Commission Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention
Archived
You are in an archived section of the website. This information may not be current.
This page was first created in December, 2012
here to return to the Submission Index
Submission to the National
Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from
International
Commission of Jurists, Queensland Branch
Statistics on Children in Australian Detention Centres
Obligations and Laws Governing Detention of Children
Some Rights and Obligations of Asylum Seekers under Australian Law and
Standards
and Proper Care of People in Immigration Detention
DIMIA Regime, what it purports to do and how it is in breach of the
CROC
and Summary
This submission will focus on the current Australian immigration detention
regime as it applies to minors. The regime will be examined based on data
and information made available by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural
and Indigenous Affairs (“DIMIA”) and supporting documentation
ranging from government publications, the Flood Inquiry and testimonies
given to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
“HREOC” under oath. International conventions, domestic statutes
and case law will also be referred to in order to contextualise the socio-political
ramifications of Australia’s continued practice in it’s detention
institutions as well as to lay down the fundamental tenets that inform
international governments, lawyers and social scientists in this field.
Secondary sources will be used to reinforce the principles and policies
that should inform as to the best methods of dealing with the influx of
asylum seekers to Australia, with particular emphasis on children and
unaccompanied minors.
This submission will
examine the detention institutes both generally and specifically, with
emphasis on improvements and variations of methodologies required. The
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) (Queensland Branch) strongly
recommends that the Australian government revise its policy of institutionalising,
isolating and detaining children irrespective of their geographical heritage.
We will reaffirm that the Minister is the guardian of all children that
come onto Australia waters, air and soil and in this regard has the highest
duty of care with regard to these minors and should be accountable to
the Australian public, be responsive to international policies that inform
on human rights and the dignity of children as well as the minors detained
through the immigration policy. There has been some change to the immigration/migration
policies pursuant to the Flood Inquiry, and while we commend this, we
argue that more needs to be done and that our submission should, to whatever
relevant extent lend itself to proactive measures by the government of
the day. For the general issue of detention of children continues to be
important as a matter of human rights, law and policy.
Background
Statistics on Children in Australian Detention Centres
According to DIMIA, between 1 July 2001 and 12 April 2002 a total of 1,871
minors have been taken into detention. [1] On 26 April
2002 it was estimated that there were 184 minors in detention, 70 females
and 114 males. [2] Of these, nine minors were held in
immigration detention unaccompanied and another 12 unaccompanied minors
were held in other places of detention as stipulated below. [3]
The Refugee Council of Australia published numbers of Children Held in
Detention as at May 2, 2002 citing a total of 153 children in the immigration
centres mentioned below, as well as 368 on Nauru and Manus Island. [4]
Woomera IRPC held the largest numbers of minors, at 61, with Curtin IRPC
holding 42 and Villawood IDC having 28. Port Hedland IRPC, Christmas Island
IRPC, Maribynong IDC and Perth IDC also housed minors in detention. [5]
In other places of detention such as hospitals, prison, remand centres
or alternate places of detention there were 24 minors. [6]
A year later the figures show that there has been a significant decrease
in the number of children in detention centres but maintain that the presence
of 33 such children is of ongoing concern to the ICJ. It is accepted that
there is a decrease in the number of children being detained. It is submitted
that even if detention is viewed as a last resort for children, it is
imperative to note that detention like situations in the community will
have similar detrimental effects.
Obligations and Laws Governing Detention of Children
“Each child has his or her human dignity and the same needs: for
protection of his or her personality, for integrity and privacy…Each
child is an individual person whose personality and identity should
enjoy universal recognition and respect…”
Current International Law Regime: International law,
is a system of law comprising widely accepted rules and principles, which
govern the international relations between sovereign States and other
institutional subjects of international law. [8] These
rules and principles, articulated in documents like treaties, conventions,
charters and other such instruments, impose obligations only on the members
of the international community who choose to be bound by them.[9]
This may include an obligation limiting a government’s freedom of
action.[10] The success of the international system
of law depends exclusively on the political will of sovereign States,
to firstly agree to be bound by such principles, and secondly to fulfil
these obligations once they voluntarily agree to be bound by them. [11]
Each sovereign State
has the capacity to act in a way which it individually feels is consistent
with the legal obligations it has become a signatory to. [12]
In Australia, ratification of a treaty or convention requires active adoption
of the relevant instrument into domestic law in order to create enforceable
rights. [13]
Following the creation
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came a series of specific
declarations and conventions, which canvassed a diverse range of human
rights law. [14]
Treaties
or Conventions Dealing Generally and Specifically with Child Refugees
or Child Asylum Seekers: The ICJ believes that the following treaties
should inform the government of their obligations under international
laws:
(1) Specifically
(a) The Convention on the Rights of a Child (1989)
(b) The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and its
protocol (1967)
(2) Generally
(a) Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954)
(b) Convention Against Discrimination in Education (1960)
(c) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (1965)
(d) Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961)
(e) International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”)
(1966)
(f) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rigths (1966)
(g) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (1979)
(h) Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (1984).
In recent years Australia
has gained a reputation for being a willing signatory to a number of treaties
and conventions which articulate strong views on human rights concerns.
It is an even greater challenge for sovereign States such as Australia
to follow through the international law regime which has no legal ramification
until it has been incorporated into domestic law.
We contend that
the institutionalised detention of minors in detention centres has been
under circumstances that breach international principles and are contrary
to the international law principles Australia is widely known to accept.
The importance of these conventions is reflected in the fact that over
half of the world’s refugees are children under the age of 18. [15]
The Significance
of the Convention on the Rights of a Child (1989) (“CROC”):
The most important convention to this discussion is the CROC,
which expands on the general principles governing rights of refugees which
is found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [16]
and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and its 1967
Protocol.[17] The latest figures show that CROC has
140 signatories and 191 countries are State Parties. [18]
The Four
Main CROC Principles: CROC covers virtually all areas of the
life of a child and regardless of their immigration status, all children
are entitled to the full enjoyment of the rights enshrined within the
convention. [19] There are four main principles which
are considered to be the core of CROC. [20]
1. Best interests of the child. This is found in Article 3(1)
of CROC:
‘In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public
or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative
authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall
be a primary consideration.’
2. Right to non-discrimination. This is found in Article 2 of
CROC:
i. ‘States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth
in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without
discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his
or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin,
property, disability, birth or other status.’
ii. ‘States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure
that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment
on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs
of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.’
3. Right to participation and survival. This is found in Article 12(1)
of CROC:
i. ‘States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of
forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely
in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given
due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.’
4. Right to development. This is found in Article (6):
i. ‘States Parties recognise that every child has the inherent
right to life.’
ii. ‘States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible
the survival and development of the child.’
Other salient features of CROC: Include the right
to family provision embraced in Article 5 :[21]
i. ‘States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights
and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended
family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians
or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a
manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate
direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognised
in the present Convention.’
: Refuge-seeking
children are entitled to the same educational opportunities as
citizen children.[22] That is under Arts 28
and 29 of CROC respectively. There is a requirement on the Department
of Immigration to ensure there is compulsory primary education, encourage
secondary education and to make higher education accessible. [23]
However, all international obligations that the Department owes are subject
to policies taken on by the States and this has varying implications depending
on the State where the detention centre happens to be located. [24]
: There is an obligation
to ensure that suitable staff under competent supervision carry
out the health and well being of the child as provided for under
Arts. 2 and 6(2) of CROC. [25] The Department also owes
children who are intellectually and physically disabled special obligations
under Arts 23 and 25 of CROC respectively. [26]
:There is an obligation
to provide for adequate and appropriate recreational resources
under Arts 17 and 31 of CROC. [27]
:There is also a
right to compensation for arbitrary detention and this
should be applied to minors as well as adults in accordance with 9(1)
and 9(4) (ICCPR). [28] In A v Australia [29]
the applicant was held in detention for over three-years and was awarded
compensation because detention was arbitrary and in contravention of arts
9(1) and 9(4) (ICCPR). Adequate compensation ‘for the length of
detention’ is provided for under art. 2(3) (ICCPR), but Australia
to date has not compensated ‘A’. [30]
Australian Law Governing Detention of Refugee Children
The Commonwealth has power to make laws regarding naturalisation of aliens,
immigration and emigration, and the influx of criminals; therefore the
Commonwealth has power to make laws in relation to preventing entry of
non-citizens. [31]
‘Asylum-Seekers’ are subject to the provisions of the
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) [32]
and must be a non-citizen to whom Australia owes protection obligations
under the International Conventions. [33] Although regulated
by the Act, international laws do have an impact on Australia’s
domestic laws. [34]
A. Some Rights
and Obligations of Asylum Seekers under Australian Law and Standards
Rights of Asylum Seekers:
1. Valid Visa Applications: It may be that ‘Asylum-Seekers’
will be unable to make valid visa applications depending on their place
of arrival.[35] However, a person is entitled upon
request to application forms for a visa or all reasonable facilities
for making a statutory declaration for the purposes of obtaining legal
advice or taking legal proceedings.[36]
2. Review of Refusal to Grant Visa Application: Decisions to refuse
to grant or to cancel protection visas are reviewable. [37]
3. Review of Late Application: Where an original application is unsuccessful,
only new information can be considered in a later application. [38]
4. Reasons by the Minister: The Minister is obliged to give reasons
that the applicant understands and can comment on. [39]
5. Minister as Guardian of children: The Minister is the guardian of
non-citizen children who enter Australia without being in the care of
relatives that intend to become permanent residents (unaccompanied minors).
[40] Guardianship is conferred under section 6 of
the IGOC Act. This includes the basic human needs of the child as well
as all of Australia’s international obligations to the child.
[41] Although the Minister has delegated most of his
powers and functions under the IGOC Act to various officers of the State
or Territory departments responsible for child welfare through Memorandum’s
of Understanding (MOU’s) [42] the duties
owed to children under his custody are still to be discharged by the
Department on behalf of the relevant Minister.
6. Substantial Justice: A Refugee Review Tribunal is to be fair, just,
economical, informal and quick and must act according to substantial
justice and merits of the case. [43]
Obligations
of Asylum Seekers:
7. Obligations of Detainees to pay: It is possible to require detainees
to pay a daily amount for their maintenance whilst detained as well
as their costs of removal or deportation. [44]
8. Section 189 Persons: Persons detained under section 189 must be kept
in immigration detention until they are deported or granted a visa.
[45] There is no provision for earlier release by
the courts or otherwise. [46]
9. Third Country Principles: Third Country resettlement may be possible.
[47] Australia’s obligations extend only to
persons who have taken all possible steps to enter and reside in another
country. [48]
10. Arrival without identification: Arrival without identification should
not be interpreted as an attempt to defraud the system because refugees
are at risk of persecution and loss of documents is not unusual. [49]
However, they may not be eligible for permanent residence and may only
be granted a three year Temporary Protection Visa (TPV). [50]
It is acknowledged that there is no common law right to enter into Australia.
Appropriate
and Proper Care of People in Immigration Detention
Immigration Detention Standards: The Immigration Detention Standards (IDS)
set out the appropriate and proper care of people in immigration detention
including the requirement to provide safe and secure detention. [52]
These standards also establish a right to educational services and the
right to be called by name and not to be referred to as a number. There
are guidelines that all persons have access to health facilities and specialist
facilities where required.
In particular Standard
9.1 provides that children with ‘special needs’ be
identified to increase their quality of life.[53] The
Standards further cover a range of services including accommodation, food,
clothing, bedding, religion and recreation.[54] However,
these are standards only as the Department has limited facilities. [55]
Duty of Care
owed by Department and the Services Provider:
Both the Department and the Services Provider are required to meet duty
of care obligations, which go beyond the provision of basic needs;
these commitments require the provision of a “safe and secure physical
environment and, to the fullest extent possible, the prevention of physical,
verbal or cultural abuse, sexual harassment, neglect and any other abuse.”
Duty of care obligations
also require the provision of appropriate educational programs and above
this is the duty of care to all detainee children, in particular unaccompanied
minors because of the Minister’s guardianship responsibilities for
these children, as discussed above. [57]
Services Provider:
The Services Provider is required to have a case management plan for all
children within 14 days of being taken into detention to ensure that their
needs are met and regularly reviewed. The Status report on each unaccompanied
minor should be provided weekly to High Risk Assessment Team meetings
held within the facility, and each Services Provider Centre Manger provides
a written report weekly on the welfare of all unaccompanied minors to
the DIMIA Manager. [58]
The DIMIA
Regime, what it purports to do and how it is in breach of the CROC
What DIMIA claims to be doing: It is submitted that many of the claims
put forward by DIMIA are to be commended, given the staff training and
development needs necessary to implement many of the programs to be monitored
by the Services Provider Centre Manger and DIMIA Manager. DIMIA have stated
that the detention centres run various programs to enhance the detainees
stay, including:
“education services for children and adults, including English
language instruction, cultural classes and sporting activities. Detainees
are free to practice their religion of choice…Detainees are provided
with three meals daily, which are developed by qualified cooks/chefs
in consultation with qualified dieticians. Detainees have input into
the formulation of culturally appropriate menus through the Detainee
Representative Committees and often are involved in the preparation
of meals. Milk is available for the children to drink.”
They go on to explain that children have access also to health, welfare
and psychological services. [60]
DIMIA’s Breach
of the CROC: The majority of children in detention (56) were aged between
five to ten years of age. [61] Those aged between 11-15
years numbered 50. There were 41 between 16-17years and 35 were under
five years of age. Nine of those were less than a year old.[62]
A report of the Senate Standing Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee into Refugee
Detention Centres in 2001 indicates that being exposed to a detention
environment as a baby and in early childhood is not favourable to healthy
development. [63]
This would seem consistent
with the fact that the early years are seen as vitally important for future
development of the brain both cognitively, in terms of future learning
and emotionally in terms of developing a healthy secure attachment to
a caregiver. [64] This attachment has been found to
be necessary for the child to develop trust, self-identity, independence,
self-esteem, social skills – such as forming meaningful relationships
and knowing the difference between right and wrong, emotional stability
and control, sensitivity and empathy with others. [65]
It is submitted that
many of the duties of proper care and support that DIMIA is supposed to
be providing fall far short of that department’s own standard and
certain key issues are addressed to highlight these short fallings. It
is further submitted that due to these drastic short fallings that DIMIA
is in fact in breach of the CROC and that the Minister is outside of the
general standard of care owed to children in detention centres. Below
are some reasons that have informed the ICJ perspective that the DIMIA
needs to make reference to it’s own commendable standards and maintain
them as it would be obliged to by the community it represents and is accountable
to.
Parental Responsibilities
and Support: DIMIA have stipulated that the responsibility for nurturing
and disciplining the children, ensuring hygiene and cleanliness, supervising
and encouraging participation in recreational and educational activities
remains with the parents. However, they state that the detention centres
provide assistance by way of parenting programs such as newsletters, tape-recorded
information and sessions run by police.[66] Parents
are also the mechanism through which minors in detention are able to have
their say about their needs, apart from unaccompanied minors who are regularly
spoken to by DIMIA Managers and Deputy Managers. [67]
If minors are assessed
as having emotional issues and their parents are assessed as possibly
depressed or with poor coping skills they are treated and monitored by
the High Risk Assessment Team. [68] The Services Provider
encourages all staff (such as teachers) to be aware of children in need
and then deal with them pro-actively.[69] Children who
self-harm are referred to appropriate professionals and counsellors. [70]
The Detention Centre staff also take on the role of “mandated notifiers”
and are required to report suspected incidents or risk of child abuse
or neglect. [71]
An example of the
negative developmental effect of detention was outlined by a Perth paediatrician,
a previous Woomera employee who had examined a child born in detention:
“I met him in August and he was six months old. When I went back
in January, he was still there with his family and he was barely able
to crawl. He was showing all the signs of a year’s worth of environmental
deprivation.” [72]
Recommendation:
It is submitted that in detention centres, parents are no longer in control
of the living situation and may often be unable to control the situation
because of their reactions to the circumstances. If a parent is depressed,
emotionally detached or feeling helpless they are unable to focus on the
needs of their child, provide them with nurturing, support and protection
and as such the children may experience neglect both emotionally and physically.
Another aspect, which
prevents children developing this attachment and adds to the alienation
between parents and child, is the state of mind of the parents. These
people may also be subject to depression and their own symptoms, for example,
of post-traumatic stress disorder and may then be contributing to their
child’s trauma and disruption in their emotional development. [74]
Specifically, “parents experiencing post-traumatic symptoms are
often extremely irritable, have unstable moods and poorer impulse control.[75]
” Children are frightened and traumatized by these symptoms. [76]
A related instance
is that the normal behaviour of terrible toddlers may result in abusive
discipline. [77] An example of the problem was outlined
by a Psychiatrist from the Rural and Remote Mental Health Service. She
stated that a severely depressed and possibly psychotic mother had concerns
that she would harm her 5 month old child. The child was subsequently
removed from her care and placed with another family. The mother and child
were finally admitted to the hospital and treated but are now back in
detention. [78] The reality of this is seemingly addressed
by the treatment and monitoring by the High Risk Assessment Team, however
the numbers who are affected does not look to be reflected in those cared
for by this Team and there is some question about the qualifications of
those in the team.
It is further submitted
that the regimentation and control exhibited in the detention environment
can confuse the child in relation to roles and responsibilities. They
discover that their parents are not in control and so this effects their
view of the parents and how they respond to their authority, in turn breaking
down the family unit. [79]
Unaccompanied Minors:
For unaccompanied minors a mentoring program is in place in which an adult
(usually a parent of a child of similar age and cultural background as
the minor) is delegated with the task of assisting the minor to maintain
their culture and language. [80] This again raises issues
if this adult is effected by depression, etc and further there seems to
be a gap with respect to other issues that the minor may require assistance
with and how they should vent these.
Recommendation:
As mentioned earlier, all children are to have a case management plan
as assessed by a qualified Services provider to ensure needs are met satisfactorily,
however there seems to be a question regarding the follow up to this.
[81] Primarily, this issue should be resolved on the
basis that the DIMIA, under the supervision of the Minister, owe a duty
of care to children in detention and it is our contention that this duty
has been breached. The Minister is the guardian of these unaccompanied
minors and as long as they remain within the Minister’s jurisdiction
and should not be disadvantaged for want of adult representation and concern
for their needs.
Violence in Detention Centres: A report by the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission in 1998 found evidence of violence between detainees
and between detainees and custodial officers. [82] The
Flood Report also found that during the year 2000 “a small proportion
of detention officer staff were treating detainees including children
as if they were criminals, intimidation and verbal abuse occurred.”
It has been submitted
that children are further exposed to violence in the detention centre
in the form of witnessing the violence between adults, the protest action
such as riots and hunger strikes, self mutilation and attempts at suicide,
searches of both rooms and bodies, tear gas, water canons and in some
centres nightly headcounts, disrupting sleep, along with the public address
system which can run into the night, when many children should be sleeping.
Recommendation: It is acknowledged by the ICJ that the
Minister has taken heed of the Flood Report and that new endeavours to
ensure that personnel of a corrective centre background are not left with
the sole responsibility of managing the proper security within the detention
centres. However, it is also acknowledged that this must be across all
detention facilities in Australia and on pacific shores to eliminate the
stigma that is attached with seeking refuge and asylum on foreign shores-
it is not a crime to flee persecution and it is imperative that asylum
seekers and refugees be treated with humanity according to Australia’s
laws and international conventions.
Sexual Abuse: There
have been alleged cases of sexual abuse in Curtin which the Australian
Association for the Welfare of Child Health states is evidence of the
danger of confining children and adults (who are often suffering from
various levels of mental distress). [85]
Recommendation:
It is submitted that the staff employed by DIMIA are not necessarily qualified
to identify certain symptoms. Further, there are inherent problems with
detention centre staff making these observations, particularly as they
may be ‘blind’ to the problem, either due to the length of
their contracts and confidentiality issues may create barriers in obtaining
assistance. It is therefore recommended that continued staff development
be introduced in these areas and that clear mandates be put in place to
cover any privacy/ confidentiality concerns that may cause ethical and
moral dilemmas to staff. Staff themselves can easily recommend the DIMIA
Manager and the office of the Minister as to what concerns they face and
how they have previously dealt with these issues.
Cultural diversity:
The Refugee experience itself contributes to a large amount of cultural
loss and bereavement. On arrival the refugee will often experience disorientation
and confusion associated with the “culture shock” of a new
lifestyle, environment, government systems including legal, educational,
health and welfare avenues. [86]
Iranian minors figure the highest among children in detention at 70, with
Afghanis numbering 52 and Iraqis 29. [87] The remaining
33 are drawn from nationalities such as Chinese, Sri Lankans, Palestinians,
Indonesian, Vietnamese, Indians, Malaysians and others. [88]
DIMIA have indicated
that in 2001 that more than 40 languages were present in the mainland
detention centres, including Arabic, Cantonese, Dari, Farsi, Filipino,
Indonesian, Korean, Singhalese, Tamil, Thai, Turkish and Vietnamese. [89]
DIMA and the Service Provider engage interpreters for receiving and orientating
detainees or explaining changes in routine at the centre, discussing complaints
and requests, attending the medical detention facility and processing
of property or money requests. [90] There are on-site
interpreters competent in common languages, and for those not so common
a telephone interpreter is organised unless face-to-face is necessary.
In general day-to-day communication other detainees often act as interpreters.
Recommendation:
It is not good standard practice where proper care and support are due
for the DIMIA to rely on interpreters whose own language skills may not
be appropriate and whose motives may present a conflict of interest dilemma
to be placed in this position. It is further asserted that the facilities
provided for interpretation in matters that touch and concern the lives
of people is insufficient. For instance, cultural issues may prevent women,
children and younger persons, for example, from openly discussing matters
with male interpreters or other members of a family having to hear and
relate distressing times to others. It is a fact that in war-time, as
in times of peace, women and children are disproportionately disenfranchised
and this many include anything from homeland dispossession to rape and
torture- issues which may constitute a cultural taboo. The same may happen
to men.
Religious Diversity:
DIMIA aims to maintain religious diversity by facilitating visits by accredited
religious personnel and making space and equipment available for religious
services. The Service Provider may also vary food or meal times to respect
“particular religious practices such as Ramadan. [92]
” However, it would seem that only particular religions are catered
for and certainly most rituals are not catered for.
Recommendation:
It is strongly recommended that detention officers participate in cultural
awareness training as an essential element of their staff development
training. Bodies such as the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture
and the Refugee Council [93] are equipped to do this
if the relevant Ministry is not. It has been found however that sometimes
this training does not happen, and it is certainly very limited in depth.
Cultural and religious awareness could certainly improve the relations
between the staff and asylum seekers. The limited access in detention
to communities, religious organisations (and places of worship) and appropriate
schools and cultural activities such as rituals, which would normally
be available to support the child’s cultural development in mainstream
society may have a negative impact on children’s ability to cope
with change and a sense of identity. [94] As multiculturalism
and not assimilation is the ideology of the day, it is recommended
that this should inform the DIMIA on how it views the importance of cultural
and religious expression in detention centres.
The DIMIA is commended
for taking heed of the Flood Report where it was identified that there
was limited privacy and respect accorded to asylum seekers who were previously
identified as a number rather than a name. It is hoped that this practice
has been stoped for good. However, such impersonal anonymity may still
exist where guardians lose the role of the parent [95]
in an environment that appears to be prejudice and discriminatory through
it’s isolation from others with similar cultural backgrounds. This
leads to less acculturation and as such contributes to an increased risk
for mental health problems. [96]
Health and Disability:
When detainees arrive at a centre they participate in an initial health
assessment and medical personnel attempt to assess whether the child displays
signs of past trauma or developmental harm.[97] There
are 24 hour, seven day a week medical centres in all centres to meet needs
of triage, nursing and first aid. [98] Access to this
facility is sometimes by way of an appointment being made (often by a
security officer if they deem it necessary.) [99] Otherwise,
medication is distributed (depending on the centre) between once to four
times daily. [100] If detainees cannot be treated within
detention they are referred off-site. [101]
DIMIA further states
that Doctors usually visit the centres daily and are on call at all times,
psychologists or counsellors are available either on site or by referral
and centres housing children “try to ensure that nursing or general
practitioner staff have experience in paediatrics or child health.”
[102] In addition, attempts are made at employing staff
who have experience in dealing with torture or trauma sufferers. [103]
All medical staff are given (if possible) a one-day orientation program
including cultural awareness sessions. [104]
DIMIA have stipulated that it is the responsibility of the Service Provider
to ensure that detainees have suitable clothing and footwear for their
age, gender and other needs. [105]
Specifically, for children milk and fruit is available, however parents
must request baby food from the Services Provider and baby formula is
available from the medical centres. [106]
However, the guidelines
above seem to be in dispute with the claims by an Adelaide Solicitor in
relation to Woomera who states that:
- “inmates
have to queue for … medical attention …for up to two hours.
Persons seeking medical attention (including painkillers for broken
leg, raging fever, tonsillitis, etc) each have to queue in the open
for up to one and a half hours to obtain their medication in front of
the nurse.
- Nails may only
be cut by the nurse, who will do ONE person per day.
- Women must queue
each day for their ration of tampons/disposable nappies.
- There is no baby
food or formula, one woman with a six month old baby who was struggling
to maintain breast feeding was advised to feed the baby powdered chicken
stock mixed with water.” [107]
In a similar vein,
Barnados Australia has described a case study of a five year old girl
with multiple disabilities who came to detention with her father. Medical
staff were aware that she suffered from asthma. When she became ill and
was constantly coughing her father took her to the medical centre but
was told to make sure she kept up her fluid intake. Two weeks later when
the illness continued he was given cough medicine. It took three months
for an inhaler to be granted. Medical tests were carried out on the girl
without an interpreter or any explanation being provided for her father.
Doctors noted on medical certificates that further investigations were
necessary to diagnose the extent of her brain damage but no follow up
was arranged. [108]
As at 30 April 2002
there were 9 children with assessed disabilities (such as congenital,
intellectual and psychological disabilities, speech impediments, delayed
cognitive skills and language acquisition) in detention. [109]
Recommendation:
The Services Provider is required to have a case management plan for all
children within 14 days of being taken into detention to ensure that their
needs are met and regularly reviewed. This is a standard known by the
DIMIA and expected of the Services Provider. Again, the DIMIA is commended
for introducing standards to properly care and support asylum seekers
but it must ensure that these are maintained at all times. It is also
submitted that the mental health of children under the guardianship of
the Minister aught to receive the treatment and proper care that will
equip them to join the community at large.
In discussing the
effects that detention has on children we must recognise that many of
these children come from environments in their own country in which they
were exposed to many traumatic or torturous events such as war, persecution
and abuse, leading to possible loss of family members, displacement and
the associated conditions such as poverty and ill health. [110]
Mental Health: Detainees
(including children) have been found to exhibit symptoms of depression,
extreme anger, bitterness, resentment, urges of self-destruction and suicide,
social withdrawal and absence of emotions, numbness, guilt, fear, sadness
and alienation as well as post-traumatic stress disorder. [111]
Post-traumatic stress
disorder in children is exhibited in such symptoms as disorganised behaviour,
compulsory repeated behaviour or monotonous play, nightmares without recognisable
content, panic attacks, lack of interest in previously enjoyed activities,
tension, fear in the dark (before falling asleep or in the bathroom),
lower self-confidence and loss of attributes such as language or hygiene
abilities. [112] In a Media Statement by President
Professor Alice Tay AM and Dr Sev Ozdowski, Human Rights Commissioner
OAM the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission recently reported
on an interview with a family member of a 13 year old boy in Woomera:
“We notice that while he sleep he talks and screams: “fire,
fire, fire,” and jumps up from sleep in nightmares…We ask
him to go and bring a book and he forgets about that and when he is
walking he walks disordered and not concentrating.” [113]
Julian Burnside QC has reported of a friend’s visit to Woomera in
which she witnessed two teenage girls wearing nappies. When she questioned
this observation she was advised that the stress had made them incontinent.
International research
indicates that refugee children are traumatized through their experience
as a member of an oppressed group and that their recovery then depends
on the individual child’s response to that experience as well as
the environment in which the recovery is expected to take place. [115]
That is, the trauma experienced in their own country and in flight is
further “exacerbated by being placed in detention centres and the
uncertainty about their future…” [116]
This was seen to be the case in Australia where a report of a survey of
25 detained asylum seekers in Maribyrnong when compared with a similar
study of community-based asylum seekers, suggested that detainees were
more affected by depression, suicidal tendencies and other symptoms of
post-traumatic stress disorder than their counterparts within the community,
even when taking into account their often higher level of past trauma
prior to presenting to detention. [117]
The longer in the
detention environment the more serious the consequences. Of the minors
in detention, 12 have been detained for up to three months, 11 for three
to six months, 42 for six to nine months, 36 for nine to twelve months,
55 for twelve to eighteen months and 28 for longer than eighteen months.
Michael Dudley of
Suicide Prevention Australia compiled a table of “Medically Serious
Suicide Attempts by Children and Youth in Immigration Detention Centres”
which included incidents of hanging, slashing, hunger-strikes, lip-sewing
and ingestion of shampoo by children between 10 and 18 years in the centres
of Villawood, Maribyrnong, Woomera and Port Hedland from January 2001
to April 2002. [119]
The incidence of Post-Traumatic Stress disorder and indeed other symptoms
of mental illness can be intensified by the fact that parents are often
also affected and unable to provide support. [120]
Sultan and O’Sullivan
have observed a link between the status of an asylum claim and the mental
state of the asylum seekers. They have found that although initially suffering
some shock and dismay when entering detention the asylum seekers retain
some hope. However, as the process continues through to a rejection by
DIMIA, and then the Refugee Review Tribunal the asylum seeker moves into
more and more serious depressive states. Children have been found to also
obsess over the stage of the asylum seeking process and children of parents
who are at the most severe depressive stage are more vulnerable to develop
disorders and extreme distress such as mutism, stereotypic behaviours
and refusal to eat or drink. [121]
Amnesty International
[122] outlined a case of a child who was initially
at Woomera with his family where they made their refugee application.
At Woomera the child witnessed amongst other things, detainees setting
fire to themselves in the riots. He stopped speaking for part of the day
and displayed signs of fear such as huddling in the foetal position on
certain triggers. He refused food and refused to participate in activities,
fearing his family would be harmed if he left. A Woomera psychologist
diagnosed him as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and recommended
urgent expert treatment and removal from the environment of the detention
centre.
Once transferred
to Villawood the child began treatment at a Children’s Hospital
on referral from a Nurse requesting assessment and advice regarding the
child’s “history of night terrors, bed wetting and aggressive
behaviour, following incidents of witness to self-harm.” It was
expressed that he was “totally withdrawn, not speaking, not eating…”
The child would draw “pictures of people standing up against the
barbed wire fencing with wire coils at the top. (He also drew his family,
and ACM Guard shouting and a man cutting his wrists with blood running
from his wrists.)” [123] The child was diagnosed
with acute traumatisation and was at risk of dehydration due to poor fluid
intake and the Senior Clinical Psychologist stated the symptoms developed:
“in the context of the physically restraining environment of the
detention centres in which (on May 2001) he has now resided for close
to fourteen months… They are also perpetuated by the lack of predictability
regarding his future and inability of his parents to reassure him due
to their own uncertainty, and furthermore by the lack of stable peer
group in that other children move out of the detention centre while
he stays behind.” [124]
Barnados Australia
talk of case studies in which this seems to be demonstrated, such as a
young man who has now become “involved in antisocial behaviour…He
was seriously disturbed and anti-social, demonstrating violent behaviour.”
[125] Another example offered by the Australian Association
for Infant Mental Health is of a toddler who exhibits phobias due to the
experience in detention, where even cyclone fencing distresses him. [126]
Recommendation: The Australasian Society for Traumatic
Stress Studies states that mental illnesses and consequences of such do
not necessarily recede once released, but instead may manifest at this
time. [127] In fact, the above findings are consistent
with theories which indicate that if “people come to perceive their
situation to be one over which they have no control … they become
anxious and subsequently depressed.” [128] Alternatively
or in addition the onset of symptoms and consequences of mental illness
an have delayed effects and cause difficulties in functioning in adulthood
reducing the value of these children to the workforce and the community
in the future. [129] It is therefore recommended that
post-traumatic stress disorder in children in detention centres should
be treated with expediency and the highest priority.
The DIMIA cannot
be said to be exercising appropriate and reasonable care if children are
allowed to suffer mental disease without redress, furthermore this cycle
is likely to carry itself into the adult life of the child and cause further
social, economic and emotional impediments to what would otherwise be
a normal, healthy adult life. The Mental Health Care Facilities in the
detention centres should be evaluated according to their usefulness and
only well trained staff should be expected to report on and detect mental
illness in children as it arises or within a reasonable time of the child’s
arrival in the detention centre. There should also be adequate support
for the parent’s of children who are going through trauma on how
to best restore feelings of confidence and esteem in the child as well
as a willingness to embrace change.
Facilities and Hygiene:
The Adelaide Solicitor mentioned above also claims that in Woomera there
were (at the time of witnessing) two working toilets for 700 people, which
were both leaking and had sand on the floor to soak up the leak, four
working showers for 700 people with hot water only available after midnight,
no air-conditioning, fly screens or heating (which is exacerbated by the
extremes of temperature reached in the area).[130]
It would seem that observations by the Western Australia inspector of
Custodial Services supports this view in respect particularly of Curtin
as he states “many of the toilets were broken, some of the washing
machines were also broken…and above all, medical and dental facilities
were inadequate…Such evidence as exists indicates things are little
better at the other centres…” [131]
In another instance,
an affidavit by an Iraqi woman has been referred to in a number of papers
[132] outlining a day in August 2000 at approximately
5.00 a.m. when her family was separated and she was put in a cell with
her daughters, while her husband and sons (including a 5 year old) had
been put in solitary confinement. She specifically refers to her time
in the cell and that after refused requests to guards to open the door
so that the children may use the toilet for two days they were left to
use a plastic bag found in the cell to relieve themselves. [133]
Recommendation:
It would seem from reports that the low numbers of toilet and
shower facilities, as well as absence of heating and cooling in such harsh
environments may have an adverse impact on hygiene and subsequently on
the health of children. Immigration Detention Standards (IDS) should be
applied to the health and hygiene of children in detention centres as
set out by DIMIA. It is acknowledged that these are guidelines that apply
to all persons ensuring access to health facilities and specialist facilities
where required. It is submitted that the current DIMIA health regime is
in breach of CROC and the general standards the community would expect
should apply to children who are under the guardianship of the Minister.
Education: DIMIA
has indicated that if a child is likely to remain in detention for a longer
period of time, a formal assessment of educational needs aims at providing
appropriate and tailored education. [134] Sometimes
children have access to education on-site, and occasionally are placed
in local schools (if detained at Curtin, Port Hedland or Maribyrnong).
[135] DIMIA further states that they expect educational
programs to be available at a pre-school, primary and secondary level
and that they are provided, as far as possible in line with State/Territory
curricula. [136] The main subjects at a primary level
are English, mathematics, art, physical education and computer skills
while secondary subjects are English, mathematics, physical education
and computing. [137]
It is further submitted
that the hours of schooling are not on par with the community. Hours of
educational programs and resources vary between centres. Woomera [138]
provides a program at St Michael’s (former Catholic school in Woomera
township) that runs from 9a.m. to 12p.m. on weekdays and incorporates
one class for all children. [139] However, at the Perth
Centre, which houses the least amount of children three hours of education
a week are provided. [140]
Professor Richard
Harding has identified the problems in educational services provided in
Curtin Detention centre which he inspected in June 2001:
“A glossy brochure indicated that children were receiving 5 hours
daily education in four different groups. In reality, they were receiving
one hour’s education. Teaching took place between 9.00 a.m. and
10.00 a.m.; thereafter, the children stayed in the teaching area until
11.00a.m., during which time some contact with the teacher might occur;
then there was a lunch break until 1.00p.m; and after that so called
‘homework’, if the children felt like doing it, occurred
in the classroom area until about 2.00 p.m.” [141]
Recommendation:
It has been stated that there is a lack of follow up or transition in
the child’s educational progress; specifically, no assessment files
are kept, there is no set curriculum and there are merely scarce resources
in some centres. [142] It is submitted that it is therefore
not possible to provide a holistic approach to education if such scant
attention is given to the development of children and their curriculum.
Also the requirement for extensive resources to provide the necessary
breadth of curriculum and support for these children is not present and
indeed lower than if a child was enrolled in a State school.[143]
It follows that if refugee children are to be successfully integrated
into Australian society they should not be at an educative disadvantage
that will continue to set them back well into their productive and adult
lives. The circumstances of the limited consistent full-time education
facilities and exclusion from mainstream education as well as insufficient
play areas may lead to impaired development. This is particularly so as
“predictability of being able to access play and education facilities
to the same level as children in the general population will create a
sense of normalcy which is of paramount importance to their development."
Further, the integrated
school system which has been taken up in part by the DIMIA, can provide
an alternative network for security and support to enhance physical, cognitive
and developmental opportunities. [145] However, this
may be impeded by the high turnover of teachers, as is evident from statements
of teachers from Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre who explained
that they were employed on contracts for six weeks, which could then be
extended by Australasian Correctional Management [146].
Also the teachers may lack the necessary qualifications/experience, for
example the Education Department in South Australia asserts that only
1 of 5 teachers now employed at Woomera detention centre is registered
in South Australia and only one is qualified to teach English as a Second
Language. [147]
It should also be
noted that as well as learning in English, opportunities should be provided
to learn in their own language to maintain the child’s sense of
identity and coping skills. [148] It is also imperative
that parents and their children are not lost by the cultural divide that
they are bound to experience if children are taught inadvertently to shun
their own language.
Conclusion
and Summary
Whilst it is acknowledged that the government of Australia is progressively
detaining fewer children it is equally as important that the issues addressed
in this submission are not transferred to other forms of detention within
the community. Children who come to Australia as refugees need adequate
facilities irrespective of where they are so that they can integrate into
society without the added stigma of their status as refugees. It is imperative
that the Australian law and policy makers consider the role that CROC
should play in any formulation of law and policy impacting on children.
While the decline in numbers of children in immigration detention is to
be welcomed, that decline and the recognition of CROC that it indicates,
should now foster a strong policy stand with respect to children in detention
in any capacity. Recent proposals for changes to the
powers of ASIO, for example, included the possibility to detain children
both over and under the age of 10, as well as the possibility to strip-search
children over 10. There was no need to even inform parents of decisions
about detention of children under that proposed regime.
Continuing attempts
to write such breaches of CROC into law raise real rule of law concerns.
Those proposals - together with the regime that has been detailed in our
submission here - illustrate that the need for formal acknowledgment of
CROC and the human rights of children in Australian law and policy. We
contend that this remains a pressing issue in Australia. Detention of
children should, in accordance with the CROC regime, always be a last
resort. Detention style facilities in the community should also be avoided
and every effort be made to ensure that policy makers and agencies involved
in the management and integration of refugees be aware of the past problems,
how these affect children in detention as well as when they are integrated
into the community, importantly, it is important to be aware of the plethora
of issues affecting refugees so that whatever model the government implements
it is one that will not have the same negative effects as the detention
model.
of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p29
4. Refugee Council of Australia on www.refugeecouncil.org.au
citing source of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2/5/02)
7. Lopatka A, “The Rights of the Child are Universal:
the Perspective of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”
in Freeman M and Veerman P, eds The Ideologies of Children’s Rights,
London, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992 at 49.
8. Dixon, M, (MA) Textbook on International Law, 3rd Edition,
Place, Blackstone Press Limited, 1990 at 2-3
9. Shaw, M N, International Law, 4th Edition, England,
Cambridge University Press, 1997 at 73,75
10. Holsti K I, International Politics: A Framework for
Analysis, 7th Edition, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1995 at 290
13. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, “Background
Paper 1: Introduction” National Inquiry into Children in Immigration
Detention http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/background/introduction.html
(29/04/02)
14. Kaye S and Piotrowicz R, Human Rights in International
and Australian Law, Australia, Butterworths 2000 at 42
15. Van Bueren G, The International Law on the Rights
of the Child London, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995 at 360.
16. Article 14(1): (1) Everyone has the right to seek
and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right
may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from
non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles
of the United Nations.
17. Article 1(A)(2): A refugee is someone who “owing
to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,
is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such
fear, is unwilling to avail himself to the protection of that country;
or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his
former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing
to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
18. Article 33(1): Non-refoulement is the principle that
prohibits the forcible return of any person to a country where they risk
facing persecution on return. On http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/65humanitarian.htm
– legislative changes in no way detract from these obligations.
19. The United Nations, “Convention on the Rights
of a Child: United” United Nations Treaty Series, vol 1577 http://www.un.org.Depts/Treaty/final/ts2/newfiles/part_boo/iv_11..html
(29/04/02)
23. Questionable whether Convention fetters executive
powers – Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v
Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273; Submissions to the National Inquiry into Children
in Detention Centres in: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/submissions/index.html#education
24. http://www.immi.gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf
p79
26. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf
p57
29. Art 9(1) states that arbitrary detention is inappropriate
and unjust; art. 9(4) allows for access to lawyers.
30. A (name deleted) v Australia, Communication No. 560/1993,
Human Rights Committee, 59th session, 24 March – 11 April 1997,
UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 dated 30 April 1997, reported in (1997) 9(3)
International Journal of Refugee Law at 506.
31. Ministerial Rlease: www.minister.immi.gov.au/media
_release/media97/97126a.htm
32. Section 51(xix), s51(xxvii), s51(xxviii) Constitution
Act 1901 (Cth)., Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329.
33. Section 65(1) Migration Act 1958.
34. As outlined above, particularly in note 18.
35. The ICCPR art 10(1) applies. Mabo v Queensland (1992)
175 CLR 1@42; Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration v Ah Hin Teoh (1995)
128 ALR 353, referred to in Wu Yu Fang and 117 Others v. The Minister
for Immigration And Ethnic Affairs and Commonwealth of Australia No. WAG
89 of 1995 FED No. 106/96 Immigration per Jenkinson, Carr and Nicholson
JJ.
36. The Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration
Zone) Act 2001 (Cth) – prevents non-citizens who arrive at an “excised
offshore place” from making a valid visa application and allows
for the possible detention and removal from those places of unauthorised
arrivals.
37. Section 256 Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
38. Section 411(1)(a) and (b) Migration Act 1958(Cth)
39. Section 50(b) and (c) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
40. Section 57(1) and (2)(a)-(c) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
41. Immigration and Guardianship of Children Act 1946
(Cth) (“IGOC”)
42. X v MIMA [1999] FCA 995 and [2000] FCA 704, per Justic
North
43. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf
p100
44. Section 420 (1) and (2)(b) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
45. Section 208(1) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), under (2)
and s210 Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
46. Section 189(1)(a)-(c) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as
per ss198,199 or s200
47. Section 196(3) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
48. Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement)
Act 2002 – From 12 April 2002, the Act amended to allow for the
bringing to, detention and removal from Australia “transitory persons”
in a third country.
49. Section 36(3) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
50. Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone)
(Consequential Provisions Act) 2001 (Cth)
51. Visa Subclass 785 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because
they arrived without valid visas or passports after 20 October, 1999.
52. Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329 – difficult
to say as there was a 2:1 decision on that point but stringent laws by
executive may be said to curtail the court’s powers in this matter.
53. Submissions to the National Inquiry into Children
in Immigration Detention: Education in Immigration Detention Centres in:
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/submissions/index.html#education
54. http://www.immi.gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf
p58 and 71.
55. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf
p101
56. Sections 4A, 4B, 4C Immigration (Education) Act 1971.
59. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf
p43 – 44.
60. Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs “Information Resources – Women and Children in Immigration
Detention – Detention Overview” (viewed 14/6/02 on www.immi.gov.au/detention.women.htm)
at p1-2
64. Report of Senate Standing Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee
Report on Refugee Detention Centres 2001.
65. Perry, B., Pollard, R., Blakley, T., Baker, W., Vigilante,
D. (1995) Childhood Trauma, the Neurobiology of Adaptation and Use-dependant
Development of the Brain: How states become traits, Infant Mental Health
Journal 16(4) cited in NSW Branch of the Australian Early Childhood Association
“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)
published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p3 and Shore, R (1997) “Rethinking the brain: New Insights into
early development. New York: Families at Work Institute cited in The School
of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University of Western Sydney
“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)
published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.4.
66. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies,
University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration
Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.5.
73. Dr Annie Sparrow in Debelle, P & Shelton, R (9/4/02)
“Children draw on their own trauma”, The Age cited in Diversity
Directions Inc “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention”
(2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.8.
74. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies,
University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration
Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.5.
75. Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission to
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into
Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p4 and Australian Association for the Welfare of Child Health “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.3.
76. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health
“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)
published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.3
77. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health
“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)
published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.3
78. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health
“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)
www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at
p.4.
80. The Australian Psychological Society “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published onwww.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.5
83. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission “Those
who’ve come across the seas: The report of the Commission’s
Inquiry into the detention of unauthorised arrivals” Canberra:HREOC,
1998. Available http://www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/human_rights/asylum_seekers/h5_2_2.pdf
84. Flood, P “Report of Inquiry into Immigration
Detention Procedures” February 2001, p32.
85. Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission to
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into
Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p5 and The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University
of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention”
(2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.4.
86. Australian Association for the Welfare of Child Health
“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)
www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at
p.3.
87. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health
“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)
published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.6.
95. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies,
University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration
Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.5 and The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.7.
96. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health
“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)
published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.4
97. The Mental Health Council of Australia ““Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.4 and 5.
108. Burnside, J “Human Rights – Julian
Burnside (a paper presented to SBS staff on 10 December 2001) published
on www.users.bigpoind.com/burnside/HRights.htm
downloaded 20/5/02 at p6
109. Barnados Australia “Submission to the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children
in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p5.
110. Ibid at p71 On http://neda.org.au/7.html 15/4/02
cited in Diversity Direction Inc “Submission to the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration
Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p 4 it was explained as approximately four percent of children in detention
have a disability such as cerebral palsy, hearing or vision impairment,
dwarfism, cardiac and genetic disabilities..
111. Schaller J, “Protection of Children and their
Health During Times Of War” ed E Verhellen, Monitoring Children’s
Rights, 1996, The Hague, Martinus Nuhoff Publishers p891 cited in Public
Health Association of Australia “Submission to the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration
Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p12.
112. Sultan A, O’Sullivan K. “Psychological
disturbances in asylum seekers held in long-term detention: a participant-observer
account.” Med J Aust 2001 and The Australian and New Zealand College
of Mental Health Nurses (Qld Branch) “Submission to the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration
Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p2.
113. Pynoos, Nader, March, “Post-traumatic Stress
Disorder” ed Weiner, Textbook of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
1991, Washington, American Psychiatric Press Ltd at p339-348 cited in
Public Health Association of Australia “Submission to the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children
in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p13; Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission to the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration
Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p4.
114. Published on www.humanrights.gov.au/media_releases/2002/05_02.html
downloaded 24/4/02
115. Burnside, J “Asylum Seekers, Illegal Immigrants
or Smuggled People?” A speech delivered tot he Politics Society
of Latrobe University, 19 March 2002 published on downloaded 20/5/02 at
p3.
116. Public Health Association of Australia “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (www.users.bigpond.com/burnside/humans.htm
2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p2
118. Thompson M, McGorry P. “Maribyrnong Detention
Centre Tamil Survey” cited in Silove D, Steel Z, eds The Mental
Health and well-being of on-shore asylum seekers in Australia. Sydney,
University of New South Wales, Psychiatry Research & Teaching Unit,
1998: 27-31.
120. Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p7.
121. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies,
University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration
Detention” (2002) published on at p.4.www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
122. Sultan A and O’Sullivan, K “Psychological
disturbances in asylum seekers held in long term detention: a participant-observer
account” MJA 2001: 593-596
123. Amnesty International Australia “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p28 and 29
124. Amnesty International Australia “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p29
126. Barnados Australia “Submission to the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children
in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p7.
127. Personal communication with Steve Thompson, Psychologist
from Survivors of Torture, Trauma and Rehabilitation Service in “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p6.
128. Australasian Society for Traumatic Stress Studies
“Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)
published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p3.
129. Abramson, L.Y, Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale,
J (1978) “Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74 cited in The Australian Psychological
Society “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)
published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.4.
130. The Australian Psychological Society ““Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p11.
132. Burnside, J “Asylum Seekers, Illegal Immigrants
or Smuggled People?” A speech delivered tot he Politics Society
of Latrobe University, 19 March 2002 published on www.users.bigpond.com/burnside/humans.htm
downloaded 20/5/02 at p3.
133. Burnside, J “Human Rights – Julian
Burnside (a paper presented to SBS staff on 10 December 2001) published
on www.users.bigpoind.com/burnside/HRights.htm
downloaded 20/5/02
139. with the highest population of minors at 47 as
mentioned above at page 2.
142. Cited in Amnesty International Australia “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.22 and 23.
143. Amnesty International Australia “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.21
144. South Australian Department of Education, Training
and Employment “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention”
(2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.8
145. Australian Association for the Welfare of Child
Health “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002)
published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.4
146. The Australian Psychological Society “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.8
147. Amnesty International Australia “Submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.21
148. South Australian Department of Education, Training
and Employment “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention”
(2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
at p.2 and 3.
Last
Updated14 July 2003.
