Skip to main content

Commission Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention


here to return to the Submission Index

Submission to the National

Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from

Australian Human Rights Centre

- University of New South Wales




The Protection of Human Rights of All People


Comment on Current Policy


The Particular Rights Of Children


Unaccompanied minors


Non - Discrimination




22 (1), Convention on the Rights of the Child

States Parties

shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking

refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable

international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied

or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive

appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment

of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention and in other

international human rights or humanitarian instruments to which the

said States are Parties.

1. Introduction

The submission of

the Australian Human Rights Centre's (AHRC) to the HROEC National Inquiry

into Children in Immigration Detention focuses on the relationship between

Australia's responsibilities, as enshrined in international covenants

to which it is a party, and domestic legislation and policy, such as the

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC). With regard to children

in immigration detention, the AHRC has found that there is often a wide

gulf between the international obligations that Australia has committed

itself to and the practice of the Commonwealth. The AHRC submits that

the Australian Government's detention of children is a violation of its

international legal obligations and the practice must be ended as expeditiously

as possible.

2. The Protection of Human

Rights of All People

2.1 In International

Human Rights law the state is the principle agent for protection of

rights accepted by the international community in the form of treaties

[1] . This is enshrined as a principle of general application

to Human Rights in Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Australia is a party to, which


Each State Party

to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all

individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the

rights recognized in the present Covenant…

2.2 This idea is

reinforced in the 1951 Refugee Convention (and its optional protocol);

in that, it is the responsibility of states parties to protect the substantive

rights, enlisted in the Convention, of persons categorised as refugees

[2] . This protection is not limited to the terms of

the Convention, but extends to all rights protected under international

instruments .[3]

2.3 The 1951 Convention

aims to provide for the protection of people who have had to flee their

countries of origin or of habitual residence due to a loss of that protection.

2.4 Underpinning

the 1951 Convention is the understanding that people should be

protected from breaches of their human rights, and if their own states

cannot or will not provide that protection, then it is the responsibility

of the international community to take on that responsibility. [4]

2.5 The National

Socialist regime in Germany before and during WWII and the new USSR

of the post war period provided drafters with an image of the person

who needed to flee their country; they drafted the definition of the

refugee in that image.

2.6 People who

leave their countries for reasons other than individual persecution

for Convention reasons are no less due their human rights if

they do not strictly come within the 1951 Convention definition

of a refugee. No human can lose their human rights, whether or not they

are outside the borders of their normal country of residence. [5]

2.7 However, a

fortiori, those who come within the Convention definition

have a right to additional protections from the international community,

and in particular, by those State Parties of the 1951 Geneva Convention

Relating to the Status of Refugees.

2.8 These include,

but are not limited to Article 33 of the Convention: protection

from refoulement. It is now a matter of Customary International Law

[6] that states may not return people to the frontiers

of territories where their lives or freedom may be threatened on account

of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social

group or political opinion.

2.9 Convention

refugees are also due other rights at international law. Free primary

education [7], and freedom of movement for those lawfully

in the territory [8] are examples of rights noted in

the Convention.

2.10 Australia

is a State Party to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status

of Refugees and thus owes to refugees not only protection from refoulement

but also any other duties imposed by the Convention that have

not become Customary International Law.

2.11 However, refugees

- people seeking asylum who have not yet been recognised as refugees

- and others unlawfully within a state's territory do not lose their

human rights merely because they are beyond the borders of their own

states. For states parties (such as Australia) these rights consists

of the International Bill of Human Rights [9] and a

large number of peripheral Human Rights instruments. As with the 1951

Convention, parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could

be said to have become Customary International Law, and thus binding

on all states. [10]

2.12 State Parties

to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and

the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights

must honor the human rights of all people within their borders, regardless

of means or port of entry.

2.13 Australia

is a Party to both Covenants.

2.14 A fotiori,

Australia is under a voluntary, self imposed, international obligation

to protect the treatied rights (outlined in the Refugee Convention and

the International Bill, amongst others) of all on-shore arrivals, regardless

of their ultimate refugee status determination.

3. Comment on Current Policy

3.1 It is insufficient

for Australia to refrain from refoulment of those who are determined

to be refugees under the 1951 Convention.

3.2 It is insufficient

even that Australia refrains from refoulment of people who have

not yet been determined to be refugees.

3.3 Australia has

an obligation to protect the rights and dignity of all people falling

within its jurisdiction, and of all people to whom, by its actions,

Australia has engaged its protection obligations.

3.4 Australia engages

its protection obligations at first contact with people seeking asylum,

regardless of mode or point of entry. Interdiction of people outside

Australian territorial waters, removal of people to other sovereign

states on the understanding of Australian financial support, and excision

of Australian territories do not honor these obligations.

3.5 The International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is clear:


has the right to liberty and security of person. No one should be

subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention" [11]

3.6 The Human Rights

Committee, in A v Australia [12] found that

while it was not "per se arbitrary to detain individuals requesting

asylum", [13]

"every decision

to keep a person in detention should be open to review periodically

so that the grounds justifying the detention can be assessed. In any

event, detention should not continue beyond the period for which the

State can provide appropriate justification. For example, the fact

of illegal entry may indicate a need for investigation and there may

be other factors particular to the individuals, such as the likelihood

of absconding and lack of co-operation, which may justify detention

for a period. Without such factors, detention may be considered arbitrary,

even if entry was illegal." [14]

Currently there

is no provision for individual assessment of risk for asylum seekers

detained in Australian Immigration Detention Centres. This, alone, means

that Australia is in breach of its obligations under the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

3.7 The UN Human

Rights Commission's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention explained

its standards for determining whether the administrative detention of

asylum seekers is "arbitrary" within the meaning of the ICCPR,

Article 9. It questions whether the detained person enjoys:

"some or

all of the following guarantees", which include "3. Determination

of the lawfulness of the administrative custody pursuant to legislation

providing to this end for: (a) the person concerned to be brought

automatically and promptly before a judge or a body affording equivalent

guarantees of competence and impartiality; (b) Alternatively, the

possibility of appealing to a judge or such a body." [15]

Individual asylum

seekers are not individually assessed and then placed in detention,

but are detained by the Commonwealth Government solely because of their

mode of entry to Australia.

3.8 The High Court

of Australia has found that detaining Aliens as is demanded by the Migration

Act 1958 is within the powers of the Commonwealth Government , [16]


the detention…is limited to what is reasonably capable of being

seen as necessary for the purposes of deportation or necessary to

enable the application for an entry permit to be made and considered.

On the other hand, if the detention which those sections require and

authorise is not so limited, the authority which they purportedly

confer upon the Executive cannot properly be seen as an incident of

the executive powers to exclude, admit and deport an alien. In that

event, they will be of a punitive nature and contravene Ch III's insistence

that the judicial power of the Commonwealth be vested exclusively

in the courts which it designates" [17]

The length of time

asylum seekers, including children, are kept in detention, and the conditions

of detention, as well as the not infrequent claim by the current government

that mandatory detention is a part of an overall policy of deterrence

to others would appear to put the current policy in a doubtful constitutional


3.9 Article 31

of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,

requires that:


States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry

or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a place where their

life or freedom was threatened in the sense [of the Convention's

definition of a refugee], enter or are present in their territory

without authorisation…"

While the Australian

Government does not claim that administrative detention is a penalty,

it is difficult to draw another conclusion, since (on figures current

before the Tampa) asylum seekers who arrived in Australia on

valid travel documents are permitted to remain in the community and

those who arrive "irregularly" are detained - despite a marked

difference in their success rates: Until 1999, the approximate percentage

of people from Detention Centres (unauthorised arrivals) being granted

asylum was 70-75%, while the figure for the remainder (those who arrived

with visas) was closer to 15%. [18] Thus, even without

a marked increase in places, Australia already planned to welcome the

numbers currently arriving.

In the last two

months of the 1999-2000 fiscal year, 55% of unauthorised asylum seekers

arriving in Australia came from Iran, and 32% from Afghanistan. Of those,

over 90% are eventually granted asylum. The minister quoted figures

as high as 97% in mid 2001. [19]

3.10 The Executive

Committee of the UNHCR, a body comprised of States Parties to the 1951

Convention, comes to "Conclusions" on matters of refugee

law and policy. These do not have the force of binding international

law, but they probably do have some weight as opinio juris, the

understanding of a legal obligation by states as they develop their

refugee policy. [20] ExCom Conclusion 44, taken in

1986, states that:



(a) Noted with

deep concern that large numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers in

different areas of the world are currently the subject of detention

or similar restrictive measures by reason of their illegal entry or

presence in search of asylum, pending resolution of their situation;

(b) Expressed

the opinion that in view of the hardship which it involves, detention

should normally be avoided. If necessary, detention may be resorted

to only on grounds prescribed by law to verify identity; to determine

the elements on which the claim to refugee status or asylum is based;

to deal with cases where refugees or asylum-seekers have destroyed

their travel and/or identity documents or have used fraudulent documents

in order to mislead the authorities of the State in which they intend

to claim asylum; or to protect national security or public order…"

4. The Particular Rights Of


4.1 It should be

noted that any analysis of the issue of detained children must consider

the interest of the child as primary. This is explicitly stated in the

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC)(Article 3) as the

first substantive article of that treaty. This principles recognise

that children are vulnerable and more susceptible to harm than adults.

This must be coupled with the understanding, born out of the UDHR, that

childhood is entitled to special care and assistance. [21]

4.2 Provisions

made for asylum seekers in general will not necessarily be adequate

for child asylum seekers.

4.3 The Universal

Declaration of Human Rights declared that:

"The family

is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and it entitled

to protection by society and the State." [22]

4.4 In addition,

the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that:


Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents

…" [23]

This requires that

children, when in any government facility, including a detention or

reception centre, are cared for by their parents, and that the parents

or guardians of children are supported in this role. Such support cannot

be sacrificed to the concerns of institutional management or security.

The carers of children can only act effectively if they are free to

make decisions for the best interest of their children and their family


Current practice

in Australian detention centres acts to infantalise all residents, thus

limiting the role that parents can play in their children's care and

development. By holding regular "musters" and mandating set

meal times, as well as the long held practice of referring to residents

by number rather than name, parents are stripped of their authority.

The stress of waiting for a decision compiled with the conditions of

the centre lead in many to depression [24], thus further

limiting the positive role that parents and guardians can have in their

children's lives while in detention.

4.5 The Convention

on the Rights of the Child also maintains that:

"No child

shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his

or her privacy, family, home or correspondence…" ,[25]

requiring that

any residential facility provided to children and their carers provides

for a separate and independent dwelling for each family unit.

Regular room searches,

midnight in-room musters and constant supervision deny this basic right

to every child in detention, regardless of their parents' mental or

physical state.

4.6 The Convention

on the Rights of the Child establishes that


Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his

or her parents against their will…[and] States Parties shall

respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents

to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents

on a regular basis." [26]

And also:


Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the

principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing

and development of the child." [27]

As a result, any

reception or processing regime established by States Parties to the

Convention must, as a first priority, ensure that any people,

including those arriving without documentation, known to have family

members in their territory, including in a reception facility, are assisted

in their reunion. No regime that asks families to choose separation

or detention is appropriate except in individually determined cases

where an adult member is reasonably and upon evidence believed to be

a risk to security. In such cases, families must be provided with regular

and appropriate visiting provisions.

The recent Woomera

trial release of women and children was thus wholly inappropriate. There

is no publicly available evidence that both parents could not have safely

been released with their children, given the monitoring devices and

programs available for community release. Likewise, the continued detention

of children and their mother in Woomera when their father resides on

a temporary protection visa in Sydney is both a breach of Australia's

responsibilities under the convention and is inhumane.

4.7 The Convention

on the Rights of the Child establishes that:


Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social

and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical

or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment,

maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the

care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the

care of the child" [28]

DIMIA Immigration

Detention Standards [29] contain very little about

specific standards of care for children. The only direct responsibility

that DIMIA holds to child asylum seekers identified by the Standards


9.4.1 Social and

educational programs appropriate to the child's age and abilities are

available to all children.

In violation of

a number of Instruments, DIMIA Immigration Detention Standards

do not require education to be of the standard and regularity of that

received by non-detainees . [30]

The DIMIA Immigration

Detention Standards There is no acknowledgement of the 'best interests

of the child' as a primary consideration in standards for detention.

Further, the DIMIA

Immigration Detention Standards include nothing excepting children

from the use of: force as provided for in Standard 7.9, for application

of instruments of restraint (Standard 7.10), or solitary confinement

(Standard 7.8.4.).

4.8 The detention

of children, and particularly of children who have come from situations

of extreme trauma only compounds their difficulties. This is particularly

troubling since "Severe and chronic stress in the early years will

affect the stress system itself and result on on-going vulnerability

to later stressful events…This has implications for both physical

and mental health and may be related to significant difficulties in

later life." [31]

4.9 Detention environments

afford neither "appropriate protection" nor "humanitarian

assistance". Official ACM statistics at 6 Feb 2002 reported incidents

of self-harm among children at Woomera Immigration Detention Centre.

These included thirteen treats of self-hurt, five incidents of lip-sewing,

one attempted hanging, and three self-slashings. One child cut "freedom"

into his forearm.

These facts amount

to a dereliction of a duty held by the Commonwealth to protect

children in its care.

4.10 Echoing and

reinforcing Article 9 of the ICCPR, the Convention on the rights

of the child makes clear that

"No child

shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily.

The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity

with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and

for the shortest appropriate period of time" [32]

Current Australian

law requires the detention of all people, including children, who arrive

without prior authorisation. [33] There is no provision

for an assessment of the need for detention of individual asylum seekers.

4.11 The UNHRC

Guidelines Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers recommend


if children who

are asylum seekers are detained in airports, immigration-holding centres

or prisons, they must not be held under prison-like conditions. All

efforts must be made to have them released from detention and placed

in other accommodation. (Guideline 6 paragraph 6)

It is manifest

that the DIMIA immigration detention centres have the character of prisons.

It is presumed that proof of this fact will be provided by submissions

by other Civil Society groups who have personal experience of these

centres, and hence are better informants than the AHRC.

4.12 The UNHRC

Guidelines further state that:


who are asylum-seekers should not be detained (emphasis in original)

as it breaches Articles 2,3,9,22 and 37 of the Convention on the Rights

of the Child (Guideline 6 Paragraph 2)

This is persuasive

proof that the Commonwealth of Australia, in mandatorily detaining child

asylum seekers is in breach of International Law.

4.13 Of additional

concern is the continued detainment of children alongside non-family

male adults, in contravention of the Convention on the Rights of

the Child , which provides that

"every child

deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered

in the child's best interest not to do so". [34]

4.14 All children,

regardless of their immigration status, are entitled to enjoyment of

each of the rights outlined in the Children's Convention. To

some degree, whatever measures detention centre staff take in assisting

child detainees, the basic problem is detention itself, and especially

its indeterminate nature. Upholding the 'best interests' principle in

Article 3 CROC requires a radical re-examination of government policy

formulation regarding child asylum seekers.

4.15 The underlying

principle of CROC is the recognition that children, by virtue of their

youth and vulnerability, are entitled to special consideration. This

is true regardless of status and is to be applied to minors indiscriminately

(Article 2). CROC enshrines as a value the protection of the child's

wellbeing and development because it is largely such protections, or

the lack of them, which determine whether a child will develop to her

or his full capacity.

4.16 CROC states

that a child should be brought up "in the spirit of peace, dignity,

tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity" [35].

The detention of child asylum seekers is manifestly intolerant and discriminating,

and it is an egregious imposition on the dignity and freedom of children.

5. Unaccompanied minors

CROC locates the

responsibility for securing the survival and development of the child

with the parent or legal guardian of the child. For unaccompanied minors,

under the Immigration Guardianship of Children Act 1946 (s6) this

guardian is the Minister for Immigration. It therefore follows that the

Minister should actively give legal advice and assistance to unaccompanied

minors. As evidenced in Jaffari v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural

Affairs [2001] FCA 1516 (26 October 2001), this is an obligation that

is not always followed by the Minister. His honour held that:

…there appears

to be a significant discrepancy between the guidelines published by

the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees ("UNHCR")

in respect of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum and the current administration

of the Migration Act in relation to such persons… The Act provides

little in the way of the kinds of protections contemplated by the UNHCR

guidelines . [36]

Unaccompanied minors

should never be held in detention, but should rather be automatically

placed in foster or emergency care, as provided by s7 the Immigration

Guardianship of Children Act 1946. Attention should be given to cultural

and religious needs and provisions should be made for counselling in accordance

with CROC Article 39 which provides for assistance in physical and psychological

recovery from any form of neglect, abuse or ill treatment.

6. Non - Discrimination

Article 2 of the

Children's Convention requires that the rights protected in that

Convention should be applied to all children without discrimination.

It is crucial to note, therefore, that Australia's obligations under the

Convention on the Rights of the Child to child asylum seekers are

identical to those owed to other Australian children. This is especially

important in regard to a child's right to education and good health, leisure

and culture, family life and legal representation.

Further, government

policy allows residence in the community for those asylum seekers who

entered Australia on valid visas and travel documents. This differential

treatment appears to be in contravention of Article 31 of the Refugee

Convention 1951, which states that asylum seekers should not be penalised

for the way in which they enter a country.

Children may be released

from detention on bridging visas under s73 of the Migration Act.

Visas are not generally available to their parents. This is contrary to

the strong presumption in favour of the preservation of the family unit

as "the natural environment for the growth and wellbeing of all its

members" [37] . Eligibility for bridging visas

should extend to family members of children to be consistent with its

stated aim of securing the 'best interests of the child'. Alternatives

to detention should not disrupt the contiguity of family units.

There is also cause

for concern for children whose parents are seeking asylum in Australia

but who have been unable to bring their children with them, and for those

who are found to be refugees but whose mode of entry made them eligible

under Australian law only for Temporary Protection Visa, thus disqualifying

them for family reunion. These are perhaps the forgotten child victims

of the discrimination between authorised and non authorised asylum seekers.

7. Conclusion

International treaties

promoting human rights reflect both consensus principles of the international

community and the values of states that become voluntary signatories to

them. When the Commonwealth of Australia freely commits to such instruments

it acknowledges its international legal obligation to promote, honour

and enforce their provisions.

When a child cannot

return to his or her country, the responsibility of protecting her rights

falls on the international community. As a State Party to all relevant

international agreements, Australia is bound to fulfil its obligations.

The failure of the Australian government to honour its international obligations

to child asylum seekers in its care is of grave concern.

The Australian Government

must address the discrepancy between its commitment to the Refugee

Convention and its actions in mandatorily confining children arriving

in Australia seeking asylum. The actions of the Commonwealth are inconsistent

not only with the provisions of the Refugee Convention but also

with a number of other international instruments to which Australia is

a party. Particularly, the executive actions undertaken by the Commonwealth

are in violation of sections of the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic Social

and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Commonwealth's

dereliction in fulfilling its treaty obligations when developing domestic

law and policy is in breach of international law. Australia has both a

legal responsibility and a moral obligation to uphold the human rights

standards to which it has subscribed, and upon which the future and wellbeing

of all children depend.

8. Annexure: Relevant Instruments,

Treaties and Domestic Law

Universal Declaration

of Human Rights (UDHR)

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC)

UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and

1967 (Refugee Convention)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Immigration Guardianship of Children Act 1946 (Cth)

DIMA Immigration Detention Standards

UNHCR Guidelines on Detention of Asylum Seekers (UNHCR Guidelines)

1. Boutros

Boutros Gali (Secretary General of the UN - as he then was): Speech opening

the World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna 1993).

2. The

operative provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention (and protocol) are

separated as a definition (Article 1) and a series substantive rights

held by refugees (Articles 3-34), which are to be protected by the state

receiving the asylum seeker.

3. Article

5, 1951 Refugee Convention.

4. See

Article 1A(2): the Convention applies to any person who "…owing

to a well founded fear of being persecuted…is outside the country

of his nationality and is unable, or, owing to such fear, is unwilling

to avail himself of the protection of that country…" [italics


5. See

Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

and Article 2(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights: the rights of the Covenants are to be "respected

and ensured" without "distinction" (ICCPR) or "guaranteed"

without "discrimination" (ICESCR) because of "race, colour,

sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social

origin, property, birth or other status" [italics added]

6. Ellen

Hanson, UNHCR Canberra Spokeswoman. In a speech given at the conference

1951 Refugee Convention - Where to From Here? UNSW, Sydney, December 6-9


7. Article

22, 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

8. Article

26, 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.


The International Bill of Human Rights is comprised of The 1948 Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, and The International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural


10. See

Schater, Oscar, International Law in Theory and Practice. 1991, Chapter

XV: "International Human Rights"


Article 9, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

12. Communication

Number 560/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/1993 (30 April 1997)

13. at


14. At



UN Doc E/CN/4/1999/63. Paras 69 - 70


Chu kheng Lim and Others v The Minister for immigration, Local Government

and Ethnic Affairs and Another. (1992) 176 CLR 1 F.C 92/051. Accessed

on, 9/05/01.

17. Per

Brennan, Deane, Dawson JJ at their para 32.

18. Confirmed

by DIMA Public Affairs Department, Wednesday 4 April 2001

19. Confirmed

by DIMA, Wed 4 April. See also Department of Immigration Annual Report


20. Goodwin-Gill,

Guy. The Refugee in International Law. 2nd Edition. Oxford University

Press, 1996. p128

21. Article

25(2), The Convention on the Rights of the Child


Article 16(3), The Convention on the Rights of the Child

23. Article

5, The Convention on the Rights of the Child

24. Steel,

Zachary and Derrick Silove. "The Psychological Cost of Seeking and

Granting Asylum". International Handbook of Human Response to Trauma.

Shalev, Yehuda, and McFarlane, Eds. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers,

NY, 2000. See also Burnett, Angela and Michael Peel. "Asylum Seekers

and refugees in Britain: The health of survivors of torture and organized

violence". British Medical Journal. 10 March 2001, p606 at 608.

25. Article

16(1), The Convention on the Rights of the Child


Article 9, The Convention on the Rights of the Child

27. Article

18(1), The Convention on the Rights of the Child

28. Article

19(1), The Convention on the Rights of the Child



Particularly Refugee Convention Art 22; and noting CROC Art 2 on non-discrimination;

ICCPR Art 2 on non-discrimination, ICESCR Art 2 on Non-discrimination

and ICESCR Art 13 on rights to education.

31. Dr

Louise Newman. Chair, Faculty of Child and Adolecent Psychiatry, RANZCP

Director, NSW Institute of Psychiatry. "Children in Detention - the

Burden of Trauma". Speech at closing plenary of The 1951 Convention

- Where to from here?, December 6-9 2001. UNSW.

32. Article


33. s178

and s14, Migration Act 1958


Article 37(c)

35. CROC,


36. Jaffari

v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1516 (26

October 2001) at Paragraph 43.

37. CROC,



Updated 10 October 2002.