HREOC Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention

Comments on Transcripts of the Public hearings for DIMIA and ACM

by Philippa Goodwin, Deputy

Secretary DIMIA

• Comments on Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 2 December 2002

• Comments on Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 3 December 2002

• Comments on Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 4 December 2002

• Comments on Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 5 December 2002

Comments

on Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 2 December 2002

• Click here to access the Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 2 December 2002

Click here to access the Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 2 December 2002

Page 19:

• To clarify this section of the record, I note that the department's Detention Services Provider, Australasian Correctional Management (ACM), was not involved in production of documents for Notices 4 and 5. This is referred to in a later part of the transcript by Ms McPaul (page six, 5 December 02).
• As Notices 4 and 5 were served on the department, and not ACM, documents in the possession of the department only were supplied.

Comments

on Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 3 December 2002

• Click here to access the Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 3 December 2002

Click here to access the Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 3 December 2002

Pages 19 - 28:

• I would like to make some general comments on matters relating to the Woomera Residential Housing Project. These comments also serve as a response to the questions taken on notice on this issue.
• The decision to investigate alternative arrangements for the women and children in detention was taken by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in early December 2000. The issue arose because, in late 2000, a number of people and organisations had called for arrangements for women and children similar to elements of the Swedish model.
• When established, the Woomera Residential Housing Project was a trial of alternative arrangements for women and children. It was intended as a project to focus on approaches for the management of diverse populations within detention centres.

• By early 2001, broad parameters for a trial of alternative arrangements for women and children had been agreed to by the Minister. The trial was intended to look at ways in which alternative detention arrangements could be made which would provide a more 'normal' existence for children with their mother or guardian, whilst still abiding by the terms of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

• In relation to the exclusion of men and older boys, as described above, this needs to be considered in the context that the project was a trial of alternative detention arrangements for women and children. The department's submission to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner for an exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 notes that it was considered that women and children, as minority groups within the detention centre environment, may feel vulnerable in a largely single adult male population. In addition, from a practical viewpoint, the small number of houses involved would create difficulties if adult males were involved. The overall capacity of Residential Housing Projects are relatively small, compared to the number of people in immigration detention. The need to provide separate facilities for males would further reduce the number of participants overall who could take part in the arrangements.

• In relation to the participation of older boys, as identified by Ms McPaul in her evidence, a key element of the trial was that participation was voluntary. As explained by Ms McPaul, for cultural reasons having males involved was expected to significantly influence the decisions of females who might otherwise wish to participate. Female immigration detainees who would be eligible to participate might decide not to when they became aware that there might be male detainees accommodated at the project. There was also a general reluctance evident during discussions with detainees for family members to agree to a housing environment in which female family members were living in such close proximity to non-familial male detainees. In this way, the participation of males and older boys was expected to affect the success of the alternate arrangements.
• An important consideration for the Minister and the department in meeting obligations under the Act is the requirement to maintain immigration detention. Matters such as security necessarily form part of any management decision when detaining an individual. Consistent with this position, a history of management difficulties or participation in escapes in detention facility are relevant factors when considering the participation of any women and children.
• It is not valid to make a comparison between detention arrangements in a large detention facility and those developed for the Residential Housing Project, as Counsel for Commission was seeking to do during the discussion of this issue. The circumstances and factors influencing decision making in the establishment of accommodation arrangements at Woomera IRPC and the Residential Housing Project were and remain markedly different.
• With regard to consultation on the trial, including determining an appropriate age limit for the participation of boys in the project, the Minister and the department undertook a comprehensive consultation process from early to mid 2001. This included discussions with detainees, the Immigration Detention Advisory Group (IDAG), Family and Youth Services (FAYS), relevant ACM staff and the local Woomera community.
• The level of formality in those consultations varied, and records of consultation with detainees are not available. Consultations with women as part of the Inquiry into Immigration Detention Procedures undertaken by Philip Flood AO, included possible alternative arrangements for women and children. Feedback from those discussions is included in the report of this Inquiry (page 30).
• In mid 2001, departmental and ACM staff held a large meeting with the detainee women in Woomera IRPC. At that meeting, there was a discussion of the proposed parameters of the trial. The detainee consultative committee also discussed the proposed Residential Housing Project. Discussions identified that in the Middle Eastern cultures, older boys are considered men at approximately age 15 years. In light of the cultural sensitivities of including adolescent boys who were approaching adulthood, eligibility for the trial was limited to boys up to the age of 12 years.
• Having considered the information and advice from all relevant parties, the Minister determined that, for the reasons outlined above, it was not in the interests of the project to extend eligibility to adolescent boys over the age of 12 years at that stage.
• Initial community consultation meetings were facilitated and held by the Minister's Office. While no records of those meetings were made, the attached document, a copy of responses to questions raised at consultations between the community and Minister in early March 2001, provides a summary of issues raised at those meetings.

Pages 55 - 78

• This section of the transcript has dealt with, among other things, the department's response to general recommendations by child welfare authorities. My colleagues have indicated that there are some complexities in meeting general recommendations by State authorities. I would like to make some additional comments on these complexities.

• The focus of State authorities is principally on responding to child protection matters for individuals in their State, subject to their State's legislation. Understandably, such officers are not necessarily familiar with or experienced in the interaction of Commonwealth and State law and, more specifically, the requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) and other relevant Commonwealth Acts. Given this, State authorities may make recommendations that press for options that are not legally available to the department or fall outside of the parameters for effective administration and operation of the detention program (such as the release of all or many families from a detention facility). Nevertheless, as advised by my colleagues, the department works with the State authority to develop suitable options that focus on the needs of the individuals and take account of the legal framework.

• Notwithstanding this, there are times when general recommendations are made that do seek to take account of the particular legal and policy framework of immigration detention. For example, the department is increasingly using alternative detention arrangements for detainees with special needs (such as women and their children, and unaccompanied minors) and State authorities have begun to include such options in recommendations. Understandably, organisations not directly involved in the detention program can perceive that such arrangements are easy to establish and implement, while failing to understand the range of constraints on such options under the Act. I described these constraints in more detail on 3 December 2002.
• My colleagues have also referred to the documents demonstrating that the department is working actively to manage the complex situations described.
• When an individual or family is of concern to the department and the services provider, a range of responses take place. This includes regular liaison by DIMIA Managers with relevant ACM staff; discussions by phone with Central Office, the relevant DIMIA Manager and/or other DIMIA Managers; the involvement of State child welfare authorities for assessment and recommendations; meetings between ACM and/or relevant experts to discuss and explore appropriate options; close monitoring of incident reports; holistic review of health of the individual or family, visa processing and other issues by Detention Operations Section in Central Office; and considerations by senior departmental staff of issues and options relevant to the individual or family.
• All of these activities would be taking place within an environment of increased observation of the individual or family within the centre, consultation with the family (as possible and appropriate) and implementation of agreed strategies.

Comments

on Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 4 December 2002

• Click here to access the Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 4 December 2002

Click here to access the Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 4 December 2002

Page 34:

• Under subsection 235(3) of the Migration Act 1958 , it is an offence for unlawful non-citizens to engage in work in Australia. For this reason, work opportunities and, it follows, professional career or trade qualifications are not available to unlawful non-citizens.

• In relation to minors, Articles 28 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) do not require State Parties to provide accreditation or recognised certificates of completion or attendance. For detainee minors, Ms Lumley provided evidence on reports provided to parents regarding progress and completion of studies in immigration detention centres.

Page 84:

• I support the comments made by my colleagues regarding the issue of payment of costs and fees in relation to external schooling of children. The issues raised in relation to Maribyrnong IDC are indicative of the difficulties associated with accessing external State schooling, particularly at the early phase of negotiations. The department, however, has continued to focus on this issue with significant achievements evident over the course of 2002.
• As I described in my opening statement, arrangements had been put in place to access external primary schooling for children in the Maribyrnong IDC since 1999. This was at a local non-government school.
• In March 2001, a detainee child of secondary school age entered the centre. Initially, the child required English as a Second Language (ESL) training. This was provided within the centre by ACM.
• It was determined that the child would benefit from transitioning into secondary schooling externally, as there were no other children in the same peer group within the centre. While continuing to provide ESL training, ACM sought to negotiate access to a State secondary school. This was unsuccessful.
• In August 2001, departmental staff became involved in the negotiations with the Victorian Department of Education and Training (DET) and approval for access was granted. During these discussions with DET, a request for funding at the overseas student rate was made. This was the first such request for fees to the department or ACM.
• In September 2001, while issues relating to duplication of funding provided by other Commonwealth agencies and requirements of the detention services contract were being resolved, the child in question was released from detention. It is important to note that while these discussions were held within the department, the child continued to participate in educational programs within the centre.
• The issue of educating detainee children in the Victorian State school system arose again in relation to particular families in mid 2002. More generally, issues related to access to State schooling and appropriate fees to be charged have continued to be actively explored and progressed, in particular through the development of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with State education authorities. MOUs with the New South Wales, South Australian and Victorian education authorities have since been signed. A copy of the MOU with the Victorian Department of Education & Training (DET) is attached.

Page 98:

• I would like to make some general comments about separation detention. Separation detention is a management tool through which the integrity of Australia's visa determination process is maintained. It is an area or areas in a detention facility in which new arrivals are kept separate from other detainees. Effective separate detention provides the Department with the assurance that any claims by unlawful non-citizens to remain are put forward without the embellishment or coaching of others.
• Unauthorised arrivals who, after their initial entry interview do not prima facie engage Australia's protection obligations or do not make a visa application remain in separation detention.
• Where the department requires that detainees be kept in separation detention, the services provider ensures that this is achieved so long as there are appropriate facilities available within the detention centre. Detainees in separation detention continue to have reasonable access to the full range of facilities and services, and ready access to departmental staff. In reception and processing centres, such as Woomera IRPC, separation detention is usually achieved by putting in place arrangements for a designated compound. This means that detainees are not isolated while in a separation compound.

• The length of time in which a detainee remains in separation detention can vary. In my evidence on 2 December 2002, I stated that it is usually for a number of days. This is accurate, in particular for the current caseload of detainees. Those detainees who arrive at a centre and do not raise claims which, prima facie , may engage Australia's protection obligations are available for removal and can remain in separation detention for extended periods before they are able to be removed from Australia. This may occur where there are large numbers of people arriving unlawfully, such as occurred in 2000 and 2001.

Comments

on Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney on 5 December 2002

• Click here to access the Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney 5 December 2002

Click here to access the Transcript of the Public Hearing held in Sydney 5 December 2002

Page 43:

• This part of the transcript raises issues related to the movement of detainees to other centres. As indicated by my colleagues, this is only considered if the needs of an individual or family cannot be adequately met within a particular facility.
• It is not usual practice to consider moving a detainee or detainee family to another centre. Such a move would be considered only where compelling reasons existed for transfer, such as access to and availability of services specific to their needs or circumstances.
• Transfers are administratively and logistically challenging and costly. In considering any move to a different place of detention, relevant factors include the available places of detention, infrastructure and support services, capacity to meet visa processing and reception requirements, and management of diverse detainee populations.
• Detainees may sometimes seek a transfer on the basis of having family or friends in areas close to other detention facilities (such as Villawood IDC). It is not administratively practical, cost effective or equitable to move detainees for that reason alone. Such issues, however, may sometimes be relevant in consideration of management options for detainees with particular needs that cannot be adequately addressed in another facility.

Last

Updated 27 March 2003.