National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention
Click here to return to the Submission Index
Submission to the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from
Jennifer Rae
THE IMPLICATIONS OF MANDATORY DETENTION ON REFUGEE CHILDREN
6.1 Pre-Migration and Post-Migration Experiences
6.2 Bridging Visas as Safeguard Provisions
Conditions of Immigration Detention Centres (IDC)
UNHCR Guidelines and HREOC Immigration Detention Standards
Services and Programs in Immigration Detention Centres (IDC’s)
Treatment accorded in Immigration Detention Centres (IDC’s)
[This is an extract from my honours thesis analysing Australia’s Mandatory Detention Policy giving special attention to the implications on refugee children.]
In the eyes of the Mandatory Detention Policy, refugee children are defined as ‘illegal immigrants’ in a similar way to their adult counterparts. This lack of differentiation has the effect of revoking their rights as children having specific needs and interests. The distinction of refugee children was only made with the recommendation proposed by the JSCM in 1994 to grant bridging visas as safeguard provisions to vulnerable groups such as children. However even this does not accord them their full rights, as the provisions for release are not guaranteed and in practice children are rarely released (HREOC, 1998). It is the aim of this report thesis to promote the rights of these children who are regarded by Bitel (2000) to be ‘especially vulnerable because refugees are one of the most marginalised groups in the world…and children are at greater risk of being abused and neglected’ (www.news.com.au). Therefore as a consequence refugee children face greater risks to their welfare and well being.
This Chapter is focused on outlining the implications of the Mandatory Detention Policy on the welfare of refugee children in terms of the conditions, services and treatment accorded to them in immigration detention centres. Firstly an account of the general pre-migration and post-migration experiences that affect refugee children will be described to highlight their vulnerability. Secondly the issue of bridging visas provided in the Policy as a safeguard to release refugee children will be discussed. Thirdly, the conditions, services and treatment experienced by children in immigration detention gathered through observations, interviews and document analysis will be briefly assessed against the UNHCR Refugee Children Guidelines and HREOC Immigration Detention Guidelines. These instruments were chosen because they specifically reflect the universal needs and rights of refugee children. They both incorporate the relevant international standards detailed in the ICCPR and CROC required for the humane treatment of children in respect of their human dignity. It is the view of UNHCR that refugee children should not be detained. The HREOC does not endorse Australia’s policy of unreviewable Mandatory Detention (UNHCR, 1994, HREOC, 2000).
6.1 Pre-Migration and Post-Migration Experiences
The pre and post-migration experiences of refugee children is considered by Breen & Pittaway (1999) to be useful as it detailed the risks involved in pre and post migration which in turn allowed the strategies for early intervention to be implemented. This concept of early intervention is important as it was regarded children did not fully experience the negative impact of torture and trauma. However it is now ‘recognised that children as young as three without extra assistance and support experience problems in their psychosocial development and subsequent mental health later in life’ (Breen & Pittaway, 1999, p.1). Machel (2000) observed that symptoms of these problems may range from ‘increased separation anxiety, developmental delays, sleep disturbances, nightmares, decreased appetite, withdrawn behaviour and lack of interest in play’ for younger children to anxious or aggressive behaviour and depression in adolescents (p.16).
In relation to pre-migration experiences, Boothby (1992) maintains that ‘no child remains unscathed’ from the context of war and political conflict and because of this, the degree of trauma should not be underestimated (Low & Nguyen, 1998). As a result of ‘direct threats (exposure to violence) and environmental deprivation (absence of opportunities for physical, cognitive and emotional development)‘ (Boothby, 1992, p.111), it exposes children to serious psychological and developmental risks. Post-migration is the period of resettlement and readjustment to which refugee survivors carry new goals and expectations to another country. According to Low & Nguyen (1998) this can be another phase of trauma in the new country, arising from cultural shocks on the social level, occurrence of post traumatic stress reactions on an individual level and a disturbance of family dynamics and structure due to ‘war, exile and migration’. These experiences of children are exacerberated with mandatory detention. The impact of immediate and indefinite incarceration further compounds their ability to deal with their crisis of loss (coming to terms with the past) and crisis of load (coming to terms with the present and immediate future) (Rumbaut, 1991 in Breen & Pittaway, 1999, p.4).
6.2 Bridging Visas as Safeguard Provisions
Bridging visas that are to be granted by the Minister for Immigration to an ‘unlawful non-citizen’ child for temporary release are perceived to be ineffective as safeguards for children, accompanied or unaccompanied. For accompanied children, the release of children without their parents and against their will amounts to a breach to CROC obligations Australia has committed itself to. As a result children are kept in detention with their parents even if they suffer mental, health and emotional disturbances. It is known that separating children ‘becomes the blueprint for generating even more harm’ (Rogalla, 2001, p.4) subsequently it is recognised through evaluation reports that keeping children in detention exposes them to such incidents as child abuse which cannot be avoided unless they are released from detention. To reconcile the interests of children while complying to the CROC, the best solution is to release families. In refusing this option, the Policy lays blame on the parents who are designated to be responsible for placing their children in the situation. It does not comprehend the parents’ circumstances that this may have been the best course of action to save their child’s life. In the issue of prolonged detention blame is placed on the parents’ choice to pursue litigation, a spokesman for the Minister for Immigration stated that ‘if they (asylum seekers) wish to pursue litigation it can take years. While they are doing that they remain in detention as they have no lawful right to be here’ (in Benns & Walker, 2001).
The failure of the safeguard provision is inherent in the incarceration of unaccompanied minors. UNHCR outlines that especially unaccompanied children who are under 18 and arrive with no parents or guardians should not be detained and if they are should be as a last resort and at the shortest time with the appropriate environment (HREOC, 1998). DIMA has a procedure to care for minors by placing them with culturally appropriate guardians and those with no guardians to be adopted by the Minister until they reach 18 where responsibility is given to state and territories welfare authorities (Goddard, 1997). In practice, HREOC (1998) reported that rarely are unaccompanied children released even if they have met the bridging visa criteria. This is a great concern among NGOs and Refugee Advocates who have discovered minors under the care of DIMA are not placed with a guardian of appropriate cultural backgrounds. Respondent A in this study expressed that ‘minors are just floating around in the detention centres crying alone at night’ and it has been observed that some have been detained for up to and more than 2 years. Furthermore it is estimated that many more minors alleged to be as young as eleven years are left in detention with ‘no peer cultural family support or access to specialised counselling services other than those controlled within the centres’ (Highfield, 2001, www.theage.com.au). Although some cases have been verified, this was difficult for NGOs to track as access to the detention centres are restricted by DIMA and ACM.
Conditions of Immigration Detention Centres (IDC)
The effects of incarceration on refugee children are quite severe. Goldberg, a clinical psychologist and childhood trauma expert, believed that ‘580 children incarcerated would never recover from the experience’ (in Benns & Walker, 2001 www.age.com.au). A research report developed by the UNSW Centre for Refugee Research concluded that the detention conditions were counterproductive to the well-being of children as it was detrimental to their ‘cognitive, emotional, social and physical development’ (Maksimovic, 1999, p.1). Conditions described as a ‘confined community where there is a large mix of cultures, ages and sexes existing in an atmosphere of unrelieved tension and high levels of stress’ (Maksimovic, 1999 p.2) had a critical ‘pressure cooker effect’ (Silove, McIntosh & Becker, 1999). In short children were kept in limbo land having no ability to exercise their rights and not knowing their future. This exacerbates the trauma already experienced by refugee children from war and political violence in their country and in their journey to Australia. This causes children to undergo behavioural changes which manifests in symptoms such as ‘constant nightmares, insomnia, loss of appetite, crying development of rashes, increased dependency and withdrawal from the world’ which is great danger to their health (Maksimovic, 1999, p.12).
Immigration detention severely disrupts the mental health of children. As most of the adults are identified by [a former detainee] to be routinely suffering from severe depressive illness diagnosed as immigration detention stress, it was asked ‘what do we expect the impact to be on children?’. In addition to being subjected to a pressure cooker environment, children are witnesses to self-harm, violence and sexual assault. Self-harm by detainees is viewed to be a daily reality in detention. The consequence of this is disturbing as confirmed by the case of a [detainee child who] was an onlooker to people setting themselves on fire and to guards hitting detainees with batons as a result of a demonstration in Woomera. He was moved to Villawood with his family where he was witness to a detainee slitting open his wrists as an act of suicide. He was diagnosed with chronic post traumatic disorder and has now stopped eating, drinking, speaking and often he is taken to hospital to be rehydrated intravenously (Everitt in Benns & Walker, 2001). It is the detention environment which has ‘caused this child to withdraw from life even though it is the only place he can be with his family’ (AMA, 2001). For adolescents as witnesses and participants to violence, Respondent B ascertained that they become very dysfunctional and ‘very angry as adults often repeating the abuse of power they learnt as children’ (Goldberg in Benns & Walker, 2001). Sexual assault is a major issue identified by refugee advocate groups and independent organisations. The Commonwealth Ombudsman (2001) reported that the number of reports of children being subjected to alleged abuse and sexual assaults by adult male detainees in immigration detention were increasing. The Flood report corroborated the seriousness of such allegations. An interviewee respondent expressed that ‘children are physically at risk by other detainees and guards in every way, emotionally and physically’ which is why no child should be in detention.
In terms of social development, Maksimovic (1999) had found in her study that because of the different mixes of children in detention as a result of the incoming and outgoing detainees, children are inhibited in forming and maintaining intimate friendships. These peers of the same age are discerned to be vital in their development and happiness as they allowed each other to share their ideas and experiences in the process relieving their tension. The danger of children who associated with older kids ‘began to observe and participate in the talk about visas and release’ which eventually defined their concept of reality’ (pp.11-12). This leads to the issue of the formation of insecure attachments to unrelated people (Highfield, 2001). Highfield (2001) expressed that a three-year-old viewed it ‘like a death’ everytime a detainee was released or moved to another facility, thus losing what comfort they had in detention.
An important and repetitive theme was the destructive impact detention had on the structure and dynamics of the family. It was revealed that detention breaks down the much needed family structure which is the foundation of the support system integral for the development of children. The separation of families compounds to the pressure cooker effect in detention. As a result of the Port Hedland riots, [number removed] children of one family were separated from their parents for over [number removed] months as their parents were placed in prison. Essentially the parental roles is slowly eradicated with the loss of control and power. The parents are no longer able to provide sufficient support for their children. Maksimovic (1999) observed that this severely impacts on the dynamics of the family where the parents’ distress and feelings of shame intensifies the instability of family relationships. As children are dependent on their parents, they are sensitive to their parents’ emotions and attitudes. They may react to these by thinking their ‘parents are lying about the situation as they are often shielded from reality of the situation or that they did something wrong to be locked up that way’ (Maksimovic, 1999, p.2).
UNHCR Guidelines and HREOC Immigration Detention Standards
UNHCR holds the position that children who are kept in an artificial environment on a long term scale are denied continuity of life as their normal life activities are taken away. As a consequence they may exhibit emotional and behavioural disturbances either withdrawing into passiveness and submissiveness or promoting aggressiveness and violence (UNHCR, 1994, p.23). In order to alleviate the effects, a degree of normalcy is required to establish stability and in addition culturally appropriate mental health services need to be provided. The family unit is regarded to play a crucial role providing ‘self-esteem, security and identity which forms the foundation for children to develop their personality and coping skills’ (UNHCR, 1994 p.19). Therefore the focus should be on supporting the parents and restoring their parental roles by repairing the family structure and dynamics. Emphasis is placed on provisions of a safe living arrangement for families in order to allow them the chance to protect their children from risks such as abuse.
Services and Programs in Immigration Detention Centres (IDC’s)
Compounding to the conditions of detention are the insuffficient services and programs given to children especially in terms of long term detention. HREOC (1998) had stated that the policy that leads to prolonged detention is a breach of international law because the services that are adequate for short term become inadequate for the long term. The services required are at a much higher standard and of great concern to NGOs are the programs for education, recreation and health for children.
The most significant concern is education for children asserted in documents and interviews to be inadequate to meet their developmental and cognitive needs. DIMA prescribes ACM to ‘provide educational programs appropriate to children’s age and abilities’ however it does not list what kind of programs or at what standard, therefore leaving it to the discretion of ACM. Maksimovic (1999) believed that there is no continuity in teaching and inconsistencies in formal school structures. For primary school age children, the variety of teachers who work part time have different expectations and as a result of the discretion given to them, develop varied curriculums. There is no acknowledgement to primary school children who are absent from morning classes due to restless nights and nightmares arising from pre-migration and detention experiences. As a result of this may suffer gaps in knowledge from their lack of attendance. Older children whose attendance is not compulsory often do not attend due to lack of motivation from perceiving the curriculum as inappropriate as it is not relevant to their age group or does promote their cultural background. Furthermore, as educational programs are not approved by the Education Department (Rogalla, 2001) there is difficulty in assessing the quality of education.
There is reported to be a lack of recreational facilities such as playground equipment, activities and quality excursions organised for children (Highfield, 2001). This results in a lack of stimulation to develop their mental and cognitive abilities and opportunity to develop gross motor skills (Interviewee A).
The provisions of health and medical services in immigration detention are regarded by Dr. Kerryn Phelps of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) (2001) to be lacking in quality. Asylum seekers are said to be ‘deprived of basic medical care especially essential hospital services that are made unavailable unless they pay large up front fees’ (Phelps,, 2001). This was confirmed by a case of an Afghan woman in detention who had delivered premature twins. They were placed in intensive care while she was returned to detention. She was billed $300 000 after her release, although she did not have to pay it, the error is still not fixed. Dr Phelps (2001) also commented in light of several studies ‘that asylum seekers are highly traumatised people with high risks of depression, anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder…these problems can be worsened by further traumatic experiences here in Australia’. If adults require high levels of health and medical services, then chances are children are in even more serious need of high quality services. This is in regards to [a detainee child] who need special medical attention continuously as a result of being incarcerated with his family despite his disintegrating mental, emotional and physical well being. This service though is noted by his parents to be restrained in its efficiency and quality.
UNHCR Guidelines and HREOC immigration detention standards
UNHCR (1994) recognises that education is critical to the developing child, providing continuity and protection. Importantly, it states that children as irregular movers should not be denied of this right. The educational curriculum should take into account the culture of refugee children as well as that of the host country. HREOC (2000) reiterates this human right to education by providing in its standards that education should be of a standard and quality equivalent to local schools (section 6.2). It mentions that the different cultural backgrounds should be incorporated for both compulsory school age and older children who should also have the opportunity to continue their education. It also encourages attendance of children to local schools to relieve resettlement difficulties and aid in social development (section 6.5).
With regards to recreation, play is perceived by the UNHCR (1994) to be ‘vital to the healthy development of younger children’ as it provides a way of coping with their experiences and tensions (p. 20). Children therefore should have regular access to adequate facilities, equipment and organised activities for play and in the process the opportunity to interact with peers. HREOC (2001) in its immigration standards expressed that older children also need to be provided with facilities and materials for recreational purposes and opportunities to participate in cultural, spiritual and religious activities, sports, physical exercise and leisure activities (HREOC, section 7.1) and paid work to encourage development of skills (HREOC, section 7.3) thus promoting integration into the labour market.
UNHCR (1994) stated that children under five are at greater risk of experiencing mental and health disturbances. This points to a need for concerted action to allow continuous access to local health systems with health services ‘addressing the unique health needs of refugee children in the aim to prevent and monitor health risks’ (p. 31). HREOC stresses the need for ‘medical personnel to comply with applicable standards of ethics for medical practitioners’ (section 13.2) to accord appropriate care. Also that preventative and remedial medical treatment to be provided free of charge in detention centres (section 13.8).
Treatment accorded in Immigration Detention Centres (IDC’s)
In light of the age of children in immigration detention and ACM as the contractor for their care and protection, there is great concern for the disciplinary measures and application of force practised by ACM. It is observed that especially for adolescents, they are treated as adults by ACM guards. There is no age sensitivity in relation to their treatment, however their vulnerability must be recognised in order to allocate them the appropriate differential treatment. According to interview data, allegations on the severity of disciplinary measures and force for punishment is unwarranted on children. A [teenage] boy was handcuffed and directed out of his room to a small suicide proof isolation cell without being told the reason for the punishment. He was repeatedly beaten by three guards and was refused food and bathroom amenities. His handcuff marks and subsequent physical scars and trauma were not treated. A [teenage] boy was alleged also to be pushed heavily to the ground by guards who later succeeded in striking him. In another case, a [young] boy was alleged to be almost legcuffed by ACM guards after a hunger strike protest. He was then transferred with his father to a perceived harsher detention centre and placed in a suicide proof cell without windows, toilets, shower or medical attention for 13 days (AAP, 2000). The cases here represent the failure of policy to protect children and certainly demands periodic judicial reviews of children in detention and higher standards in procedures to allow accountability of ACM to children’s rights. The problem identified in interview data is the lack of transparency which allows a ‘culture of cover up’ (Chennell & Logan, 2000). It was perceived that ‘ACM may not have the training and sensitivity required to meet the needs of children’ (Amnesty in Hern, 2000). Therefore the best way to protect children was not to detain them at all.
UNHCR Guidelines and HREOC immigration detention standards
It is recognised that as family units are seen as adult units, children who are integrated into the family units are thus perceived to be adults and are treated as such. Inevitably this leads to ACM guards essentially neglecting the needed differential treatment for children and ‘as children are vulnerable they suffer first’ (UNHCR, 1994 p.69). There is an immediate need for staff to be adequately trained in issues relating to the care of refugee children. In addition HREOC (2000) realises that the performance of staff should be consistently assessed against highest professional standards (section 16.8) and to be closely monitored.
In terms of disciplinary measures and the use of force, HREOC (2000) states that ‘no one should be subject to torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment in any circumstances’ (section 17.1). Procedures of ACM should conform to international standards and accord the fundamental right of humanity and dignity to asylum seekers in detention centres (HREOC, 2000 section 17.2). Prior to disciplinary action, ACM staff should inform the detainee of the alleged offence and for the alleged offender to be able to present a defence (ibid section 17.6). For punishment HREOC (2000) prohibits the use of isolation cells without adequate reason and instruments of restraint as handcuffs and legcuffs for children (section 18.11). Finally for guards who apply great force to be held accountable under criminal law (section 18.12). The procedures on the protection and care of children however need independent scrutiny and transparency to effectively monitor the rights of children. This is crucial to the welfare of children who are ‘less able than adults to understand and make known their needs and violations of their rights’ (UNHCR, 1994 p.70)
Conclusion
This thesis has examined why and how the Mandatory Detention Policy was developed, in addition it has given special attention to the implications of the policy on the welfare of refugee children. It concludes that the policy making process encompassing Mandatory Detention did not adequately consider or incorporate the specific rights of refugee children. It is conceded that the interests of Refugee Children were not the central concern to policy-makers. It was only in 1994 from JSCM recommendations that safeguard provisions were provided in the legislation to release children. This substantiates the claim that the needs of refugee children were treated as a side issue and subsequent afterthought.
Refugee Children are not afforded effective safeguard provisions in the legislation to provide for their release thus whether accompanied or unaccompanied, many children are still immediately and indefinitely detained during the refugee determination process. It has been argued that refugee children who arrive as ‘unauthorised boat arrivals’ are subject to adult law and are penalised in much the same way as their adult counterparts. This is due to the majoritarian group approach of Australia’s administrative law to asylum seeking boat people which refuses to recognise children as young and vulnerable who have immediate needs for special care and protection. The policy that exposes children to incarceration has severe implications on their mental, health, emotional and physical well-being as a result of the inappropriate conditions, inadequate services and treatment afforded to them in detention. This effect is compounded in the event of prolonged detention. This is the greatest concern for Refugee Advocates, NGO’s and Independent Organisations as HREOC who considered Mandatory Detention a breach to the CROC and ICCPR in its 1998 report.
Analysis of the Mandatory Detention Policy was undertaken within the policy cycle framework developed by Howlett and Ramesh (1995). It has been illustrated that this particular approach to analysing the policy process is advantageous for several reasons. Firstly, it is useful because of its simplification strategy that aims to break down the policy process into five discrete stages. The policy process encompassing Mandatory Detention is highly complex as it is controversial and politically sensitive, the process would not have been adequately examined without using this model to separate the process into stages. Significantly it aids in understanding as it reduces the complexities involved in the process.
Secondly, the five basic stages is presented in a sequence which allows an orderly view of the process. Importantly, the life-cycle of the Mandatory Detention Policy can be determined and this is useful to answer such questions as how and why it developed. Thirdly, the discrete stages have the ability to isolate an area of policy making thus it acts as a zoom lens to each area. This offers insight into the roles and relationships between central policy actors, identifies events that may influence policy making and affords an explanation of the issues involved in each stage. Overall, the policy cycle model is conceived to be the better model to present the policy process because it is simple and neat. In this thesis, it has fulfilled its objective to facilitate a basic yet insightful understanding of the Mandatory Detention policy-making process.
However it is important to point out that the policy cycle model does not give an accurate portrayal of the policy process. The model is still incomplete as observed in this thesis and may be considered inappropriate in examining other policies. It is perceived that this simplification approach is inherently problematic because of the reason that it fails to address the complexities of the policy making process. The linear analysis importantly does not account for the cyclical nature of the policy process. Policies may not follow the successive sequences of the stages outlined by the model. In this case, it fails to represent the true nature of the process pertaining to the Mandatory Detention Policy which is characterised by continuous change. For example, in the policy evaluation stage, as there is continuous assessment of Mandatory Detention, standards continually change. This has implications on the policy implementation stage. Commissioned administrative reports and judicial reviews are observed to have influenced the Government to react as implementation procedures are re-adjusted to fit the standards set in the evaluation reports.
Additionally, the stages in the policy process may not be separated so discretely and cleanly. Certain stages may be inseparable and a forced segmentation of these stages would render the analysis inadequate. For example: the policy formulation and decision-making stages in this thesis were combined in one chapter because they were crucial in understanding the central role of the Executive and its relationship to the specific problem of ‘unauthorised boat arrivals’. The Executive retaining full control of immigrations issues is both the formulator of options and decision-maker of the preferred option, hence it would not only be difficult to draw a line for separation but inappropriate to separate the stages. Similarly, the policy implementation and policy evaluation stages travels along this argument of being inseparable. They are too closely intertwined because evaluation directly impacts on implementation procedures, there is a continuous dependency on each other in the policy process of Mandatory Detention. These are the main limitations in utilising the policy cycle as a source of analysis, however it is maintained that this model serves as an important starting point which can be built upon to address the complexities as environmental influences that impact on the policy process.
This thesis has illustrated that Howlett and Ramesh’s (1995) policy cycle model can be effectively utilised to gain an indepth understanding of the policy process. In the analysis of the Mandatory Detention Process, it has been useful in imparting knowledge to adequately examine the set research questions. In terms of the agenda-setting stage, The policy was noted to have developed out of the conceived general problem of irregular movement, specified to ‘unauthorised boat arrivals’ to which refugee children were lumped into. It was the mode of arrival and entry in addition to the cultural background of irregular movers that was problematic. It represented a loss of control over border protection procedures and a loss of control over the selection process set down in the immigration system, which meant that Australia no longer had full control over the composition of its people. The negative approach to irregular movers emanated from a historical ideology of a ‘White Australia’ forming Australia’s federalism, nationalism and identity, which in turn created an attitude of xenophobia and fears of invasion played out in the periodic waves of boat arrivals. As the public’s reaction corresponded to that of the Government, a high level of support was given to the Government to develop solutions to prevent the arrivals. This was how Mandatory Detention was created, out of fear arising from ideology, out of demand by the public and out of a desire by the Government to control its borders and composition of its cultural mix in society. In short, the Australia approached irregular movers not as subjects but ‘objects of polity’. Children became part of the problem and thus were no longer seen to have the status of a child.
In regards to the policy formulation and policy decision-making stages, the preferred solution derived by the Executive and supported by the public in relation to irregular movers was a closed detention system. The decision for this type of detention that was to be Mandatory Detention was also made into a policy and subsequently legislated by the Executive. This centralisation of the policy process to the Executive questions how practical and humane the policy is as a solution as it does not incorporate the concerns of asylum seekers and refugee children voiced by Refugee Advocates, NGO’s, the international community and the Courts. Essentially, the specific rights of children are obliterated in the policy which only provided safeguards for their release in 1994 however in practice a large number of children still remain in detention. Refugee children as irregular movers lose their status as children and so are subject to adult law. Inevitably, they are penalized in much the same way as their adult counterparts, yet the impact is more severe as children are ‘young, vulnerable, dependent and developing’ (UNHCR, 1994).
In relevance to the policy implementation and policy decision-making stages, there is perceived to be imperfect implementers and implementation procedures which in turn may reflect an overall inadequate policy. Firstly, the two main implementers of the policy as DIMA and ACM are observed to have conflicting roles. It is conceded that DIMA are not able to effectively implement the aims of refugee protection essential to the refugee determination process because it conflicts with their role as immigration controllers and defenders of national sovereignty. ACM on the other hand, in their role as a private correctional company are perceived to be inappropriate to provide care for already traumatised people in detention. The crucial problem identified is the lack of transparency and accountability which needs to be immediately confronted. Following on, the overall adequacy of the policy is in doubt. Hence, law regarded as the source of authority for the implementers is questioned in its appropriateness. There are inherent discriminations in the policy which directly impact on ‘unauthorised boat arrivals’. The rights of onshore asylum seekers are further marginalised in detention, compounding to this are the incarceration effects that severely effects their subsequent resettlement into society. It is recognised that there would always be difficulty in implementing a policy that depersonalises and dehumanises people.
Specific to children, policy evaluation reports reveal systemic problems in subjecting children to immigration detention. Refugee children are inevitably exposed to an unreal world characterised by daily self-harm, boredom, violence, sexual abuse and depression. It is perceived by HREOC (1998) to be a severe breach to the CROC and ICCPR to detain children at all, let alone for long periods without high quality services and family friendly facilities. The repeated exposure of refugee children to detention by the unreviewable policy of Mandatory Detention reflects the view that Australia perceives these refugee children as less than the children of Australian citizens. Yet the difference is non-existent, as expressed by a respondent: “These children are deemed as illegal, so they don’t feel or hurt like our children? They don’t bleed?”.
It is viewed that the conditions of detention is the antithesis of everything refugee children require for their healthy development. It does not project a positive reality for children instead it perpetuates their trauma. The services are not well-equipped to meet their specific needs and in the event of prolonged detention, the quality of the services deteriorates further exacerbating the negative experiences which is detrimental to their social and psychological development. The treatment is inappropriate for children who are vulnerable to prison guards and adult detainees. The disciplinary measures and use of force are unwarranted and excessive. The institution of detention in short does not provide continuity of life that refugee children desperately need. Children require close parental ties, stability and routine (Boothby, 1992), trust, security, sense of purpose, self-esteem, identity (Machel, 2000) ‘playgrounds, toys, grass and a formal education’ (Rogalla, 2001, p.3). These experiences of immigration detention centres promotes abnormal development where creates ‘suffering later in life’ (Miller in Rogalla, 2001) thus Australia is producing ‘damaged adults’ (Rogalla, 2001).
Lastly, if the intention was genuine to search for practical and humane long term solutions to the worldwide problem of irregular movement, it was expressed in interviews that Australia would need to cooperate with the international community. Similarly, if Australia wished to preserve its legitimacy and credibility in the international arena, changes would need to first start at home. Throughout the analysis of the Mandatory Detention Policy it was certain that the policy did not fit the ever changing world we live. It did not recognise such realities as war and warfare, famine and poverty, religious persecution and environmental degradationthat characterises the globalising world. It is ignorant to the rights of children who are already marginalised by the virtue of being a refugee and a child.
Last Updated 14 July 2003.
