Commission Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention
Click here to return to the Submission Index
Submission to National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention from
Barbara Rogalla - former Woomera
Nurse
With thanks
for on-line pro bono assistance to: Patrick T. Byrt, Human Rights Barrister,
South Australia
ABREVIATIONS
CAT - Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
1987
CROC - Convention
on the Rights of the Child
IDC - Immigration
Detention Centre
NGO - Non-government
Organization
OMCT - The World
Organization against Torture
Rules - UN Rules
for the Protection of Juveniles deprived of their liberty
TD -Tampere Declaration
Introduction
"We
reaffirm our commitment to continue our struggle to eliminate all forms
of violence and torture against children and to create a world that protects
and fulfils the rights of all children." [1]
As the result of
my onsite observations during my employment at the Woomera IDC for three
months as a Registered Nurse during the year 2000, I wrote to the Human
Rights Commissioner on 23rd September 2000 to inform him of the facts
evidencing "a disturbing gap between our international obligations
and what is actually happening at Woomera."
I have since by media
made a public condemnation of conditions inside IDCs.
Much information
in this submission is based on my previous work [2],
Following my letter
to HREOC, riots, hunger strikes and use of the water canon have become
more frequent at IDCs. I recently visited Woomera, only to find that the
camp now looks even more formidable, frightening and offensive.
The outer perimeter
now extends to the Roxby Downs road, with an additional two rows of razor
wire fences between which lies a haunting no-man's-land. The layout of
staged high razor wire fences with open spaces between more than ever
resembles concentration camp horror, straight out of Nazi Germany.
The central argument
of my submission is that IDC detention of children constitutes acts of
torture outlawed by the Convention against Torture.
The Convention on
the Rights of the Child (CROC) [5] also prohibits Torture.
CROC [6] guarantees protection and rehabilitation of
child victims who have been exposed to torture.
Therefore, it is
also my submission that an investigation by HREOC of IDC detention of
children is torture outlawed by CAT and prohibited by CROC, is within
the terms of reference by which your HREOC inquiry is established.
I submit that the
IDC detention of children therefore violates both the Convention against
Torture and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for the following
reasons:
- The routine treatment
of children inside IDCs, without the provision of efficacious remedial
measures, constitutes an unlawful neglect.
- The nature and
extent of the implementation of mandatory detention of children in IDCs
makes it impossible to provide the required efficacious special remedial
measures on site so as to alleviate all unlawful neglect.
- The unlawful neglect
directly arises in the implementation of mandatory detention which is
the required operational policy of IDCs, and is therefore inherently
systemic to the continuing operation policy of IDCs.
- Applicable State
child protection law is not adequate as domestic Australian law to prevent
systemic unlawful neglect inside Federal IDCs.
- The direct implementation
of the Australian government policy of mandatory detention through IDCs
constitutes the unlawful neglect of children detained in IDCs and the
operation of IDCs does nothing to reverse it.
- A systemic application
of a government policy of mandatory detention, which constitutes unlawful
neglect of detained children, constitutes gross and inescapable mental
and physical suffering that is a violation under CAT and is prohibited
by CROC within the terms of all outlawed torture.
- The Australian
government is thereby culpable of torture of children.
Unlawful child neglect
materially occurs in IDCs both as a logically necessary, and substantially
effective, consequence of any significant implementation of the policy
of mandatory detention in the operation of IDCs by a government.
This submission provides
examples of the significant extent to which the material conditions of
daily life imposed in IDCs under mandatory detention compromise the mental,
social, and developmental profiles of detained children, and how this
harm arises directly from a mandatory detention policy.
These conditions
are examined in the light of Australia's international obligations, particularly
CROC and CAT.
OMCT, the World Organization
against Torture, works closely with the UN and with NGOs across the globe
in an effort to identify, prevent and address all forms of violence against
children, including torture and neglect, and neglect which extends to
torture. The Tampere Declaration (TD) enhances the role of OMCT by proposing
improved protection for children wherever they suffer structural or institutional
violence. TD holds governments responsible for all forms of child neglect,
because governments are mandated to protect children. Therefore, the role
of OMCT and the recommendations and strategies of TD are relevant to the
HREOC inquiry.
OMCT condemns the
treatment of asylum seekers and warns that conditions inside IDCs amount
to ill treatment. OMCT therefore requests that Australia guarantees the
"respect of human rights and the fundamental freedoms throughout
the country." [7]
From this principle,
and from my own observations of the damaging effects of detention on children,
follows the tenet that children should be released from detention, together
with both parents, and that mandatory detention of unaccompanied minors
is indefensible.
Best Interests
"In
all actions concerning children the best interests of the child
shall be a primary consideration." [8]
This commitment is
re-enforced by the non-discrimination clause [9] in CROC
which operates irrespective of the parent's or the child's legal status.
Non-discrimination means that all rights set out in CROC apply, even if
the child arrived in Australia by boat and without valid travel documents.
The right of the
child to an identity, including a name [10], is at odds
with the practice of calling individuals by a number, as is practice in
some IDCs.
CROC advocates that
staff who work in institutions where children are kept, are selected on
the basis of suitable personal attributes, as well as professional competency.
[11] These requirements are more clearly spelt out in
Rules. Rules stipulate the personal qualities of "integrity, humanity,
ability and professional capacity". [12] Australia,
through its private contractor ACM, [13] falls short
of delivering these standards.
These are the findings
of a parliamentary investigation.
" in
the course of 2000 a small proportion of detention officer staff were
treating detainees including children as if they were criminals, intimidation
and verbal abuse occurred and detainees were not sufficiently aware
of their right to complain to the Ombudsman." [14]
At the time the Flood
report was commissioned by Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock, an Ombudsman
investigation " following complaints and a number of reported
incidents including escapes and allegations of assaults on detainees",
was already nearing completion. [15] Findings of the
Flood and Ombudsman reports were released within days of each other.
Not surprisingly,
the Ombudsman report also revealed disturbing evidence.
" there
were a worrying number of reports of indecent assault and threats toward
unattached women and children who represent the groups at highest risk.
In my view, the accommodation and monitoring/care arrangements at IDCs
did not come up to what I would regard as a minimum acceptable standard
to ensure that those at greatest risk are not exposed to harm."
Flood recommended
that the training of detention staff be upgraded, because some staff lacked
awareness of company policy and also needed "guidance to deal with
issues of racism, sexism and religious intolerance". [17]
HREOC needs to investigate
if this recommendation has been implemented. As the result of improved
staff training, there should now be evidence of better working relationships
between ACM detention staff and detainees, and greater protection for
detained women and children. Periodic disturbances that are reported in
the media, the use of the water canon, batons and tear gas when children
are nearby, suggest that relationships have deteriorated, rather than
improved.
But acting in the
best interests of children is not restricted to appropriate personnel
selection. Mandatory detention of children can never be in their best
interests, and therefore contravenes the spirit of CROC. Their detention
is also an indictment of Australia.
"These children
arrive through no fault of their own. They arrive because adults bring
them here. Yet they are held accountable for the problems created by
grown-ups. The indiscriminate detention of children, therefore, is a
reflection of how this nation treats those who are innocent. A legal
and political framework that scapegoats children and uses them as a
deterrent to stop others from arriving is offensive to Australians.
Setting children
free is the only logical step available. Yet it is not enough to free
only the children because, as we know from the work of developmental
researchers, to separate children from their parents becomes the blueprint
for generating even more harm. Therefore, the children and their parents
(not just the mother) need to be released together. Anything less goes
against the laws of development and comes at the expense of our previously
good reputation for kindness and compassion." [18]
As former Human Rights
Commissioner Chris Sidoti observed, "the basic problem is detention
itself". [19]
The UN CROC Committee
voiced its concerns [20] over the detention of children
under the Aliens Act in Sweden, even though children cannot be detained
in Sweden for more than six days. In Australia, the Ombudsman identified
one nineteen-month old child who has been detained since birth, and another
child who has spent four years in detention. [21] Children
who are born whilst their parents are in detention, are incarcerated from
the moment of birth.
The CROC Committee
also recommends that detained children have access to public legal counsel.
[22] This recommendation contrasts with the Australian
practice where detention is of indeterminate length with virtually no
scope for judicial intervention.
Failure of Nigeria
to consider the adoption of principles ensuring detention of juveniles
as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time, prompted the Committee
to ask for " a radical review of the whole system of administration
of juvenile justice in Nigeria." [23] It would
be of interest to note how the CROC Committee views the Australian situation.
The last report by Australia to the CROC committee was presented in 1998,
and this report did not address the mandatory detention of children.
Administrative arrangements
of IDCs are a matter of concern. DIMIA selected ACM from seventeen applicants
for the tender. ACM, with its working culture that developed from prison
and police work, is unsuitable to operate IDCs, and to act in the best
interests in children. Were DIMIA to have intended its choice of an IDCs
manager to provide humane and efficacious processing, rather than prison
services, it ought to have contracted a company with a track record in
employing primarily social workers, teachers, and specialist counsellors
with trauma and torture experience.
Another cause for
concern is how ACM ever obtained the contract without first producing
a Child Protection Policy. In February 2001, the Flood inquiry documented
that there was no such policy implemented. [24] This
seems indefensible; given the company has been the sole operator of immigration
detention facilities in Australia since 1998.
The best interests
of children are linked with the fate of their parents, because both are
interdependent. As children grow up inside the unpredictable IDC environment,
their Human Rights become compromised. The at times brutal manner in which
parents and other adults are detained impact on the physical and emotional
environment in which children live. This may dull the children's' recognition
that other people have Human Rights, and could lead to detrimental social
consequences when the currently detained children become adults.
It would therefore
be in their best interests that detained children become formally educated
about their own Human Rights. This practice also fosters respect for the
rights of others. Copies of CROC should be made available to children
[25] and their parents, in languages spoken by detained
asylum seekers. Child friendly editions should include drawings and paraphrased
language to assist younger children to understand the Convention.
Distribution of CROC
inside IDCs should also include information about complaint mechanisms
that can be pursued by detained individuals who believe CROC has been
breached.
Survival and Development
"States
Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development
of the child." [26]
Commensurate with
such requirement is an appropriate standard of living that ensures "mental,
spiritual and social development." Growing up in an environment of
"happiness, love and understanding," [27]
together with the right to "rest and leisure, and to engage in recreational
activities" [28] are essential prerequisites for
growing up to become a well-adjusted adult.
But detention centres
depict a different reality.
"The structure
of wire fences, of orderly routine, and of medical treatment driven
by detention policy form the backdrop to the ever-present possibility
of danger. Children are aware that batons, riot shields, water canons
or gas that causes nosebleed can always be directed at them, even if
friendly medical personnel patch up injuries. An environment where tension,
riots and hunger strikes are routine means torture, because children
live in fear." [29]
A visitor to the
Villawood IDC reports.
"At the close
of visiting time, a three-year old from the security of his father's
arms reached out, imploring me take the both of them with me. His tear-filled
eyes followed me through the perimeter razor-wire fence until I was
out of sight.
He had spent over
half his young life in detention but he clearly recognised that where
I came from was much better than the misery of life behind cruel coils
of razor wire with an institutional regime which denies children the
right to freedom and development in a secure environment." [30]
The rights to freedom
of assembly [31] and freedom of expression, [32]
freedom of thought, conscience and religion [33] become
meaningless in a fluid and unpredictable detention environment that restricts
almost all forms of entertainment and educational opportunities, does
not offer access to the Internet, nor exposure to the performing arts.
The fences, the uniformed guards, and the illumination of the camp at
night, stifle spontaneous social interaction and privacy.
Future studies may
well identify inter-generational damage, as detention renders children
incapable of negotiating their own needs.
"I observed
a group of detainee children in the visitor area of the Villawood IDC
in Sydney fighting over one rusty, dilapidated and rickety swing. A
boy around 6-years of age was pleading for a turn - he became increasing
frantic as he whined for a turn, lest he miss the chance before the
short visiting period came to an end. Eventually he gave up - walking
away with head bowed and shoulders slumped in resignation. Not even
a tension-relieving tear!"
It was me who wept
for this sad boy." [34]
The ability to reach
out to others in a loving and caring way becomes compromised.
" the
two siblings in the family had increasingly begun to fight with each
other, to the point where their only interaction was violent. It was
a dramatic illustration of what's happening to families in detention
centres." [35]
CROC recognises the
responsibility of both parents to bring up the child, [36]
and also the right of the child to be with both parents. [37]
"At least seven times" [38] [a child] went
to hospital, recovered but became ill again when he returned to detention.
For three months, his cycle of treatment and relapse continued as he oscillated
between clinical indicators of health and illness. Then the media arrested
the cycle. [39]
[The child] was released
from detention. But appropriate medical treatment came at a cost. The
family was split up. His parents initially remained in detention, but
the mother was later released. His father remains in detention at the
time of writing. [40]
The UN Committee
on the Rights of the Child links the placement of children inside institutions
to " stunted development, emotional and behavioural disorders
(and) inadequate social skills." Institutions predispose children
to suffering neglect and abuse, and the Committee reports that "preventing
the placement of children in institutions was one of the most effective
measures to prevent violence against children." [41]
On this basis the Committee recommends that children be placed outside
of detention, in order to meet the child's needs
" not
only for survival, but also for development, including psychological,
mental, spiritual, moral, psychological and social development, in a
manner compatible with human dignity and to prepare the child for an
individual life in a free society, in accordance with article 6 of the
Convention." [42]
Some of the children
currently detained inside IDCs will grow up to be Australian adults, without
personal memory of any other country. The detention experience is incompatible
with anything that fosters normal survival and development.
Mandatory detention
of children and the deliberate withholding of developmental opportunities
generates adverse consequences for the whole of Australian society. Current
government practice is creating a legacy of injustice that future generations
may have to grapple with, because the full damage caused by detention
may not become evident for many years.
Torture by neglect
"No
child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment." [43]
Children are damaged
as the result of their detention inside IDCs. The link between childhood
deprivation and pain and suffering later in life is well documented in
clinical literature. Relevant evidence is also available to the HREOC
inquiry in a separate submission. [44]
Where children have
been subjected to torture or neglect, measures should be taken toward
their recovery. [45] But there is nothing humane about
keeping previously traumatised children inside detention, so that it is
unlikely for healing to occur inside IDCs.
"Even an "innocent"
decision such as room allocation can have a detrimental effect and can
activate previous trauma. Routine awakening by guards during random
night patrols, including the use of flashlight beams and the repeating
of detainee names can lead to children developing fears about sleeping.
A young father told me his child resisted being put to bed and would
often collapse exhausted, only to wake screaming with nightmares."
"A 15-year-old
detained in a desert camp in Australia told me of his fear when he was
housed with men from the ethnic group which had persecuted him and his
family in his country of origin."
"Everybody
told me that Australia was a good country and people were kind. My father
sent me away to save my life. But they persecute me here in Australia.
They do not believe my story and shout at me. The guards say to me Australian
people do not want you. I am dying inside every day in DIMA detention
with no hope. I cannot go home to find my family and I cannot have freedom.
" [46]
Child protection
laws are in place in Australia, and there are memoranda of understanding
between child protection agencies and detention centres. But these laws
do not protect detained children from neglect or from cruel and inhumane
treatment that is caused by conditions of detention. Torture comes about
by the ongoing failure of the government to act and to protect the detained
children from harm and neglect.
OMCT addresses structural
violence against children by promoting community based, rather than medical
or legal mechanisms. But IDCs are harsh prison camps, not communities
that shape their own future. The remote location of some camps, and the
deliberate attempts to keep the press and visitors out, and the suppression
of information, make the IDCs an ideal environment for torture.
One example demonstrates
the government's reluctance to intervene, when child abuse is suspected.
In November 2000, the daily newspaper The Australian reported that child
abuse was "rampant" at the Woomera detention centre, [47]
that a child was raped eight months earlier, [48] and
that ACM management suppressed an investigation.
The response was
unique. A government official confirmed previous sexual abuse investigations,
but summarised these as instances of faulty "parenting skills".
[49] Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock blamed vested
interests of political opponents and claimed these allegations "were
being pushed by advocacy groups opposed to the mandatory detention of
asylum seekers with children". [50]
A subsequent parliamentary
inquiry confirmed a cover-up. [51] This finding highlights
concerns for the safety of detained children and also casts doubt over
the integrity of the information process between DIMIA and ACM, and between
the government and the Australian public.
The Tampere Declaration
recommends transparency as a strategy to combat child abuse and neglect.
Amnesty Australia documents its concerns over legislation that prohibits
the Human Rights Commissioner and the Ombudsman from initiating contact
with detained asylum seekers. [52]
TD also recommends
a national plan of action with effective monitoring bodies and national
co-operation with UN fact-finding missions. But Australia scoffs at the
UN. A UN delegation was prevented from inspecting IDCs in August 2000,
and permission for the pending UN visit in mid-May to the Woomera detention
centre was only given after reluctant stalling by the Prime Minister.
Whilst Australia
is a signatory to the Convention against Torture, there is no domestic
law that prohibits torture within Australia. The 1988 Torture Act and
its 2001 amendment only recognise torture if an Australian official commits
the offence outside of Australia. [53] But torture is
a crime against humanity, and offenders should be liable to prosecution,
regardless of where it occurs.
The Tampere Declaration
calls on governments to "ratify and fully implement all international
and regional human rights and humanitarian instruments relevant to violence
against children in all areas under their jurisdiction."
HREOC needs to address
this issue and ensure that the Australian Torture Act is not a blueprint
for impunity.
Establishing Torture
"Torture
presupposes the innocence of its victims. Such innocence becomes most
obvious where the victims are children." [54]
Within the context
of Human Rights, the definition of torture comes from article 1 of The
Convention against Torture.
"For the purposes
of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third
person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating
or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination
of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering
arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
CAT stipulates that
torture occurs only in the context of four conditions that accompany pain
and suffering. Where children in IDCs are concerned, all four conditions
for establishing Torture are met.
1. From Severe
Pain or Suffering to Torture.
Examples cited in
this submission should leave no doubt that pain and suffering of the children
is severe. But how do severe pain and suffering relate to torture?
Precedent in international
law suggests a two-tired consideration that propels inhuman and degrading
acts into the realm of torture.
The European Court
of Human Rights found a technique applied to a prisoner "of such
a serious and cruel nature that it can only be described as torture."
Accordingly, the severity of the act automatically identifies certain
acts as torture. [56]
Other court findings
locate inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment on a continuum with
torture. Somewhere on this continuum is the cut-off point for torture.
Where treatment and torture intersects, depends on the personal circumstances
of the victim, such as sex, age, state of health, and relationship to
the perpetrator. [57]
Consideration of
personal circumstances of the victim has implications for arguing torture
under Australia's mandatory immigration detention regime. Prior to their
incarceration in Australia, asylum seeker children may have already experienced
or witnessed trauma. Such experience is likely to make some children even
more vulnerable to conditions inside IDCs. Previous noxious experience
therefore means that torture threshold is reached much sooner than it
would otherwise.
2. Intent.
Child neglect by
itself does not constitute torture. Neglect is the foreseeable outcome
of detaining children. Intent comes about by the continued refusal of
the government to intervene.
Intent can also be
argued on the basis of discrimination. Discrimination is evident from
the conditions in which detained child asylum seekers are kept. No other
children in Australia are subjected to such conditions.
3. Instigation,
consent or acquiescence of a public official.
The privately owned
company ACM is contracted by DIMIA to perform day-to-day operation of
the IDCs. But overall responsibility rests with DIMIA, and this responsibility
cannot be delegated to a private contractor. [58] Therefore,
ACM employees are in the functional role of public official.
Contrary to the stereotype
image of torture, there is no torturer inside IDCs who regularly beats
screaming children. Nevertheless, the child neglect that occurs during
detention is just as real as if there were an individual torturer.
Owing to the recent
changes in international law canvassed in the statutes of the recently
established International Criminal Court, there is an international move
toward a more liberal definition of torture. Culpability in this forum
may have been extended to include not only those who played a key role
in the implementation of the policy of mandatory detention, but also to
all individuals who had a lesser role in mandatory detention.
4. Pain and suffering
arising from lawful sanctions.
Mandatory detention
has its legislative basis in the Australian Migration Act. [59]
But no form of legal detention justifies that children, or any other prisoner,
becomes damaged as the result of detention to the extent that children
are damaged inside IDCs.
Concerns arising
Trauma and Torture
(T&T)
The mandate to seek
out torture [60] and the power of CAT to investigate
institutions [61] are hampered inside IDCs. Immigration
Detention Standards stipulate that asylum seekers with a history of T&T
should not be detained, except that
- There is no systematic
way of identifying T&T survivors when they reach the detention camps;
- T&T is not
part of the initial medical assessment, which is usually conducted by
nurses; and
- Nurses are not
usually qualified to identify T&T victims.
Effective primary
screening instruments should include an early intervention protocol to
identify T&T victims, whose release should be implemented without
delay.
From there, as recommended
by the Tampere Declaration, the reintegration of child victims should
commence according to established community standards, and in collaboration
with NGOs. But reintegration cannot occur whilst children are detained
under conditions of the current mandatory detention regime.
Identified T&T
victims at Woomera
The visiting Senior
ACM Psychologist identified two (2) T&T victims in April 2000. Based
on his assessment he recommended that they be transferred to another centre.
One of these individuals
was 12 years old at the time.
The other was a man
who had an identified psychiatric condition. A triage nurse at Glenside
Hospital in Adelaide informed me that his treating Glenside psychiatrist
recommended as early as February 2000 that Woomera was inappropriate.
Both individuals were still detained at the Woomera centre at the end
of July 2000.
Other concerns
In July 2000, a GP
requested an urgent referral for a twelve year old to a child psychiatrist.
This is another child, not the twelve year old identified as a T&T
victim by the psychologist. The girl showed clinical signs of stress after
she witnessed a traumatic incident at the Woomera detention centre. I
was unable to arrange for a consultation by video link, because my working
contract had expired. To my knowledge, the consultation with the child
psychiatrist never occurred.
A paediatrician from
the Port Augusta Hospital recommended that an infant be transferred from
Woomera, because the child needed medical attention that could not be
provided at Woomera. This request was also ignored. The boy later developed
life threatening respiratory distress and needed emergency transfer to
another medical facility. ACM management delayed the ambulance transfer
of the critically ill child by almost one hour.
I can supply details
to HREOC that would enable the Commissioner to access the clinical files
of all four individuals.
In a six-week window
during June and July 2000, there were several allegations of child and
adult sexual abuse at the Woomera IDC. These matters have already been
referred to the relevant authorities.
My remaining concern
is that when abuse allegations were raised, alleged victims were returned
to the compound where they lived, often in close proximity to the alleged
perpetrator, locked together into the same compound.
HREOC needs to ensure
that whenever sexual assault is alleged, the alleged victim is immediately
moved from the area where it is alleged to have occurred to a safe dormitory,
and not only after detention staff are convinced of the merit of the allegation.
Detention staff are not qualified to assess or substantiate allegations
of sexual abuse.
The Tampere Declaration. Produced at the OMCT Conference "Children,
Torture and other Forms of Violence" Tampere, Finland, 27th Nov to
2nd Dec 2001
B. Rogalla and T. Highfield. "The Systematic Incarceration of Children
in Immigration Detention Centers of Australia: A Modern Form of Torture"
Unpublished Paper, used as background material OMCT Conference "Children,
Torture and other Forms of Violence" Tampere, Finland. 27th Nov to
2nd Dec 2001. Paper was also presented at the University of NSW Conference
in Sydney "Where to from Here." 6th to 9th December 2001.
B. Rogalla "Modern day torture: Government sponsored neglect of asylum
seeker children under the Australian mandatory immigration detention regime."
2002. Publication in Progress.
A more comprehensive account of how the needs of children are neglected
inside IDCs is in the submission from the KIDS working party to this HREOC
inquiry, especially in the sections on Health and Mental Health.
CROC, article 37
CROC, article 19
OMCT Media Release, Geneva. Oct 4: 2001
CROC, article 3
CROC, article 2
CROC, article 8
CROC, article 3
United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles deprived of their
Liberty, articles 81-87: 1990
Australasian Correctional Services is the company contracted by DIMIA
to operate immigration detention services. But the company operates as
Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) from its head office in Sydney.
P. Flood, A.O. "Report of Inquiry into Immigration Detention Procedures."
p 32: February 2001
Commonwealth Ombudsman. "Report of an Own Motion Investigation into
the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' Immigration Detention
Centres", p 2: March 2001
ibid, p 19-20
P. Flood, p 42: February 2001
B. Rogalla. Australia's Little Prisoners. Australian Children's Rights
News. March 2001.
Report on the Human Rights Commissioner's Visit to Curtin IRPC in July
2000, Human Rights and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, http//www.hreoc.gov.Australia/human_rights/asylum/index.html
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. "Concluding observations
of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Sweden. 18.02.93." CRC/C/15/Add.2.
Commonwealth Ombudsman. "Report of an Own Motion Investigation into
the Department on Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' Immigration Detention
Centres." Page 21: 2001
ibid
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Summary Record of the 323rd meeting:
Nigeria. 1-10-01. CRC/C/SR.323
P. Flood, p 26: February 2001
CROC, article 42
CROC, article 6
CROC, preamble
CROC, article 3.4
B. Rogalla and T. Highfield: 2001
B. Rogalla and T. Highfield, 2001
CROC, article 15
CROC, article 13
CROC, article 14
Rogalla and Highfield: 2001
Sydney Morning Herald, Newspaper. "Two of Us": 7-7-01
CROC, article 18
CROC, article 9
ABC television, "7.30 Report," comment by Immigration Minister
Phillip Ruddock: 14-8-01,
After screening of the "4 Corners" television documentary on
ABC TV, [the child] was again admitted to hospital. He was later released
into foster care with a family in Sydney.
Sydney Morning Herald, Newspaper. "Legal reprieve for refugee family."
April 9: 2002
ibid, page 124
ibid, page 129
CROC, article 37
Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in relation
to the Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention. J. Liberman et
al: 2002 http://www.julianburnside.com
CROC, article 39
Rogalla and Highfield: 2001
The Australian, Newspaper. "Child abuse alleged at Woomera":
13-11-00
The Australian, Newspaper. "Woomera officer tells of boy raped and
sold for cigarettes": 15-11-00
The Australian, Newspaper. "Child abuse alleged at Woomera":
13-11-00
The Australian, Newspaper. "Woomera detainees not segregated:"
18-11-00
Flood 2001, p 23-24
Amnesty International. Annual Report 2000. Australia
Crimes (Torture) Act 1988 - No 148 of 1988 - Consolidated to 24 May 2001.
Section 6.1
B. Rogalla. "Border Protection Australian Style: A modern form of
torture" Australian Children's Rights News. December 2001. http://wwwdci-au.org
Convention Against Torture or other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment and Punishment. Article 1: 1987
Aksoy v Turkey, Judgement of 18 Dec 1996, European Court of Human Rights.
Cited in C. Mackenzie. Untitled Paper. Circulated as background material
at OMCT Conference "Children, Torture and other Forms of Violence"
Tampere, Finland, 27th Nov to 2nd Dec 2001
Republic of Ireland v United Kingdom. 2 European Human Rights Reports
25, 1979-1980. Also cited in Mackenzie: 2001.
Commonwealth Ombudsman, p 27: 2001 Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs,
Defence and Trade, p 25-26: 2001
Migration Act 1958. Act No. 62 of 1958, amended 4 June 2001, section 189
CAT, article 7
CAT, article 16
Last
Updated 9 January 2003.