 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Male
208 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
209 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Male
210 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
211 Self Harm – Adult 26-35yrs Male
212 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Female
213 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
214 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
215 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
216 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
217 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
218 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Male
219 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
220 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
221 Self Harm - Hunger Strike - Adult 26-35yrs Male
222 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Minor 26-35yrs Female
223 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
224 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation – Adult 26-35yrs Female
225 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
226 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
227 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
228 Self Harm - Adult 26-35yrs Male
229 Self Harm – Attempted 26-35yrs Male
230 Self Harm - Hunger Strike - Adult 36-45yrs Male
231 Self Harm - Adult 36-45yrs Male
232 Self Harm - Adult 36-44yrs Male
233 Self Harm – Hunger Strike - Adult 36-45yrs Male
234 Self Harm – Attempted 36-45yrs Male
235 Self Harm - Attempted 36-45yrs Male
236 Self Harm - Adult 36-45yrs Male
237 Self Harm - Attempted 36-45yrs Male
238 Self Harm - Adult 35-45yrs Male
239 Self Harm - Hunger Strike - Minor 36-45yrs Male
240 Self Harm - Voluntary Starvation –Minor 36-45yrs Female
241 Self Harm - Attempted 36-45yrs Male
242 Self Harm - Hunger Strike - Adult 36-45yrs Female
243 Self Harm – Adult 36-45yrs Female
244 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Minor 36-45yrs Female
245 Self Harm – Adult 36-45yrs Male
246 Self Harm – Adult 36-45yrs Male
247 Self Harm – Adult 36-45yrs Male
248 Self Harm – Adult 36-45yrs Male
249 Self Harm – Adult 36-45yrs Male
250 Self Harm - Hunger Strike - Adult 36-45yrs Male
251 Self Harm - Minor 46-55yrs Male
252 Self Harm - Adult 46-55yrs Male
253 Self Harm - Adult 46-55yrs Male
254 Self Harm - Adult 46-55yrs Male
255 Self Harm - Hunger Strike - Minor 46-55yrs Male
256 Self Harm - Adult 46-55yrs Male
257 Self Harm – Adult 46-55yrs Male
258 Self Harm – Voluntary Starvation – Adult 46-55yrs Female
259 Self Harm -Adult 46-5ryrs Male
260 Self Harm - Adult 46-55yrs Male
261 Self Harm - Attempted 46-55yrs Male
262 Self Harm – Adult 46-55yrs Male
263 Self Harm – Adult 46-55yrs Male
264 Self Harm - Hunger Strike - Adult 55-65yrs Male
Last
Updated 9 January 2003.