# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison.

Those who know Gillian Triggs remark how calm she is. How composed.

It's a common characterisation of women of power; a way to illustrate that this woman is not like the other caricatures: the shrieking harridans, the manipulaters, the tantrum-chuckers.

Yet if Triggs, the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, had chosen to throw a tantrum last week at the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, it would have been quite forgivable.

Here's why. Last Friday was the fourth in the series of public hearings for the Inquiry - and the first in Canberra. The Inquiry is being held to dissect one of the most tragic aspects of this country's appalling treatment of refugees, the children in immigration detention. Triggs presides over these hearings and, in between these sessions, pores over the evidence of the damage that detention does to these small beings. Confronting and depressing work.

So, this last session was not only the first one in Canberra but was also the first time in living memory that a senior government minister and his officious offsider, the secretary of his department, decided that there would be no serious, respectful participation.

Bowles's behaviour has already drawn criticism for his belligerence during these hearings but last Friday, even he was outdone by his master, Scott Morrison, whose empathy bypass could only have been declared a resounding success once he embraced the role of Minister for Border Protection in this government.

And that's precisely what happened on Friday as time after time, Morrison interrupted Triggs or - if she dared to keep speaking - he just spoke over the top of her.

Said one senior journalist last week: "I have not seen such a level of disrespect either in Senate estimates or any other kind of inquiry in my entire career."

This exchange happened after Triggs repeatedly tried to get the Minister to directly answer her questions.

GILLIAN TRIGGS: You've been in government now for nearly a year and you've spent a lot of time today saying that the problems really derive from the former government. Our job is not...

SCOTT MORRISON: Well, the children didn't turn up under this government except for 350; 8,400 turned up under the previous government Madam President...

GILLIAN TRIGGS: At least that number is still in detention.

SCOTT MORRISON: ...so I think that's a fair statement.

GILLIAN TRIGGS: So you have been saying it repeatedly this morning.

SCOTT MORRISON: Because it's true Madam President.

GILLIAN TRIGGS: Well, we're concerned not with the political blame but we're trying to understand why these children are still in detention.

Triggs herself would, I'm sure, be reluctant to have that behaviour characterised as misogynist - pehaps Morrison would be equally as churlish with others.

The demeanour of both Morrison and Bowles comes as no surprise - yet another symptom of an entire government for whom male privilege and male entitlement are the default. And women, well, it's been nearly a year since the Prime Minister said there were women knocking on the door of cabinet. Yet they still can't come in.

Earlier this year, Mary Beard, the professor of classics at the University of Cambridge, delivered a cutting analysis of the challenges facing women speaking in the public sphere. She retold Homer's tale of Telemachus, son of Odysseus and sainted Penelope. The little upstart decides to tell off his mother: "Go back up into your quarters, and take up your own work, the loom and the distaff ... speech will be the business of men, all men, and of me most of all; for mine is the power in this household."

That tale, writes Beard, is "a nice demonstration that right where written evidence for Western culture starts, women's voices are not being heard in the public sphere; more than that, as Homer has it, an integral part of growing up, as a man, is learning to take control of public utterance and to silence the female of the species."

So who is doing battle here?

Triggs's record is impressive: a consultant on International Law to Mallesons Stephen Jaques, a Board Member of the Public Interest Law Clearing House (PILCH), the Australian representative on the Council of Jurists for the Asia Pacific Forum for National Human Rights Institutions, Chair of the Board of the Australian International Health Institute, a member of the Attorney General's International Legal Service Advisory Council and Chair of the Council of Australian Law Deans.

Morrison, on the other hand, has worked for various tourism bodies, the Property Council of Australia; and was, for several years, the state director for the Liberal Party in NSW. Not that there's anything wrong with that - but it's certainly not the ideal preparation for the grave task Morrison has at hand.

Observers at the hearings last Friday say the mood was confrontational, even angry. Others say that the way Morrison behaved on Friday is typical of his combative nature but "he was worse with Gillian". Said one: "The fiery nature of these exchanges is not typical." And: "Morrison likes to feel he's the cleverest in the room."

Which would not be possible in the company of President Gillian Triggs, who has guided the AHRC to many victories over the past few months - that must have the government reeling. Or at least furious that here is one woman they just can't silence.

Follow me on Twitter @jennaprice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scott Morrison's treatment of Gillian Triggs is endemic of the government's wider problem with women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison. Those who know Gillian Triggs remark how calm she is. How composed. It's a common characterisation of women of power; a way to illustrate that this woman is not like the other caricatures: the shrieking harridans, the manipulaters, the tantrum-chuckers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Purpose and consequence. That was the distinction Scott Morrison attempted to draw at the national inquiry into children in immigration detention in Canberra on Friday.

It was not his purpose to detain hundreds of children in Australia for an average of 349 days at the cost of their mental health. It was a consequence. It was not his purpose to transfer 200 children to Nauru where workers have documented systemic abuse. It was a consequence.

And besides that, it was all about the children. "I saw too many children dying at sea not to pursue the policies I am pursuing," the immigration minister told the inquiry.

It was something of a jaw-dropping performance, even by Morrison's standards. He swore on the Bible. He complained of bad eyesight. He huffed and puffed, gazed at the heavens at times, and at one point he accused the country's foremost human rights officer of verballing him.

He could not, however, escape the circularity of his own arguments. When asked whether he understood and had considered the documented effects of prolonged detention on children, Morrison was forced to concede "of course you take the advice, you assess all the information ... and you seek to mitigate the impacts of the policies you have in place ..."

But he hasn't, and the facts speak for themselves. The length of time a child spends in detention has more than tripled since the Coalition took office. In the month of September 2013, mostly under the previous government, 296 children were released into community detention. Only five were released the month after under the new Coalition government and just 149 have been released in total until March this year.

"I don't want to see children in detention. I'm doing a number of things to stop that," Morrison said with reference to his recent announcement, under significant public pressure, to remove 150 children under 10 from mainland detention.

But why the delay, he was repeatedly asked.

"That is the consequence of what Labor and the Greens decided to do in the Senate," Morrison said. It had been his purpose to reintroduce temporary protection visas as a deterrent, and because he couldn't do it, the children would stay where they were - that was the consequence.

There it was again. The circular logic.

At times he veered into attack mode, throwing questions back at the interrogators.

"Are you suggesting that Long Bay jail is the same as a pool-fenced alternative place of detention on Phosphate Hill on Christmas Island?" he barked at the commission president, Gillian Triggs.

"I know a prison when I see it," Triggs replied calmly.

At others times he invoked a more human side. "As a parent of two young children, the emotional challenges of working in this policy portfolio are just as real and just as great [as] they would be for any other parent in my position."

But time and again when confronted with the evidence, of atrocious, substandard medical facilities on Christmas Island, of self-harm and suicide attempts there, of delays to medical transfers, Morrison shut up shop, refusing to engage with what he mostly described as allegations rather than facts.

Most strikingly of all, he refused to talk about events on Nauru where documentary evidence of the sexual assault of children and " systematic violation " of children's rights has emerged. Digging into all that, Morrison believed, was not the purpose of the inquiry. The consequences, however, are likely to be experienced for decades, generations, to come.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inquiry into children in detention hears Scott Morrison talk in circles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Purpose and consequence. That was the distinction Scott Morrison attempted to draw at the national inquiry into children in immigration detention in Canberra on Friday. It was not his purpose to detain hundreds of children in Australia for an average of 349 days at the cost of their mental health.

# data[].attributes.body
That's all the children are

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freeing asylum seeker children from detention part of Scott Morrison's strategy to reintroduce temporary protection visas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the eve of a meeting with Clive Palmer, Scott Morrison has belatedly pledged to get young children out of mainland detention centres and into the community on bridging visas by year's end. To what end?

# data[].attributes.body
Don't be a ‘slacktivist’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ANYONE else's social networks dominated by causes begging for support?

Last month it was Facebook friends urging me to sign a petition to save Meriam Ibrahim, who was sentenced to death for alleged apostasy in Sudan, at the same time as every other Instagram image sported the hashtag #bringbackourgirls. Meanwhile my Twitter feed is filled with witty political criticisms ready to be re-tweeted.

In this digital age, people power is strong and far-reaching, tackling everything from international political issues to local economic ones, environmental concerns to social injustices.

And we don't even have to venture out into the mayhem of a political protest to do it: all it takes to lend our support is the click of a button. But does this click-and-share formula achieve anything? Does the armchair activist, or 'slacktivist', make any kind of change at all?

"Slacktivism is used to describe actions with no real practical effect that give someone a feeling of having contributed," says Jocelyn Brewer, a psychologist who specialises in the intersection of social media, society and behaviour. "It's usually associated with online sharing [and] posting of graphics or slogans to do with certain causes."

Surprise, surprise, we're taking our cue from Hollywood, where celebrities use their social networks to champion causes, encouraging their followers to do the same.

Think Michelle Obama posing with the hashtag #bringbackourgirls; Mia Farrow joining the #yesallwomen argument; model Robyn Lawley Instagramming a shot of herself naked with "Stop Coal Mining" scrawled across her stomach in lipstick; and Ellen DeGeneres, Sharon Osbourne and Stephen Fry taking to Twitter to boycott the Beverly Hills Hotel and London's The Dorchester Hotel over owner Sultan of Brunei's introduction of sharia law in his homeland, which would limit women's rights and human rights. These status updates might filter down to millions of fans, but their effectiveness is questionable.

Brewer says it's because most social-media posts lack the call to action concrete campaigning requires. She gives the example of an image accompanying a petition sent out by the Australian Greens, which is then shared on the social networks of a major lifestyle website. By the time that website's followers have shared it on their own networks, the link to the petition has fallen off, and with it, the point of the exercise.

"Slacktivism is the lowest common denominator in terms of action," Brewer explains. "Awareness is certainly better than knowing or doing nothing, but the challenge is to get people to step up beyond a simple 'like' and turn that into something more substantial."

Qinnie Wang, 29, a passionate advocate for fair trade, agrees. She started her online charity, ozfairtrade.org, because she wanted to do more than just click 'like', arguing that likes and shares offer a false satisfaction that fool us into thinking we've done something great.

"Slacktivism is identity-forming," says Brewer. "People develop a sense of your values and alliances by what you share and say online.

Even LinkedIn has a section where you can put charities and causes you support." Brewer highlights celebrity culture as a prime example of self-branding: for the minority of celebrities with ongoing investment in a particular cause (think Angelina Jolie's work with Unicef and Isabel Lucas's dolphin campaigns), there are obvious 'hat-tippers' trying to garner good publicity (see Kim Kardashian's eBay auction in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan, from which only 10 per cent of the profits actually went to charity).

But bandwagons and appearances aside, could online activism be preferential to the real thing for a lot more than just ease? A relatively anonymous way of protecting your real-world self from potential issues with family, employers or friends whose views clash with yours?

Stephen*, 34, realised early on in his career that his conservative views were the reason he wasn't hired for a position at a TV network, and subsequently learnt to keep his opinions quiet. More than a decade later, he still prefers the anonymity of online petitions over active participation in marches and even the sharing of social-media campaigns, because he's concerned about the repercussions on his future employment prospects, as well as his friendships.

"I have gay friends and I know if I post a comment against gay marriage, they'd think I was judging them personally, which isn't the case," he says.

Kate*, 36, empathises. Her job was threatened when she clashed with her employer over an issue tied to her religious beliefs, so she now prefers online activism - posting links and articles up to four times a day - to direct action because it creates less tension professionally.

"I'm comfortable with sharing things on Facebook, because it's a personal space," she explains. "It doesn't mean I'm less invested in my cause, but I've faced terrible consequences in the workplace, so I'm reluctant to speak up [publicly] unless I'm in a position to leave."

No doubt we've all bit our tongues at some point - whether at our in-laws' dinner table over our political views, or because we're afraid of being labelled hypocritical for holding on to a favourite leather bag now we've turned vegan. Just look at our PM: Tony Abbott's strong anti gay marriage stance is well known, but his sister Christine Forster has confidently stated that he and wife Margie will "definitely be there" when she weds fiancee Virginia Edwards, a move that will no doubt anger same-sex marriage supporters.

So does it matter if you don't act publicly on your deeply held beliefs? "Some people know their boundaries and will take smaller, safer steps for their cause," says Brewer. "Others choose to die for it."

How far you go depends on what you're willing to sacrifice, but if you'd rather protest from your smartphone instead of tying yourself to a tree, there might be hope for you after all. Alex White, board director of both Greenpeace and The Wilderness Society (Victoria), says the efforts of people who sign petitions are not "frictionless" - their actions make them three times more likely to donate to a cause.

Having witnessed the effect of digital support during his work on the 2012 presidential campaign for Barack Obama, White has a more favourable term for slacktivism: 'clicktivism', which he sees as a building block to other forms of support for a campaign.

"Clicktivism is a gateway to becoming more active in the real world," he says. "On the Obama campaign, there was a tight integration between 'field' elements and digital campaigns. You could pull lists of people who were 'digital-only' supporters and invite them to attend pro-Obama events, or to donate money."

He points out clicktivism's successes, arguing that while the Kony 2012 viral video campaign, which publicised the Invisible Children charity's push to arrest Ugandan Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (composed mainly of child soldiers), did not succeed, it did achieve its aim of making him the most notorious man in the world. It also hugely increased Invisible Children's donations.

White highlights that Facebook's increase in renewable-energy use was implemented after Greenpeace's Unfriend Coal campaign took clickers offline and to protests outside Facebook offices.

The Destroy the Joint campaign, organised on social media in response to broadcaster Alan Jones's on-air comment that women in public office were "destroying the joint", resulted in a Facebook community, 2GB advertisers withdrawing ads from the station, a growing engagement in online attacks against companies promoting sexism and an anthology of essays by prominent women advocating change.

Critics of this digital-only activism label it merely a marketing ploy, but surely there's something in reaching a generation through the means and the language they communicate with most?

The role of digital activism in the Arab Spring is a case in point: the protests that began in December 2010 spread lightning-fast thanks to Twitter - and have forced rulers from power in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

The world watched as an entire generation mobilised on social media and took action on the changes it was thirsting for, proving that when it comes to causes, method is secondary to passion. And there'd be many sit-in and tree-hugging predecessors who'd not only agree, but gladly click 'like' in support.
Follow Sarah on Twitter @sarahayoub
Download the Sunday Style app.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are we becoming a nation of 'slacktivists'?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ANYONE else's social networks dominated by causes begging for support? Last month it was Facebook friends urging me to sign a petition to save Meriam Ibrahim, who was sentenced to death for alleged apostasy in Sudan, at the same time as every other Instagram image sported the hashtag #bringbackourgirls.

# data[].attributes.body
Elder Park Rotunda 4:30pm

# data[].attributes.body
Join us

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Child Like Me. 275 likes · 1 talking about this. A Child Like Me is a social justice campaign which strives for the educational rights of children in immigration detention.

# data[].attributes.headline
bridging visas. but real change? and for how many?

# data[].attributes.subject
bridging visas. but real change? and for how many?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated August 19, 2014 21:25:07

Young children and their families held in asylum seeker detention in Australia will be released on bridging visas, but the policy will not extend to children being held on Nauru and Christmas Island.

The Government has announced new bridging visa arrangements to allow children under 10 held in residential facilities to be released into the community.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says the policy will apply to 150 children in detention out of the "500-odd" currently in those facilities.

"This is the dividend of stopping the boats," he said.

Mr Morrison said 1,547 children were in community detention at the end of July, although it is not clear how many of those would be affected.

Mr Morrison says the visas will be decided on a "case by case" basis.

"We are confident we can move a large number of them off community detention into the bridging visa program," he said.

Immigration department statistics state 404 children were in "alternative places of detention" in Australia as at the end of June.

Mr Morrison says the children and their families will be released on bridging visas before the end of the year.

"We still have some consultations we have to do with service providers," he told ABC's AM program.

"Because what this announcement does is ensures there's additional support provided to children under the age of 10 who are released with their families on bridging visas."

Previously, many of the children and their families had been held in community detention with no visa, no right to work and with requirements to regularly report to the immigration department.

Morrison faces calls to release all children from detention

Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has urged the Government to change its policy to not give work rights to adult family members.

In a statement, Professor Triggs says "children may be moved into difficult financial circumstances" if the policy does not change.

She has also pointed to the hundreds of children in offshore detention - 148 on Christmas Island and 193 children on Nauru - who will not be released.

Last month, Professor Triggs visited the Christmas Island facility and reported an unprecedented rate of self-harm among children there. She said the "desperation is palpable".

But 148 children on Christmas Island and 193 children on Nauru will not be released.

Mr Morrison says the policy applies to children who were in detention before July 19 last year - the date that the former Rudd Labor government announced new boat arrivals would all be sent offshore.

He says releasing children from offshore detention would revive the people smuggling business to Australia.

"I'm not going to put in place policies that [are] going to to encourage children to get on boats, because when children get on boats, they die on boats, and I don't think that's a very good humanitarian outcome," he said.

Greens leader Christine Milne says children should also be released from offshore facilities.

"There's just no excuse for locking up children, and to say we're going to lock up children and be cruel to them as a deterrent to others is an unacceptable way to behave," she told ABC News 24.

"We have got to look after children."

Opposition Immigration spokesman Richard Marles says the announcement is "spin" and Mr Morrison is claiming credit for Labor's expansion of the community detention program.

He says the Government now has to detail its plans to move children and families out of detention.

"Where is the new capacity? What are the new resources? And what is the advice which says that this decision should only apply to kids who are under 10?," Mr Marles said.

"The truth is that today's announcements raises many more questions."

But Mr Morrison has emphasised the Government's "success" in reducing the number of children in detention since the election.

He says the number of children in detention has dropped by 516 to 876, including those being held at Nauru.

He says the number of children on Christmas Island has declined from 425 to 148 at the end of last month.

Mr Morrison says the measure will save taxpayers more than $50 million over the forward estimates.

Official urged troubled Syrian asylum seekers to go home

Meanwhile it has been revealed that Immigration officials on Manus Island urged Syrian asylum seekers who were being treated for severe mental health issues to return home - telling them they would not be settled in Australia or a third country.

Syria is currently embroiled in a civil conflict that the Department of Foreign Affairs has described as an "extremely dangerous security situation, highlighted by ongoing military conflict, kidnappings and terrorist attacks".

The transferees were visibly upset and quite anxious, they were quite adamant that I would be sending them home to their death

Email from Manus Island detention centre official

The discussion is revealed in an email exchange in January between several senior Immigration Department staff, obtained by the Guardian Australia under Freedom of Information laws.

An official on Manus Island told colleagues in Australia about a meeting with three Syrian "transferees" currently on the Psychological Support Program (PSP) for asylum seekers at risk of self-harm.

"I did say that if they chose to return home, the department would work to get them home safely, with no guarantee of any time frames," the email states.

"The transferees were visibly upset and quite anxious, they were quite adamant that I would be sending them home to their death."

It explained a fourth Syrian asylum seeker had been at another similar meeting and that all of them "wanted to know what route they would take because most pathways are not safe".

A response from an official in Sydney said the "only option in terms of routing will have them flying into Syria from Jordan".

Earlier in the email chain, a manager from the Offshore Returns and Resettlement Branch had discussed how to handle the discussions with the asylum seekers, asking "are we in 'ultimatum' territory?".

Another official responded that: "At risk of being blunt, its [sic] Manus and wait until whenever the RSD process has been finalised or return to Syria".

The correspondence ends with a request for a teleconference because, as one official says, "a discussion is in order".

It is not known what has happened to the Syrian asylum seekers involved.

But in March, an email from the department's NSW Travel Unit to the Returns and Removals Strategy and Support Section asks for advice about a "voluntary Syrian removal" in early April.

"Escorts and RLOs [Removals Liaison Officers] will be accompanying detainees to Syria via Abu Dhabi and Amman," the email explains.

Topics: immigration, community-and-society, federal-government, australia

First posted August 19, 2014 07:19:33

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Children held in immigration detention set for release

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated August 19, 2014 21:25:07 Young children and their families held in asylum seeker detention in Australia will be released on bridging visas, but the policy will not extend to children being held on Nauru and Christmas Island. The Government has announced new bridging visa arrangements to allow children under 10 held in residential facilities to be released into the community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Almost 200 children are currently being held in detention on Nauru, some of them having arrived in Australia without their parents.

The statistics from the immigration department t ell the bare facts of the story, but the submissions from the children involved - the heartbreaking drawings, the letters with the pleas for help - convey the suffering endured.

The inquiry has heard from doctors who told stories of child self-harm on Nauru and Christmas Island, including poisoning attempts. The human rights commissioner addressed the inquiry, asking if Australians had gone too far.

In all it has received over 230 submissions on how life in detention affects the health and development of children facing prolonged periods behind bars, day in and day out.

For its part, the government maintains that the best way to keep children from being put in detention is to end people-smuggling to Australia.

The full list of submissions can be viewed here.

Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kids behind bars in Nauru: letters from children in immigration detention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Almost 200 children are currently being held in detention on Nauru, some of them having arrived in Australia without their parents. The statistics from the immigration department t ell the bare facts of the story, but the submissions from the children involved - the heartbreaking drawings, the letters with the pleas for help - convey the suffering endured.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The federal government faces mounting criticism for its handling of a group of Tamil asylum seekers, now in detention at Nauru.

It is the latest stop for the 157 people, including some 50 children, who are the subject of a high court case and have been on a "wretched rollercoaster" ride, Labor's immigration spokesman, Richard Marles, said.

Held at sea for three weeks on board a customs vessel, the asylum seekers were transferred last Sunday to Western Australia's Curtin detention centre.

But the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, said the group refused to speak with Indian officials, in a move he described as disappointing. He said the group was flown to Nauru overnight Friday.

One of the planes arrived at around noon on Saturday. Eyewitness sources told Guardian Australia that many of the Tamil men had rips in their shirts after they were forcibly put on the plane."

"They were traumatised," said a Nauru source.

Contractors are understood to have expressed concerns that there is not enough space to house them all on Nauru.

It is understood that the asylum seekers will be processed in the OPC1 camp - which does not hold families. It is likely they will then be moved to the family camp.

"This is Morrison's merry-go-round," Marles said on Saturday. The group should have been taken straight to Christmas Island but instead the government spruiked an agreement struck with India, he said.

Under the deal Indian consular officials would interview the asylum seekers at Curtin with the intention of taking back its residents.

But Morrison said when they refused to speak with officials the deal was off.

The refusal to talk to officials "coincidentally" came after asylum seekers met with their lawyers.

"Not only have the passengers been duped by people smugglers, they have also been let down by those who are supposed to be looking after their best interests," Morrison said, indicating they had "squandered" the chance of a positive outcome.

But lawyer acting for the Tamils, George Newhouse, denied he or his colleagues had advised the group not to meet with the Indian officials and knew nothing of the Friday night transfer to Nauru until he was alerted by media.

"We have not had a proper opportunity to inform our clients of their rights and their options because of the secrecy surrounding them," Newhouse said

The group will undergo processing at Nauru, a facility which has come under scrutiny from the Human Rights Commission and which Australian Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said was unsuitable for children.

"They are being used as political pawns in a desperate game for the minister to look tough," Hanson-Young said in Adelaide.

A number of asylum seekers detained in the family camp on Nauru have begun peaceful protests over conditions at the centre. Nauru sources said on Saturday that three Somali women had self-harmed on Friday night as part of the protests.

Amnesty International Australia condemned the transfer to Nauru and said the move violated the United Nations Refugee Convention by refusing to provide the opportunity to claim asylum and seek protection.

The Human Rights Law Centre described the three overnight flights ferrying the Tamils to Nauru as secretive.

"It highlights the government's deception, secrecy and willingness to undermine the rule of law in Australia," a centre spokesman said.

But Morrison and the prime minister, Tony Abbott, insisted the government's move was safe and in line with Australia's legal obligations.

Abbott hit out at refugee advocacy groups, some members of the Labor party and the Greens.

"I'm sure they're not doing it deliberately but unwittingly they are giving aid and comfort to the people smugglers ... to a trade in death," he said. The kindest humanitarian thing to do is to work to stop the boats, Abbott added.

If successful in their bid for asylum, members of the Tamil group will be settled at Nauru and if unsuccessful, they will be taken to Sri Lanka.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abbott government faces barrage of criticism over 'secret' Nauru transfer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The federal government faces mounting criticism for its handling of a group of Tamil asylum seekers, now in detention at Nauru. It is the latest stop for the 157 people, including some 50 children, who are the subject of a high court case and have been on a "wretched rollercoaster" ride, Labor's immigration spokesman, Richard Marles, said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"I received a text from one of my colleagues, and he wrote, I feel like we have failed," says Kon Karapanagiotidis. "I texted back and wrote, Yeah, so do I."

It is a few days after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced his "PNG solution" to his latest political crisis, whereby no asylum seeker arriving by boat will be settled in Australia. My friend and colleague Karapanagiotidis, the founder and CEO of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC), shows a rare moment of doubt and confusion. But it doesn't last long before he's thumping the table, remarshalling his forces.

"We are going to have to fight harder, push harder. We are going to have to become even more outspoken. We are going to have to go out there and be as fearless as we can. The success of the Centre is in fighting from adversity. I learnt that lesson from childhood, at school." That would be the primary school in regional Victoria, at Mount Beauty, where the kids taunted him with, "Wog, wog, why don't you go back to your own country, dirty wog?"

Such is the man's charisma that I am sold: I believe that the result of a 15-year campaign that has bred fear, misconceptions and fury about asylum seekers can still be turned around. But listening back to the interview later that day at home, the words that resonate most are: I feel like we have failed.

The ASRC itself hasn't failed. That is crucial to note. Over the 12 years since Karapanagiotidis and his welfare studies students started up the organisation in a small shopfront in Melbourne's inner west with only a few hundred dollars, it has provided legal, employment, community and health services to nearly 10,000 asylum seekers. Now situated in a three-storey building in the CBD, it employs 45 staff and 872 volunteers, and has a thousand more people wanting to help in any way they can. Every single woman, man and child the ASRC has assisted counts as a success, but the fact remains that broader efforts to change Australians' hearts and minds about the treatment of asylum seekers haven't succeeded. We'll lock up asylum seekers in offshore detention centres, we'll stand idly by as they slowly go crazy or harm themselves, we'll refuse journalists the right to speak to them or to name them, we'll redefine our borders to not let them in, we'll farm them off to our impoverished, under-developed neighbours rather than construct a humane and efficient system to process their claims for asylum. It doesn't matter to us that more than 85% of asylum seekers who arrive here by boat are found to be genuine refugees, and that as signatories to the UN Refugee Convention we are obliged to offer these people refuge.

We have failed. You can't rewrite this recent history, centred on the abandonment of a bipartisan agreement on immigration policy and multiculturalism, a reactionary moment that stretches from One Nation to Tampa to the "Stop the Boats" sloganeering to the PNG solution. Those of us who wanted and fought for a just and compassionate response to this issue must now face some hard questions: what are the consequences of this failure for progressive politics? What does it mean for the kind of Australia we are now? And the kind of Australia we will become?

The shambolic and unedifying leadership challenges of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have blinded us to the real problem facing the ALP, the one that goes back to Kim Beazley, and to the Labor Party's inability at the start of the 21st century to decide what it stood for and who it represented - whether it wanted to become a social democratic party that continued the economic liberalisation reforms initiated by Bob Hawke and Paul Keating or remain a traditionally working-class movement that argued for a tactical and sceptical distance from the market. Under Beazley, then Simon Crean, Mark Latham, Beazley again, Rudd and Gillard and now back to Rudd, the ALP couldn't make up its mind, flirting with the moguls when it came to media laws, for example, but playing the class-warfare card when it came to mining. The electorate sensed the confusion and, already anxious about the pace of change, traditional working-class voters have largely abandoned the party.

The rise of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party from 1997 was ultimately evidence of the Australian public's resentment and fear of globalisation. The media focused on that party's incendiary rhetoric on race and immigration, but lost in the noise was that One Nation also articulated people's legitimate concerns about the pace of economic change. The party tapped into a desire among many working-class Australians to wind back the economic reforms of the previous decades, particularly those that were seen to lead to the loss of permanent full-time work in favour of casual jobs and the retreat of manufacturing industries offshore. Meanwhile, John Howard was canny enough to catch onto the xenophobia and the rejection of multiculturalism underpinning One Nation's platform and, through "wedge politics", to bring disaffected voters into the Coalition's fold. A sizeable portion of the disaffected could have been brought back to Labor had the party managed to find a way of addressing concerns about globalisation and its effects that did not rely on fanning the insular response stoked by One Nation. But then, two months out from the 2001 election, Tampa happened, and Beazley blinked. His collusion with the Howard government to demonise the asylum seekers on board the Norwegian freighter indicated the weakness of both his leader-ship and the party he represented. The Labor Party bled members and votes.

I want to believe that if Beazley had stood his ground, if he had refuted the hysteria that drove the " Tampa election" and had sustained an objection to the misinformation about asylum seekers throwing "children overboard", then Labor would have consolidated itself as a genuine social democratic party. The alternative, and it might have been even more effective, was for the party to have explicitly prioritised working-class concerns over other socially progressive issues. It would have meant losing voters like me to the Greens, but that occurred anyway. A decision by the Labor Party to affirm its traditional base would have forced left-wingers to articulate their politics as they related to life outside the inner cities: not only the politics of asylum seekers and immigration, but also the politics of feminism, sexuality, Aboriginal rights and sovereignty, climate change and the environment. It would have led to an acknowledgement that the left couldn't take Labor for granted and that they couldn't leave the hard work to activists like Karapanagiotidis. It would have meant the left had to get off their arses.

Obviously, the winner in all this seems to be the Coalition. But when and if the Coalition gains power there will still be contradictions to be confronted. The anger at the effects of globalisation - the deterioration in services and infrastructure across the country, the increasing "casualisation" of the Australian workforce, the growing gap between the inner city and the rest of society, the ageing working population, the degradation of our transport, education and health systems - can't be addressed through "stopping the boats". Howard, it should not be forgotten, lost his popularity once he introduced the WorkChoices industrial reforms.

The last 15 years of political history in Australia have shown that the electorate is not convinced of globalisation's benefits. It is why asylum seeker policy has been at the centre of the Coalition's attempts to undermine both the Rudd and Gillard governments. It dare not be upfront about the effects of neoliberalism. It is also why Rudd's PNG solution initially blindsided the Coalition, reducing its members to searching for evidence that it won't work, trying to top it until they finally came up with an even more desperate and ungenerous policy. Yet all of us, no matter which side of the asylum seeker debate we fall on, know that even if all the bloody boats were stopped, if they were all sent back into Indonesian waters, if we put all those on board into camps in a deprived satellite nation, if we exterminated the whole fucking lot of them - every blighted man, woman and child - none of this would speed up the two-hour drive on choked roads that we take to and from work, boost the numbers of nurses and doctors in our public hospitals, make our education system any better, or increase wages, the dole or our pension payments. We all know this.

The reality is that there isn't "one nation" that makes up Australia, only competing notions of "nationhood". There is the cosmopolitan, educated nation of the inner cities and the parochial, anxious communities of the urban fringes and the bush. Asylum seeker rights are easily understood and supported by cosmopolitan Australians. We are well-travelled, we are not suspicious of multiculturalism and we are confident of processing and adjusting to change. At the same time, we rubbish their McMansions while gentrification makes the inner city unaffordable, and we castigate them for their cashed-up lack of generosity while it is in fact their kids mixing with the children of refugees.

Karapanagiotidis refers to focus-group testing over the last decade that consistently shows that when Australians are asked about the issues that affect daily life most significantly, asylum seekers have never made it into the top 20. Fixating on the treatment of asylum seekers, currently the most destitute class among our body politic, is the easiest way for those anxious and sceptical of globalisation to get to their real target: us, the cosmopolitans. The asylum seekers are collateral damage. We're really the ones they want to blame.

The first day I visit the ASRC, I notice a group of five men, all young, all Middle Eastern, sitting outside the Centre chatting. I tense up. I am astonished at my response. Their gaze falls on me, and then very quickly they turn away. Walking past them, I do my best not to look these young men in the eye. Nothing they do is threatening. They are a group of good-looking young men enjoying a brief break of sunshine in the middle of a Melbourne winter. Nevertheless I am intimidated and, if I am honest, this feeling sparks resentment. It is an ugly, ungenerous moment but it makes me aware that I am not untouched by the shame and fear that is my country's dominant response to asylum seekers.

The Centre is full of people, from across Asia, Africa and the Middle East. A young African girl, no more than three or four, is playing gleefully at a piano while her mother is chatting. Among the children and the women I feel safe, but the men scare me. Inadvertently I turn away from them, as they do from me. We seem to recognise that there is some gulf, something that separates us.

I imagine that Jana Favero, the director of the "community pillar" of the ASRC, would be impatient with me if I were to reveal such trepidation. From childhood she has experienced and understood the conditions refugees live under. Her Italian father met her Australian mother in the 1970s, travelling through Afghanistan. Both fell in love with the country, so much so that Favero's father converted to Islam. After the Soviet invasion in 1979, he started work on a documentary, Frontline Afghanistan. He was killed on the last day of filming. Favero's mother received the news as the family waited for him to join them in Bali. Determined to finish the documentary, which would go on eventually to win a Logie, her mother returned with the children to Afghanistan. Favero remembers being a seven-year-old, visiting a refugee camp and having young Afghan children run away from her, screaming. Favero had blonde hair and the children were terrified of her, thinking she was a Russian invader. Her mother's solution was to dye her children's hair black.

Such experiences must contribute to the air of confidence that Favero exudes. She was a highly paid marketing professional before she began working for the ASRC. I ask her if she has any regrets and she answers, "God, no!" Her corporate experience allows her to speak effectively to the business community. As the ASRC is reliant on donations, receiving no federal government money, this expertise is vital. It also means she can communicate with politicians from both sides of politics.

"They all say the same thing," she tells me. "That they agree the policies are harsh, short-sighted, but they insist we need to change people's opinions first. Change the electorate first and then we'll follow, is what they all say."

"This is from both Labor and Coalition politicians?"

She nods. Her small smile is playful and speaks volumes about the venality of our political class.

"How do we change hearts and minds? That is the work we need to do."

"Whose are the hardest to change?" I ask her.

"Older males over 50, largely Anglo-Celtic. Then, second- and third-generation migrants, from the families that immigrated to Australia after World War Two."

Favero outlines the work she thinks the ASRC needs to do in the future, including finding ways to reach the long-term migrant communities whose first language isn't English. Meanwhile, I am trying to process that she is speaking of my community, that the wogs are one of the hardest communities to make understand that asylum seekers are neither danger nor threat.

"I agree with Malcolm Fraser," Favero continues. "We haven't had the discussion about challenging racism in this country."

I look up. There it is: the "R word". It's the word that slips in and out of my interviews with Karapanagiotidis, that beats quietly but insistently in conversations, arguments and debates about asylum seeker policy.

How do we talk about the R word?

The nervousness that kept me from looking in the direction of the young asylum seekers arises from a racist fear. I am not going to deny that. The fear need not be rational. It was not, in that case, and therefore it led to shame, which soured into anger and resentment. I have experienced this exact same situation before, walking in an Alice Springs mall, averting my eyes from the Aborigines I passed, just as they did not look in my direction. Don't blame me, it's not my fucking fault.

At one point in our discussions, Karapanagiotidis refers to racism as the "elephant in the room" when it comes to debates on asylum seeker policy. By not confronting the reality of racism, we can only look at the issue through a distorted lens. At the same time - and this is a point overlooked by the left, another of our failures - reducing the whole debate to the question of racism is equally problematic and unsatisfactory.

Howard's appeasement of One Nation supporters was a tacit endorsement of both Australian racism and parochialism. Similarly, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 seemed to legitimate a fear of Islam. Our sensationalist popular media has no qualms about provoking fear of asylum seekers, and of Muslims. But we buy into parochialism if we fail to see that racism and xenophobia are not specifically Australian but undercurrents that are challenging social democracies across the Western world. The Australian who claims this continent to be "God's own" and the one who dismisses it as "the most racist shithole on Earth" share a certain insularity. Both reactions curtail conversation, and neither will admit qualification. The question is why there has been a rise in anti-multicultural and anti-immigration policies across Europe, Australia and North America.

I am reminded of a moment during the 2010 election when a friend, who had been door-knocking for the Greens in Melbourne's inner north, challenged me about the number of Greeks and Italians who openly expressed hostility to asylum seekers and refugees. "Why is that, Christos?" he asked. "Why are immigrants from your part of the world so racist?" At that moment I felt shamed, inarticulate. As with Karapanagiotidis, my identity has been formed partly through my experiences of racism. Consequently, resisting and battling racism has become central to my ethics, but racism in the Australian Greek community is something I have been aware of all my life.

The successive waves of immigrants coming to Australia after the abolition of the White Australia Policy have been mostly of peasant stock, from Europe, from Asia, and then from Africa and the Middle East. All those communities have known struggle and experienced exile, but you don't have to spend a long time in the villages my parents came from to recognise an ingrained suspicion of outsiders. To those still living there, even I am a foreigner, let alone someone of another ethnicity or religion. Of course, the shared experience of war, poverty and exile elicits empathy, too. This is why both my friend and I assumed immigrants and refugees would show compassion for others in the same plight. This empathy can be instilled into the second and third and even maybe subsequent generations. (Isn't that what working-class pride was all about?) It is Karapanagiotidis' strong sense of his parents' struggles, first as tobacco pickers in rural Victoria and then as factory workers in the city, that inspires his work. That is the case for Favero as well. But, again, we are taking too much for granted if we assume that a Greek immigrant answering the door knows the names of any asylum seekers, has been told their individual stories or heard anything beyond what has been spouted on Today Tonight or Nine News.

Like Favero, I firmly agree with Malcolm Fraser, but we can't assume racial politics are fixed and unchanging. Just as 20 years ago I would have not foreseen writing, " I firmly agree with Malcolm Fraser", maybe there is something positive to be gleaned from the wogs being as casually racist and uninformed as "the Aussies". Maybe it speaks to a certain success of multiculturalism. It took Karapanagiotidis and me a long time to accept being Australians; we were too conscious of the racism directed at us and our families. I am in no way justifying that ignorance, only indicating something of the complexity in mapping our racial and immigrant histories. Wog, wog, why don't you go back to your own country, dirty wog? That was said to us once, then it was said to Asians and now it is said to Muslims. I assume it is also clear this is no ground for complacency. But if One Nation and the subsequent political reactions to Hanson's party revealed a chasm in Australia - on one side monarchist, nationalist and proudly Anglo-Celtic; on the other, republican, cosmopolitan and equally proudly multicultural - then maybe the appearance of the Aussie wog or the Aussie Asian or the Aussie Jew or the Aussie Lebo or, yes, the Aussie Aborigine indicates that the divide isn't unbridgeable. We can't get there without clear-headed and bold political leadership. We can't get there by turning up our pious, righteous noses at flag-waving. We have to have the discussion first.

"I have lied. It has been a Friday night at the pub and it has been an exhausting week, then someone drunk asks me what I do and I just make something up." Hayley Mansfield, the director of the "justice pillar" at the ASRC, is responding to my question on how she musters the energy to keep battling misconceptions about asylum seekers.

"I am so proud of my work," she insists, and then laughs. "I am really proud of this Centre. It is just sometimes easier to say I work as a receptionist at Big W."

There have been moments in conversations with my relatives, or at barbecues, or at weddings, when I, too, have had to steel myself to hear another bout of vitriol on the topic. I don't work with asylum seekers every day; I don't have to think about the issue constantly. I can shut it off.

Mansfield shows no sign of bitterness. She maps out the importance of advocacy and is convinced that real change can occur through education. She is also upfront that, as a young adolescent in rural Victoria, she believed that asylum seekers were dangerous or not authentic refugees, that they were queue jumpers who were rorting the system. That's what she heard and saw in the media, that was the conversation at school and at the dinner table. It wasn't till she started university in Melbourne that she began accessing information that told her another story. It wasn't until she started volunteering at the ASRC and meeting asylum seekers that her opinions changed.

"Australians are racist," my parents would say to me as I was growing up. "They are racist and they are amorphoté. That's the real problem in this country."

How do I translate this Greek word? Literally, it means to be uneducated but this is inadequate. My parents were not educated people; born to peasant families, they didn't undergo secondary schooling. What Mum and Dad were referring to was a code of behaviour, a civility that they believed Australians lacked. Compassion and generosity, kindness: these are integral to Hayley Mansfield's character. But those qualities don't exist as givens. If Karapanagiotidis was animated by the racism dished out to his parents and himself, Mansfield's passion for this issue was built on educating herself, on questioning the media spin. I know that if my mother were to meet Mansfield, she would think her the opposite of amorphoté.

As I am talking to her, I notice a handsome young man at the table across from us. Possibly Afghan, he is flicking through a magazine, awaiting food. From time to time he checks out Mansfield. I am not surprised; she is a beautiful woman. That small human moment - the universality and ubiquity of human desire - flusters me. I recall that earlier moment, walking past the group of men outside the ASRC. This time my shame isn't deflected into selfish resentment. I want to laugh at myself, at the ridiculousness of my own fears. A state edifice has been built to keep me from encountering and knowing these men - they can't be interviewed or named, their stories can't be told. All it takes is one glimpse of an innocent expression of human desire to make the scaffolding fall away.

Mansfield's next statement makes me think she has been reading my mind. She is talking of the work the legal team at the ASRC does in representing asylum seekers along their Kafkaesque journey through the refugee appeals process. It is a description studded with acronyms, a game of snakes and ladders, in which it is assumed first appeals will fail and asylum seekers are kept in a limbo that destroys their resolve and their psychic strength. Mansfield tells me the story of a young homosexual man who claimed refugee status on the grounds that if he returned to his own country, he would be imprisoned or killed. At the Refugee Review Tribunal he was asked to name five Madonna songs, as if his failure to do so might be telling.

I don't think it's because I am gay that this one small incident - a drop in the bucket in terms of the humiliations asylum seekers are put through in order to justify their claims - lays bare the banal evil of the system we have created to deal with the "asylum seeker problem". Someone paid by the federal government, someone who has probably studied at a tertiary level, someone who must have had an inkling that the ubiquity of American popular culture may stop at the point where dictatorship and poverty and underdevelopment take over: this person has been allowed to ask such a question. This is what amorphoté means: it is not about academic education, it is barbarity, pure and simple.

We can't understand what is now happening in our nation without understanding racism, but there is something more insidious and dangerous at work. Australia doesn't have a monopoly on racism, and the statelessness of the asylum seeker is a global tragedy. There is also ignorance, a willed ignorance. It may just be this that is unique about Australia at the present moment. All our political parties know that we are underpopulated, facing an ageing citizenship, with an unsustainable welfare system. We are not alone in this: all social democracies are experiencing this huge demo-graphic and economic shift. It is a strange time, when all political and economic certainties have been washed away by the king tide of the global financial crisis.

How do any of us speak confidently about the future? What I know is that if I do make it to old age, I won't be expecting those who'll be wiping my arse or emptying my catheter bag in a nursing home to be Australian. It is going to be the newcomers who will do that work - whether they arrive by boat or plane, whether asylum seeker, refugee or migrant. If it isn't the newcomers, if it isn't the migrants, then Australians are going to have to radically restructure their labour laws, their aspirations, and their sense of entitlement regarding work conditions, benefits and pensions. That is the discussion that our political parties should be having, those are the discussions all of us should be having. That we are instead facing a sixth consecutive election where the asylum seeker issue lies at the heart of the choice the electorate must make says something about how deep in the sand we have placed our heads. We don't talk about what is going to be happening here in 20 years because we are all bereft - left, right, Green, conservative - of such long-term vision.

As Karapanagiotidis keeps reiterating in our discussions, immigration has been great for this country. Immigration numbers are going to have to increase once more if we are to address the great infrastructure challenges awaiting us. It angers, frustrates and saddens him that a potential labour force has been lost through the punitive, kneejerk laws that prohibit asylum seekers from working. He talks of a visionary Australia where we are leaders in our region, where we are building and manufacturing and producing. He talks of how immigration can revive country towns, how he knows that from experience. A week later I am driving to the coast and have to wait in sprawling traffic on a small country road where they have been fixing a 25-metre bridge for over two years now. I won't name the town or even the state. We've all driven across such bridges, know how long it takes for such works to be completed in this country. I don't begrudge the workers their conditions and their rights; I strongly defend them, but those conditions and those rights aren't going to build this country's future. Labor knows it and, though you might not think it given its reactionary alignment with anti-globalisation groups, the Coalition knows this as well.

I was very fortunate, before he passed away, to have had time with my father when he talked about the hardships of his childhood and youth in a Greece destroyed by occupation and civil war. He also talked of when he first came to Australia. One of his most joyous memories was of the mountains of central Tasmania, near the township of Bronte, when he worked for the Australian government on the hydro-electric scheme. He loved the wilderness of the island but was astonished that so few people lived there. Till the very end he would say to me, "Christo, this country can support so many more people."

There needs to be some system to minimise boat arrivals, and a fair-minded and workable regional solution would indeed save lives. Indonesia cannot be let off the hook for catalysing such human tragedy. Our neighbour's covert legitimation of people-smuggling shows we have competition in the race to the bottom when it comes to the treatment of asylum seekers.

There needs to be an alternative to settling people here that reaches beyond welfare and the ghetto. We are an island nation and we are not going to have open borders. That means there should be obligations and responsibilities that asylum seekers will have to take on if they arrive outside the auspices of the UN; that is, those who come here by boat. Might that be working to build infrastructure for five or seven years in remote areas, the way my father paid for his passage here? Is it being settled in rural Australia, to work in hospitals and on farms where there are labour shortages? I don't know. I am not a politician or a social planner but I think those are precisely the conversations we should be having. In forgoing a humane and economically viable way of dealing with asylum seekers, we have squandered opportunities.

There is a photograph of my father from when he first arrived in this country, attached to his immigration documents. He is terribly thin, his cheeks sunken, his eyes downcast; though he is very young he looks so very beaten. That is what poverty and civil war can do. He looks like the men outside the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the men who scared me. He looks exactly like them.

In Footscray, in Melbourne's inner west, Pamela Curr, the ASRC's detention rights advocate, takes me on a visit to see the conditions that asylum seekers live in. "It used to be a nursing home and now it has been requisitioned to house asylum seekers just out of detention," she says. It is a squat and ugly '60s building, and as soon as we walk through the foyer, we are surrounded by young women and men, and by children. Curr is a dignified and strikingly handsome older woman and it is clear that for many of the asylum seekers she is a friend. We meet Sister Brigid Arthur, an elderly nun who has been looking after asylum seekers for years. She is already at work when we enter, answering questions, trying to allocate rooms and set up appointments with volunteer lawyers. She, too, has these young people's trust. One of the men turns to me and whispers in his broken English, "They are angels, these women."

I am introduced to another young man, his pregnant wife and their three-year-old daughter. His English is excellent and he tells me he is a lawyer. The family are originally from Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan. This polite and chivalrous man, his smiling partner and their laughing daughter have fled the Taliban, they have made a perilous ocean journey on a fishing boat, they have been locked up in an offshore detention centre. Now they share a small cubicle, and sleep together on a single mattress that only just fits in the cramped space. But the man is excited: today they are off to see a unit in neighbouring Maidstone that he hopes to rent for his family. I come along, and as we walk up to the gate, he says to me, "I just want to work. Why won't they let me work? All I want to do is work." But the Labor government's "no advantage" legislation means he is not permitted to work. He and his family depend on charity.

The unit is a brick-veneer shit-box, with only one bedroom and no laundry except for a basin outside that is smeared with bird faeces. The family seem ecstatic; they might finally have a place of their own. They would still have to wait on a mattress promised to them by the Department of Immigration. There is also no fridge, no other bedding; they are fortunate that the unit has a gas heater installed.

As I am about to leave, the man grabs my hand and shakes it vigorously, telling me he wishes he had something to offer me. I have more than I need. This is shame. All I can do is wish him luck.

I wave my goodbye to Curr and jump on a train to take me home. It is the middle of the afternoon but the carriage is nearly full. I make my way down the aisle. There are two Aussie men, off their faces and calling out abuse. There are a drunk teenage couple, a white boy and an indigenous girl, taking swigs from a bottle. When a young Asian student looks up at them, just for an instant, the girl snarls, "What are you looking at, cunt?"

I know where to sit. I don't sit next to the teenagers or anywhere near the two blokes on ice. I sit across from an Indian woman and her child, next to an elderly Italian gentle-man who proffers a smile. The two Aussie guys are still shouting and cursing and the old Italian shrugs, his eyes twinkle, as if saying, What do you do?

Yeah, what do you do with the amorphoté?

At this moment, all I want is to seize the two men, the teenage couple, to grab all those whining, whingeing, ignorant shits, put them on a boat and send them off to sea. At that moment, I'd happily exchange tens of thousands of people from Iran and Sri Lanka and Afghanistan and Sudan for these Aussies and all those Aussies like them. I reckon that would be an exchange worth making.

On the train I have taken out my notebook, wanting to write down my impressions of the world Curr introduced me to. After a few short points I find myself doodling: I have drawn a map of this country and in the middle written the words: This is an immigrant's nation: if you don't like it, fuck off!

Kon Karapanagiotidis is a kinder man than I am. After more than 20 years of volunteer work with Melbourne's poor and homeless, with people just like those kids and guys on the train, he has learnt to resist the rash leap to judgement. He tells me of his first experience working at a shelter for homeless men.

Karapanagiotidis has tattooed on his arm " pathos ", the Greek word for passion. Passion has driven this man to take on both small-town racism and big-city bigotry, it has led him to work tirelessly with people living with AIDS and HIV, with prostitutes and junkies, as well as with homeless men. He has five degrees and is currently studying at the Melbourne Business School: he's going for his sixth. How does he not get bitter, how does he not give in to the hate that stewed in me on my train journey home?

"I need to think this: that at their heart the Australians are good, compassionate, decent people ... but [this belief] is tested. I look at what is happening and think, Do I want to imagine that or is it that most Australians really are racist? I don't want to think that because thinking that is untenable, I don't want to believe that ... I love this country, its natural beauty, I love its landscape, the extraordinary culture and contribution of its indigenous peoples, its mix of incredible cultures. I love my city; Melbourne is the place I call home. The sense of peace and safety and diversity."

It is a vision. At this moment, I think it is a failed one. Without our politicians finding a vision to match or challenge that of Karapanagiotidis, it doesn't really matter which party wins the election. Whoever wins, we'll just stumble along, not talking about climate change or population or immigration, not letting any of the hard challenges ahead disturb our torpor.

Christos Tsiolkas is the author of five novels, including The Slap and Barracuda, and the short-story collection Merciless Gods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"I received a text from one of my colleagues, and he wrote, I feel like we have failed," says Kon Karapanagiotidis. "I texted back and wrote, Yeah, so do I." It is a few days after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced his "PNG solution" to his latest political crisis, whereby no asylum seeker arriving by boat will be settled in Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Asylum seekers News, Research and Analysis - The Conversation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Browse Asylum seekers news, research and analysis from The Conversation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC), Footscray, Victoria, Australia. 316,177 likes · 20,963 talking about this · 851 were here. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) is both a movement and an...

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/hrinquiry

https://www.facebook.com/jack.h.smit?fref=nf

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.facebook.com/mark.riessen

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.facebook.com/groups/bringbackthewoodvillekids/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Facebook event can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/events/1440132342938800/?ref=4 If you haven't already, please consider signing our petition: http://chn.ge/1q5cCWn When I was 16, I couldn't imagine being subjected to the ordeal which seems all too familiar to our boys. On Saturday morning, we'll take to the steps of Parliament House to show our game changers and policy shakers that we've only just begun.

# data[].attributes.body
by Michael Forman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

The father of a three-year-old Tamil girl on board a missing boat of asylum seekers says he waits by the phone for her call.

"I am waiting every day to hear from her, I live every day with that hope. I want to know what has happened to her, and I hope nobody is frightening my daughter."

Febrina, 3, was on a boat of 153 asylum seekers that has gone missing en route to Australia.
Photo: Supplied

Speaking to Fairfax Media from Europe, the father of three-year-old Febrina said he had had no contact with his daughter or wife for 10 days.

He has publicly asked the Australian government to reveal where the asylum seekers are and where they will be taken.

It is understood the 153 asylum seekers, all Tamils, and including 37 children, were intercepted in the Indian Ocean more than a week ago and taken on board the customs vessel the Oceanic Protector.

There is speculation those taken from the boat will be handed over to the custody of the Sri Lankan navy, as a previous boatload of 41 asylum seekers was on Sunday.

However, a last-minute temporary injunction issued by the High Court late Monday may prevent the second boatload from being sent to Sri Lanka.

Febrina's father, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he and his wife had separately fled the north of Sri Lanka after being harassed and persecuted by security forces.

"I was suspected of supporting the Tamil Tigers, so I was arrested and tortured by police. I fled the island. My wife also had problems from the police and military. Neither of us could live there."

Three-year-old Febrina has never been to Sri Lanka. She was born in a refugee camp in southern India.

"She has never seen the island. She has been in a refugee camp her whole life. But because her parents are refugees from Sri Lanka, the Indian government says she is a Sri Lankan citizen."

Febrina's father said if those on board the boat were returned, they would face retribution.

"I am certain they will face torture, they might even get killed. The Sri Lankan government does not forget the past. They will come for them."

A Sri Lankan police spokesman confirmed all of the 41 asylum seekers returned on Sunday would face the Galle Magistrates court, charged with leaving the country illegally.

"They will be charged under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act. The sentence for those who are proved to have left illegally is two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine," Ajith Rohana said.

Febrina's father disagreed with Prime Minister Tony Abbott's assessment that Sri Lanka was a country "at peace".

"While it may seem the country is peaceful, many Tamil people live in fear. Atrocities are taking place and we cannot live in Sri Lanka."
with Agencies

Ben Doherty is Senior Correspondent for Fairfax Media. He was formerly South Asia Correspondent and Southeast Asia Correspondent for Fairfax, reporting from across the Asian region. He won a Walkley Award in 2013 for a series of stories on Australian links to dangerous Bangladeshi factories, and was the 2008 Young Australian Print Journalist of the Year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Father of Tamil girl on missing asylum seeker boat waits by phone to hear from her

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size The father of a three-year-old Tamil girl on board a missing boat of asylum seekers says he waits by the phone for her call. "I am waiting every day to hear from her, I live every day with that hope.

# data[].attributes.body
Elder Park Rotunda 4:30pm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Detained children's mental health problems covered up, inquiry told

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inquiry into children in detention also hears that asylum seekers' medications were seized and destroyed on arrival

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At least 80% of the 157 Tamil asylum seekers held at Curtin detention centre after nearly a month at sea have shown signs of having suffered mental trauma, Guardian Australia has been told.

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said she had been told by a reliable source that four in five of the asylum seekers had been assessed by mental health workers in the centre as showing signs of having suffered torture and trauma.

Guardian Australia has been told by a second source, with knowledge of the asylum seekers, that the number could be higher.

The asylum seekers left Pondicherry in India on 11 June. Ethnic Tamils have fled Sri Lanka after the traumatic conclusion of a civil war fought between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the government, amid claims that Tamils have been abused and tortured.

Hanson-Young had attempted to visit the Curtin centre on Wednesday but was told at the last minute her visit had not been given ministerial permission.

The Daily Telegraph on Thursday reported on a leaked Serco document claiming that visits to detention centres by refugee advocates and lawyers causes a rise in self-harm in asylum seekers. The Daily Telegraph report, which does not publish the document in full, claims that "when Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young turns up at a detention centre, there is a corresponding spike in 'incidents' involving asylum seekers".

Hanson-Young dismissed the claims as a "beat-up" to distract attention from what is going on in Australia's detention facilities.

"It seems more [about] the government finding an excuse to keep politicians, advocates and lawyers out of detention centres than it is about the genuine issues facing people inside," she told ABC Radio on Thursday.

"I talk to asylum seekers about the things they want to raise with me."

The immigration minister, Scott Morrison, would not comment directly on the leaked report, referring to an earlier statement that said Hanson-Young had been denied access to Curtin based on the "interests of the good management and safety of the centre".

Earlier this month Guardian Australia obtained a leaked Serco report which specifically stated that rises in self-harm were directly related to the government's policy of mandatory offshore processing and resettlement.

"There has been an increase in self-harm, particularly on Christmas Island where the detainee cohort is most heavily impacted by new policies," the report warned. It continues by noting that "as time in detention continues to increase, it is likely that a corresponding increase will be experienced more broadly across the IDN [immigration detention network]".
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tamil asylum seekers: 80% reported showing signs of torture and trauma

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At least 80% of the 157 Tamil asylum seekers held at Curtin detention centre after nearly a month at sea have shown signs of having suffered mental trauma, Guardian Australia has been told.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The subject of refugees is a highly emotive one. I've never felt it to be a bleaker time in my living memory of our history than when we were imprisoning already traumatised people - and their CHILDREN - behind razor wire.

I'll come clean about my own position. It's one of compassion. Don't talk to me about queues because this is not the Qantas terminal. In many war torn countries or places where people are being persecuted, there ARE no queues, no orderly manner of immigration. It's life and death. And if were YOUR life and death, the life or death of your children, would you take a non-existant number and wait in an orderly fashion to probably die? I wouldn't.

It is not illegal to turn up unannounced and ask for asylum. It is a basic human right. And my belief is that refugees and boat people have been often used as political pawns by governments who have wanted to capitalise on our most base and unattractive xenophobia (fear of foreigners) as a way to draw popular support. At the expense of the people who have the least in the world. The people who most need our compassion and ourhelp.

Anyway. I'm sure you have your own views. Everyone tends to. But the issue has cropped up again and I thought it might be useful to lay out some very basic facts. These facts are not my opinions or matters for conjecture. They're just the facts. What you make of them is up to you.

HOW MANY REFUGEES IN THE WORLD TODAY?

42 million people are uprooted from their homes today

16 million people are refugees and asylum seekers

26 million people are Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE REFUGEES
Australia receives refugees in 2 ways:

1. Through it's offshore Refugee and Special Humanitarian program or

2. As onshore asylum seekers

OFFSHORE: AUSTRALIA'S REFUGEE AND SPECIAL HUMANITARIAN PROGRAM

Australia's Refugee and Special Humanitarian program is amongst the best in the world.

People are deemed refugees by the UNHCR offshore and are re-settled in Australia. (E.g., Sudanese community in Blacktown, NSW).

Through the program, people are integrated into the Australian community.

The UNHCR chief António Guterres praised Australia's refugee resettlement services when he visited Australia in February 2009.

HOW MANY REFUGEES DOES AUSTRALIA TAKE THROUGH ITS OFFSHORE PROGRAM?

13,750 refugees will be taken through its offshore humanitarian program in 2009-10

13,500 refugees were taken through offshore program last year

This figure is low by international standards per capita

ONSHORE ASYLUM SEEKERS

Australia's treatment of asylum seekers has been highly criticised by the international community,

The use of mandatory detention is highly criticised

The nature of war means that not all refugees can be resettled via the offshore humanitarian program. They are forced to flee undertaking desperate measures such as paying people smugglers to escape the perils of their home countries

HOW DO PEOPLE ARRIVE IN AUSTRALIA AS ONSHORE ASYLUM SEEKERS?

By plane - In 2008, 2291 people came by plane (Over 90% of the total number of asylum seekers). 55% of asylum claims made by people who arrive by aircraft are rejected.

By boat - In 2008, 206 people arrived by boat. Only 2-15% of claims made by people arriving by boat are denied. This year, many more have arrived by boat.

HOW MANY HAVE ARRIVED BY BOAT IN 2009
* As of 11 December, 2009, 53 boats have been intercepted this year, with about 2000 people sent to Christmas Island. Christmas Island is presently at capacity (over 1000 people)
AUSTRALIA'S MANDATORY DETENTION POLICY

Australia currently processes asylum seekers offshore in the $370 million mandatory detention facility on Christmas Island just over 350 kilometres south of Indonesia and 1600 kilometres from the Australian mainland

People are held within the centre's electrified 4 metre high razor-wire fences

Conditions are overcrowded

Lengthy stays result in mental health issues

A report from Australia's Human Rights Commission states that: "The immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island are not appropriate for detaining asylum seekers, particularly those with a background of torture or trauma. The Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) is a high security detention centre that looks like a prison. The construction camp facility is not appropriate for unaccompanied minors or families with children."

Most held there are currently from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka

Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan demanded Australia shut down Christmas Island, and for people to be processed on the mainland

Australia does NOT process those who arrive by plane in mandatory detention facilities but rather processes them in Australia

WARS & GOVERNMENTS WHO MISTREAT THEIR CITIZENS THAT CAUSE PEOPLE TO FLEE

In 2001, many came to Australia were fleeing Afghanistan and Iraq.

More recently, the defeat of the Tamil Tigers by the Sri Lankan government have caused many Tamils to flee to Australia

Below shows top 10 offshore refugee visa grants (2005 -06) in Australia by country of birth:

Sudan 3,660

Iraq 1,834

Afghanistan 1,508

Liberia 554

Sierra Leone 508

Burma (Myanmar) 506

Burundi 442

Iran 392

Tanzania 372

Kenya 320

(from The Department of Immigration)
WHAT ARE AUSTRALIA'S OBLIGATIONS AS A SIGNATORY ON THE CONVENTION?

Australia was one of the very first signatories on the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951).

Therefore Australia accepts responsibility to provide protection for the refugees who grace our shores.

Article 14.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 states, "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."

Now you know the facts. What do you think?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The subject of refugees is a highly emotive one. I've never felt it to be a bleaker time in my living memory of our history than when we were imprisoning already traumatised people - and their CHILDREN - behind razor wire. I'll come clean about my own position. It's one of compassion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Morrison accused of 'state sanctioned child abuse'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A group of Catholic and Anglican church leaders have accused the Abbott government of ''state-sanctioned child abuse'' in the immigration detention system, and called for Immigration Minister Scott Morrison to step down from his position as guardian for all unaccompanied minors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On asylum seekers, international law can't hold back this government | Anthea Vogl

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anthea Vogl: We're not in a linear 'race to the bottom', of worse and worse breaches of international law, but a major historical era defined by border panic and cruelty

# data[].attributes.headline
 This is what the Lord says: do what is just and right... Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner… 

# data[].attributes.subject
 This is what the Lord says: do what is just and right... Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner… 

# data[].attributes.body
The Minister and the Prophet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Girls take the lead on the long march to freedom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A worldwide vigil linking groups fighting for girls' rights could lead to the great civil rights movement of this generation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Messages of the Holy Father for World Days of Migrants and Refugees 2014 (5 August 2013) | Francis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Message of His Holiness Pope Francis for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees 2014, 5 August 2013

# data[].attributes.headline
I can go to school everyday so I can make my dreams come true

# data[].attributes.subject
I can go to school everyday so I can make my dreams come true

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We believe in the desire and capacity of refugees to be part of the culture and economic life of Australia.

# data[].attributes.headline
Just because they don't land doesn't mean they're not there and not in need

# data[].attributes.subject
Just because they don't land doesn't mean they're not there and not in need

# data[].attributes.body
Australia is "holding children behind locked doors on a secret prison ship in the middle of the Indian Ocean,”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amnesty International has called on the Australian government to return the 153 Tamil asylum seekers detained at sea for three weeks back to shore to have their claims processed.

Court documents have shown that the asylum seekers, around 37 of whom are understood to be children, are being held in harsh conditions on an Australian ship understood to be the customs vessel Ocean Protector.

The claim document, submitted as part of an ongoing high court challenge to the legality of asylum seeker's detention, revealed they are being held in windowless locked rooms, with no access to translators and with family groups being split up.

"We have grave concerns at reports from lawyers that they must request permission to move from one room to the other and can only leave their rooms in the presence of a guard," Amnesty International Australia's refugee campaign co-ordinator Graeme McGregor said.

"Detaining men, women and children on a boat, locked in rooms without windows and severely restricting their communication with the outside world with no access to translators, is inhumane."

The high court has become the only public mechanism through which to get information about the 153, who left India for Australia more than a month ago before being intercepted. A hearing last week in Melbourne provided the government's first official acknowledgement of the asylum seekers' existence.

On Thursday the Australian government again refused to give details on the fate of the 153 but maintained they were in the "good care" of Australian customs.

Under senate questions from Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young, assistant minister for immigration Michaelia Cash said: "As I have stated previously the matter is currently before the high court, and it would not be appropriate to comment any further on the matter.

Hanson-Young, who asked if clean clothes had been given to the children, later said that the conditions revealed in the court documents highlighted the Abbott government had "reached a new low" in its treatment of asylum seekers.

"It's outrageous that the Abbott government is holding children behind locked doors on a secret prison ship in the middle of the Indian Ocean," Hanson-Young said.

"Our country's international reputation is being dragged through the mud by this spectacle. Australia is better than this, but the Liberal Party's obsession with the cheap politics of fear is having disastrous consequences.

The UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency, have voiced " profound concern" at the fate of those on board, with prominent Australian human rights barrister Julian Burnside describing their ongoing detention as an act of piracy.

A directions hearing into the case will start on Friday morning.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amnesty calls on Australia to return 153 asylum seekers to shore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amnesty International has called on the Australian government to return the 153 Tamil asylum seekers detained at sea for three weeks back to shore to have their claims processed. Court documents have shown that the asylum seekers, around 37 of whom are understood to be children, are being held in harsh conditions on an Australian ship understood to be the customs vessel Ocean Protector.

# data[].attributes.body
"In just four months the Coalition has equalled the record for the lowest month of arrivals - zero." Just shifting the goal posts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated 7/7/14: We're collating every known event since the government's controversial asylum seeker policy began. You can filter the results to show only events in specific categories, such as when boats have been turned or towed back to Indonesian waters, when boats have made distress calls and not been intercepted by Australian authorities, when boats have arrived without being intercepted, and when boats have been intercepted.

Contact us to add an event, or get the data here. Click here if you're having trouble viewing the timeline.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Operation Sovereign Borders timeline: every encounter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated 7/7/14: We're collating every known event since the government's controversial asylum seeker policy began. You can filter the results to show only events in specific categories, such as when boats have been turned or towed back to Indonesian waters, when boats have made distress calls and not been intercepted by Australian authorities, when boats have arrived without being intercepted, and when boats have been intercepted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Does Australia have a problem with refugees? Both major parties believe it does, agreeing that offshore processing is necessary to deter asylum seekers arriving by boat. In 2007 Labor dismantled the previous Coalition government's policies, but has progressively hardened its stance over the past five years. The Coalition promises to "stop the boats" by turning them back on the high seas, where possible, and by denying boat arrivals any hope of ever gaining permanent residency.

So what are the facts about people seeking asylum in Australia? The latest data from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for year-on-year numbers shows that applications for asylum in Australia have never been higher.

The latest quarterly figures show the first three quarters of 2012-13 are already ahead of the entire 2011-12 total, with 17,698 asylum seekers as of March 2013.

Australia divides its refugees into two groups: those that arrive by boat, defined as "irregular maritime arrivals" (IMA), and those that arrive by air (non-IMA). This data, which covers 2011-12, shows that, for the first time, boat refugees outnumber asylum seekers arriving at airports.

Australia compared with other countries

Even with recent increases in the numbers of asylum seekers, Australia takes a very small percentage of the world's refugees: just 3% in the latest figures for 2012, although that is up from 1% in 2008.

But how does that really compare? According to the UN high commission for refugees, there are 30,083 refugees living in Australia. Relative to the country's geographical size, that gives Australia one of the lowest rates in the industrialised world (although this does not take into account that large areas of the country are uninhabitable). Australia, incidentally, produced 39 refugees of its own in 2010.

If we look at the figures in relation to population, they show that for every 1,000 Australian citizens, there are 1.4 refugees.

Arrivals by air

In the past, most arrivals were by air, but now more come on a boat. The government says that in 2011-12 there were 7,036 applications for asylum by people who originally arrived by air, an increase of 11% on 2010-11. The increase was almost exclusively attributable to applications from international students, which tapered off during the second half of the financial year after the government changed the rules to make it harder for students to apply for permanent residency.

The number of people arriving by air and seeking protection has been rising since 2004-05 after falling from just over seven thousand in 2001-02.

The list of troubled countries reflects the origins of refugees around the world - and if the boat applications were included, Afghanistan would be top. Applications by citizens of India, Pakistan, Libya and Syria were significantly higher than in previous years, says the government, reflecting in part the large number of students in those caseloads.

But while there are more applications, the rate of people being approved is down on two years ago.

Arrivals by boat

So, arrivals by boat are up - and the latest figures suggest that next year there will be even more.

But where do these people come from? They tend to be from poorer and more troubled countries than the airborne arrivals.

They are also younger - and predominantly male. In 2011-12, 6,512 of the 7,379 applicants were male.

The full data is below for you to download. What can you do with it?

Data summary

Download the data

* DATA: download the full spreadsheet

* SOURCES: Australia Department of Immigration & Citizenship, UNHCR

NEW! Buy our book

More open data

World government data
Update: for information about the distinction between asylum seekers and refugees, see the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship's fact sheet or the Australian Human Rights Commission's FAQ on the subject.
* Search the world's government data with our gateway

Development and aid data

* Search the world's global development data with our gateway

Can you do something with this data?

* Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group
* Contact us at data@guardian.co.uk
* Facts are Sacred: the power of data, hardback from Faber Data journalism and data visualisations from the Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia and asylum seekers: the key facts you need to know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Does Australia have a problem with refugees? Both major parties believe it does, agreeing that offshore processing is necessary to deter asylum seekers arriving by boat. In 2007 Labor dismantled the previous Coalition government's policies, but has progressively hardened its stance over the past five years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first of many school solidarity campaigns to be run around Australia. The school shown is Rostrevor College, a massive thank you to Mr Simon Dash the school's principal for all the support he showed for the campaign.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chapter 2 - The 'Children Overboard' Incident

2.1 To help place the significance of Mr Scrafton's evidence in context, this chapter presents an abridged chronology of the 'children overboard' incident and the events that unfolded subsequently. It summarises the chain of events from when the incident was first reported to when doubts started to emerge in Defence about whether the incident occurred, through to the abortive attempts that were made to correct the record.

2.2 Apart from providing the historical background of the incident, the chapter explains the importance of the video, photographs and Office of National Assessments (ONA) report, all of which were used by the Howard Government as evidence of the veracity of the children overboard story. The next chapter discusses how Mr Scrafton's evidence sheds new light on these three items of information, especially in terms of the efforts to correct the record.

2.3 The chapter also examines a number of the unresolved issues from the CMI inquiry, particularly as they relate to Mr Scrafton's knowledge of events.

2.4 This chapter is based on the October 2002 report of the Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident. That report examined the matter in as much detail as was possible with the evidence available at the time. The Committee recommends the CMI report to persons interested in the detail of the children overboard story.

The incident

2.5 In the early afternoon of 6 October 2001, at about 100 nautical miles north of Christmas Island, the HMAS Adelaide intercepted 'SIEV 4' (Suspected Illegal Entry Vehicle 4), a vessel carrying 223 passengers and crew.

2.6 With a mission to 'deter and deny' the vessel and its human cargo entry to Australian waters, the Adelaide set about attempting to turn SIEV 4 back to Indonesia. Those on board SIEV 4 resisted these efforts to the point where a navy boarding party was inserted on the vessel and set it on a course towards Indonesian waters. The situation onboard SIEV 4 became increasingly tense, as a number of the asylum seekers grew agitated and, among other things, started sabotaging the vessel.

Sunday 7 October 2001 - man overboards and the video

2.7 At about daybreak on Sunday 7 October 2001, 14 male passengers jumped or were thrown overboard from SIEV 4. These 'man overboards' occurred while the navy boarding party was attempting to restore order on SIEV 4. At some stage, a man was seen to be holding a girl over the side of SIEV 4, possibly threatening to throw the child into the sea or onto one of the Adelaide's seaboats that was alongside the SIEV, but eventually brought the child inboard. All 14 males were recovered and returned to SIEV 4. No children were retrieved from the water.[6]

2.8 The Adelaide recorded the entire episode on its Electro Optical Tracking System (EOTS). This recording became known as the 'video' of the event.

2.9 It was during the tense tactical situation involving the man overboards that the commanding officer of the Adelaide, Commander Norman Banks, spoke by telephone to his immediate superior, Brigadier Mike Silverstone,[7] who was based in Darwin. While talking to his superior, Commander Banks was simultaneously receiving multiple reports from his crew on the Adelaide and the boarding party as the man overboards were occurring. Brigadier Silverstone described the charged and confused situation that Commander Banks was reporting on as a 'kaleidoscope of events'.[8]

2.10 This conversation was the origin of the erroneous children overboard report. Brigadier Silverstone believed Commander Banks said to him that 'a child was thrown over the side'.[9] Commander Banks, on the other hand, maintained that he did not say this, telling the CMI Committee that 'no children were thrown overboard [from SIEV 4], no children were put in the water, no children were recovered from the water'.[10]

2.11 In any event, following his conversation with Commander Banks, Brigadier Silverstone telephoned a number of senior officers to update them on the situation with SIEV 4. Under a special arrangement to fast-track information on SIEV 4 to Canberra, he first called Air Vice Marshal Alan Titheridge, Head Strategic Command in Canberra, and told him that some of the passengers or SUNCs (Suspected Unlawful Non Citizens) had jumped into the sea and children had been thrown overboard. The CMI Committee noted that this special arrangement was not repeated for any other SIEV incident. Indeed, Brigadier Silverstone informed the CMI Committee that the requirement to brief Air Vice Marshall Titheridge early on 7 November was the only reason for him ringing Commander Banks in the middle of an operation, something that was contrary to his normal practice.[11]

2.12 Following Brigadier Silverstone's report to Air Vice Marshal Titheridge, word that children had been thrown overboard travelled quickly through senior decision making circles in Canberra to government ministers and thence to the media. By 11.15 a.m. Mr Ruddock, the Minister for Immigration, had told the media of a report that passengers on SIEV 4 had thrown children overboard. He then relayed the same report to the Prime Minister and Mr Reith, the Minister for Defence, at 12.30 p.m.[12]

Monday 8 October 2001 - SIEV 4 sinks and the photographs

2.13 On Monday 8 October 2001, the day after the man overboards, SIEV 4 began to sink rapidly while under tow by the Adelaide. In what Commander Banks described as a 'controlled abandon ship', SIEV 4's passengers and crew entered the water.[13] All 223 were rescued and embarked on the Adelaide. Commander Banks went on to characterise the successful rescue in the following way:

The performance of the ship's company of Adelaide to make this rescue happen was unparalleled, and can best be described by the simple superlative 'superb' ... A number of the ship's company acted selflessly and several - seven, to be exact - entered the water to assist and, on occasion, help rescue the unauthorised arrivals. The photographs of A.B. Whittle and Leading Seaman Cook Barker are indicative of that effort, but many more of team Adelaide contributed than just those seen in the two much-publicised images.[14]

2.14 As Commander Banks indicates, the crew of the Adelaide photographed the sinking of SIEV 4 and rescue of its passengers. In the days that followed the two 'much-publicised images' of sailors Whittle and Barker assisting unauthorised arrivals in the water became known - mistakenly as it turned out - as the 'photos' of the children overboard incident.

Public reporting of 'children overboard', doubts and attempts to correct the record

2.15 With the news of the incident emerging during the heat of a federal election campaign, the Government was soon under political and media pressure to produce evidence to substantiate the claim that children had been thrown overboard. At the same time, however, doubts about the veracity of the original report started to emerge within Defence. Amidst the public furore about the incident, senior Defence officers began to grow concerned at the absence of any written operational reports ('Opreps') from the Adelaide on the incident.

2.16 The timeline that follows summarises some of the key events that occurred from 9 October, including the release of the photographs, the video and the ONA report. It shows that the initial search for evidence to corroborate the story turned into attempts by some Defence officials to report to government ministers, ministerial advisers and other officials that that there was no evidence to support the story. It also identifies the extent of Mr Scrafton's role during this period, based on the evidence before the CMI Committee. For a fuller account, interested persons are directed to the CMI report.[15]

9 October 2001

10 October 2001

Commander Banks tells Brigadier Silverstone that no one could yet confirm that a child had been recovered from the water.

Rear Admiral Smith[16] passes on advice from Commander Banks to Rear Admiral Ritchie[17] that the Electro Optical film - ie. the video - shows no children being thrown overboard.

Rear Admiral Ritchie advises Mr Scrafton, the senior military adviser in the Defence Minister's office, that the video does not show a child being thrown overboard, but that Defence still believes that evidence would show up to confirm the incident.

Sixteen sworn witness statements are taken from members of the crew of the Adelaide. The EOTS operator states that he saw SUNCs jumping from SIEV 4 and that 'I believe one child also went overboard'. However, he also states that 'all persons who dove overboard did so by there [sic] own accord'. No other crew member's statement indicates that a child went or was thrown overboard, although a number mention that a teenage boy jumped of his own accord.

Commander Banks tells both Rear Admiral Smith and Brigadier Silverstone that no children had been thrown in the water.

Strategic Command supplies PM&C with a chronology on SIEV 4, containing a bullet point note that states: 'There is no indication that children were thrown overboard. It is possible that this did occur in conjunction with other SUNCs jumping overboard'.

The Defence Minister's media adviser, Mr Hampton, is advised by Defence that there are doubts about whether the photographs represent the incident of 7 October. He is also told that Strategic Command understands that neither children nor women were retrieved from the water.

Defence releases the photographs to the Minister's office which provides them immediately to the Press Gallery in Canberra. The photographs depict two women and a girl in the water.

Minister for Defence, Mr Reith, follows with a radio interview where he 'officially releases' the photographs and mentions the video, claiming they verify the children overboard story.

After the photographs appear on the ABC's 7.30 Report, information about their incorrect attribution passes immediately through the military chain of command to Admiral Barrie, the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF).

11 October 2001

Admiral Barrie contacts Mr Reith and tells him that he has been advised that the photographs do not represent the incident of 7 October.

Brigadier Bornholt[18] and Ms Jenny McKenry[19] give the same advice to Mr Scrafton. Later, Ms McKenry sends Mr Scrafton the photographs with captions attached that show they are of the sinking.

Commander Banks forwards copies of the witness statements by email to Rear Admiral Smith and Brigadier Silverstone, and the latter emails them to Rear Admiral Ritchie.

Senior defence officers conclude that there is no evidence to support the claim that children had been thrown overboard. Rear Admiral Ritchie briefs Admiral Barrie to this effect.

17 October 2001

Admiral Barrie informs Mr Reith that he 'had been told by the Chief of Navy [Vice Admiral Shackleton] and COMAST [Commander Australian Theatre, Rear Admiral Ritchie] that there were doubts about whether children had ever been thrown over the side of SIEV 4'. The admiral goes on to say, however, that he will stand by the original children overboard report until evidence is produced to show that it was wrong.

31 October 2001

Brigadier Silverstone informs Mr Reith, during the Minister's visit to the Brigadier's headquarters in Darwin, that the video is unclear but does not show children in the water and that there are concerns that no children were thrown in the water. According to Brigadier Silverstone, Mr Reith's responds, 'Well, we better not see the video then'.

7 November 2001

Acting CDF, Air Marshal Houston, in response to a media article raising doubts about the authenticity of the photographs portraying the children overboard event, tells Mr Reith that there is no evidence to suggest that women or children had been thrown into the water on 7 October, that the photographs depicted the rescue of 8 October and that the video was inconclusive in proving whether women or children had been thrown overboard due to its poor quality.

The Prime Minister's adviser for international affairs, Mr Jordana, contacts both PM&C and ONA seeking evidence to support the children overboard report.

In the evening, PM&C informs Mr Jordana of rumours from Defence that the photographs are not of the children overboard incident. Mr Jordana replies that the Prime Minister's office is discussing this issue with the Defence Minister's office and gives the impression that the 'matter is in hand'.

The Director-General of ONA, Mr Jones, faxes ONA report 226/2001 to Mr Jordana with a covering note that says because the report was published on 9 October it could not have been the source for statements by ministers made on 7 and 8 October about the incident. The note also indicates that ONA had not been able to identify the source of the report, that it could have been based on ministers' statements but may also have used Defence intelligence and that ONA is still searching for the source.[20]

On instructions from Mr Reith, Mr Scrafton visits Maritime Command in Sydney to view the video and later during the evening, when the Prime Minister phones him, says that the video is inconclusive.

8 November 2001

Vice Admiral Shackleton, Chief of Navy, comments on the incident to the media, saying 'Our advice [to the Government] was that there were people being threatened to be thrown in the water and I don't know what happened to the message after that'.

After a call from Mr Hendy, chief of staff to Mr Reith, Vice Admiral Shackleton issues a 'clarifying statement' saying that his comments did not contradict the Minister and confirming that 'the minister was advised that Defence believed children had been thrown overboard'.

The Prime Minister delivers a speech at a National Press Club lunch, during which he releases part of ONA report 226/2001 to support the Government's claims about the children overboard story.

Early evening, in response to Mr Jordana's request the previous day, PM&C faxes reports from Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), none of which mentions children thrown into the water.

Unanswered questions in the CMI evidence

2.17 As the above chronology shows, the CMI Committee was able to establish to a large extent what information was passed up the Defence chain of command and when it reached ministers' offices. Where that Committee encountered problems, however, was in determining what happened after this information reached the ministerial level and what decisions and action, if any, resulted from the receipt of information that cast doubt on the children overboard story. The Cabinet ban on ministerial staff appearing before the CMI Committee meant that at a number of crucial points ministerial offices became the 'black holes' in the CMI report.

2.18 In relation to Mr Scrafton, this problem was particularly evident in three areas:

2.19 The CMI Committee went to some lengths to obtain evidence from Mr Scrafton. The Committee Chair wrote to Mr Scrafton on three separate occasions inviting him to appear before it.[21] On each occasion, the reply came from ministerial offices rather than Mr Scrafton himself. It was the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Mr Arthur Sinodinos, who replied to the first invitation. His letter stated that, in accordance with a decision of Cabinet, MOPS staffers would not appear before the Committee. On the second two occasions the Defence Minister, Senator Hill, responded on Mr Scrafton's behalf. On both of these occasions the Defence Minister declined to allow Mr Scrafton to appear, even to give evidence on events that Mr Scrafton had been involved with as a Defence department official after leaving the Minister's office.

2.20 Denied the opportunity to take evidence from Mr Scrafton, the CMI Committee had to rely on the record of his interview before the Bryant inquiry. Mr Scrafton's evidence to Ms Bryant was that:

2.21 On the basis of those statements, the CMI inquiry criticised Mr Scrafton for not taking it upon himself to ensure the Minister was informed of the advice that the photographs had been misrepresented and for failing to advise the Minister to retract the line that the photographs were evidence of the children overboard report.[23]

2.22 The CMI Committee also noted Mr Scrafton's statement that he had spoken to the Prime Minister twice on 7 November about the video and informed him that it was inconclusive. While pointing out that it had been significantly hampered in not being able to question Mr Scrafton, the CMI Committee found it 'difficult to believe that it required two separate conversations for Mr Scrafton to convey to the Prime Minister the information that the videotape was "inconclusive"'.[24] The CMI report went on to say:

The question of the extent of the Prime Minister's knowledge of the false nature of the report that children were thrown overboard is a key issue in assessing the extent to which the Government as a whole wilfully misled the Australian people on the eve of a Federal election. Its inability to question Mr Scrafton on the substance of his conversations with the Prime Minister therefore leaves that question unresolved in the Committee's mind.[25]

2.23 The ability of this Committee to question Mr Scrafton on not only his conversations with the Prime Minister but also his knowledge of discussions within Mr Reith's office and with other senior officers involved in the 'children overboard' affair, has provided an opportunity to re-examine a number of unanswered questions from the CMI report. In the next two chapters, the Committee discusses the extent to which Mr Scrafton's evidence casts new light on those issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chapter 2 - The 'Children Overboard' Incident

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2.1 To help place the significance of Mr Scrafton's evidence in context, this chapter presents an abridged chronology of the 'children overboard' incident and the events that unfolded subsequently. It summarises the chain of events from when the incident was first reported to when doubts started to emerge in Defence about whether the incident occurred, through to the abortive attempts that were made to correct the record.

# data[].attributes.headline
all 53 million displaced people in the world want a safe place, so how will you choose?

# data[].attributes.subject
all 53 million displaced people in the world want a safe place, so how will you choose?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Phelps maintains her lead in Wentworth by-election count Trump decries journalist's murder as "worst cover-up ever" Plant-based revolution takes root in Adelaide Top regions and countries to visit in 2019 Dumplings, cheese, whisky and bubbles

Reverend John Hughes being arrested last night.

Nine religious representatives will appear before the Mount Barker Magistrates court in August after being arrested last night while holding a sit-in protest at the office of federal Liberal MP Jamie Briggs.

The religious leaders, part of the multi-faith activist movement Love Makes A Way, sat and prayed in the Mt Barker office from around 10am to protest against the indefinite detention of asylum seekers, including children, by the Australian Government.

A spokeswoman for the group said yesterday that would stay at the office until they received an answer to the question: 'When will the 983 children being held in detention by Australia be released?' - or were arrested.

When the office was due to close around 5pm, the latter occurred.

SA Police said up to 16 people attended the protest - nine refused to leave after office closing time.

According to protester Rev. Jennifer Hughes, "the office staff asked us to leave and we politely replied that we weren't able to leave without a response to that question".

"They felt it necessary to call the police, the police came; we had calm negotiations until such a time that they felt it necessary to arrest us," she said.

Each member of the group was charged with trespasser failing to leave and bailed.

According to Hughes, bail conditions imposed on her and her husband Rev. John Hughes ban them from returning to Briggs' office and require that they stay at least 200 metres away from the the Inverbrackie Detention Centre - in Briggs' electorate of Mayo.

Love Makes A Way has previously staged similar protests at the offices of Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop, among others.

Protester Rabbi Shoshana Kaminsky said she hoped the group would hold similar protests in the future, but said she wasn't aware of specific plans.

"If I did know, I probably wouldn't tell you," she said, with a chuckle.
Jump to next article
Paul Osborne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arrests end asylum-seeker protest - InDaily

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Phelps maintains her lead in Wentworth by-election count Trump decries journalist's murder as "worst cover-up ever" Plant-based revolution takes root in Adelaide Top regions and countries to visit in 2019 Dumplings, cheese, whisky and bubbles Nine religious representatives will appear before the Mount Barker Magistrates court in August after being arrested last night while holding a sit-in protest at the office of federal Liberal MP Jamie Briggs.

# data[].attributes.body
Natasha is the best! Read her speeches - especially "Stronger Futures for Afghan Women" 28/6/13

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr Sharman Stone

Biography

Dr Stone has been a longstanding and active advocate on gender equality issues in Australia and internationally. A former Australian politician from March 1996 to 2016, representing the Division of Murray, Victoria. As a long serving member and recently Chair of the Australian Parliamentarians for Population Development Group (APPDG), Sharman was elected the Vice Chair of the Asia-Pacific Population Development Group with special responsibilities for promoting the rights of women and girls in the region. In this role and as the Chair of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade, Aid Sub Committee, Sharman has championed the cause of eliminating child marriages, FGM, human trafficking, poverty and disease in our region. She delivered Australia's Statement on the Status of Women in the United Nations General Assembly in 2014, where she also worked on the development of the new Sustainable Development Goals and has advocated for overcoming disadvantage in numerous international fora, always addressing the role and partnering of Australia in supporting our region's special needs.

Dr Stone has participated in regional dialogues for Pacific women political leaders and policy makers in the Pacific (Tonga, 2014), the Australian-funded Pacific Women's Parliamentary Partnerships Fora, and the Women Ministers and Parliamentarians Conference on Progressing Sexual and reproductive health and rights into Beijing + 20.

Dr Stone has been Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration and Minister for Workforce Participation. She has also served as Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs and Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

In 2011 she gained bipartisan parliamentary support for the establishment of a national strategy to help eliminate Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. She is patron of the FASD support group for parents, carers and victims.

In the last parliament Sharman chaired the Australian Timor-Leste, the Australian-Moroccan and the Australian-Mongolian Parliamentary Friendship Groups.
Visit the Ambassador for Women and Girls photo gallery Gender equality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr Stone has been a longstanding and active advocate on gender equality issues in Australia and internationally. A former Australian politician from March 1996 to 2016, representing the Division of Murray, Victoria.

# data[].attributes.body
We chose the face of Febrina as a mask rather than the Anonymous mask, because asylum seekers have too long been anonymous.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Australia's system of mandatory detention can only be described as child abuse. It's at odds with many of our own domestic provisions and is totally at odds with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the convention, which Australia was among the first to ratify. For around 20 of those years we have stripped a whole group of children of their basic rights.

The immigration detention model we have today knowingly damages people, but then attempts to apply costly, inefficient bandaids that never stick. $85,000 for one medevac flight off Nauru, for a pregnant woman who should never have been there in the first place; a teenage boy having three appointments every week with mental health specialists and living on a cocktail of prescription drugs all to cope with the system he is trapped in - this is obscene.

Children are signing their artworks with ID numbers. I have met parents so institutionalised and used to being referred to by number that they are distressed by the fact their baby has no ID number. The baby is born in an Australian hospital but the parents are not given a birth certificate. Some have tried to hold onto the hand or foot ID tag issued by the hospital, not just as a keepsake, but as something formal, tangible, to prove their baby exists. The tag ends up locked in the property section of the detention facility.

Attempts are being made to provide education on Christmas Island, an improvement from the current appalling situation, but not a solution. It is not appropriate to try and educate a child inside a facility that causes trauma and mental health harm. This presents issues of inequity when we are looking at remote locations such as Nauru and to some degree, Christmas Island - just another reason why these locations should not be used long-term for immigration purposes.

The average time spent in detention is 324 days. Teachers are telling us that things are changing. Students who were once engaged and keen to learn have lost interest and are displaying concerning behaviours. This is put this down to the longevity of detention. Children, particularly the older ones. have realised there is no hope - what's the point in learning if they're going to be locked up forever or sent to Nauru?

Serco have repeatedly spoken to me about "parent-led decision making" and the like. Such statements are completely at odds with what is right in front of these staff every day. If a child needs something, it is someone in uniform who provides it. What will my child eat? When will they eat? Who will they play with? What will they wear? What cake will I make for their birthday? What job will I have to support my family? The family unit struggles immensely to answer these questions in the detention environment.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Refugees and children in the Nauru detention camp, 2003. Photograph: AAP

Some may argue that the right to play exists regardless of location and that all children will find a way to play. Does it count if a five year old girl is playing "officers", an emblem drawn on her shoulder in pen, bossing other children around using ID numbers? Is it play when the ground is sharp coral, when the playground equipment is too hot to use, when the toy room is 6m x 2.4m and only open a few hours a day? Is it play when your parents are so traumatised they cannot even sit and do a puzzle with you? Is it play when you have to explain to your Australian school friends that you cannot come to their birthday party on the weekend because the guards won't let you?

Overall, there is no such thing as a child-friendly detention facility. That said, there are many improvements that could be made to physical infrastructure and operational detail that would mitigate some harm caused to children and would see asylum seekers treated with more dignity and humanity.

While the department of immigration and border protection includes some terrific individuals it is not a child protection or child specialist agency. No immigration minister can be a fit guardian to act in the best interests of an unaccompanied child seeking protection.

These are issues of child rights and should be seen as such. If we do not create change in this system a child will die because of it.
This is an edited version of Sophie Peer's statement to the Australian Human Rights Commission Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A child will die in detention unless we change the system | Sophie Peer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australia's system of mandatory detention can only be described as child abuse. It's at odds with many of our own domestic provisions and is totally at odds with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the convention, which Australia was among the first to ratify.

# data[].attributes.headline
Association for the Wellbeing of Children in Healthcare (AWCH) - 

# data[].attributes.subject
Association for the Wellbeing of Children in Healthcare (AWCH) - 

# data[].attributes.body
2009

# data[].attributes.headline
Association for the Wellbeing of Children in Healthcare (AWCH) - 

# data[].attributes.subject
Association for the Wellbeing of Children in Healthcare (AWCH) - 

# data[].attributes.body
2002

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australian Coalition to End Immigration Detention of Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every child, no matter what their background, deserves freedom and to have the opportunity to learn, be healthy and grow up in a safe environment

# data[].attributes.headline
12. Education for Children in Immigration Detention

# data[].attributes.subject
12. Education for Children in Immigration Detention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A last resort?

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention

12. Education for Children in Immigration Detention

A child's experience of detention is fundamentally affected by the level of education with which they are provided. This chapter assesses the provision of education to children in detention, compares it to the provision of education to similar children living in the Australian community, and determines whether the education that has been provided to children in detention meets Australia's international human rights obligations.

The provision of education to children in detention has changed considerably over time. At the announcement of the Inquiry in November 2001, most of the approximately 700 children in detention were being educated in internal detention centre schools. By the end of 2002, approximately half of the children in detention were accessing external education, with approximately 80 per cent in external schools by mid-2003.

Documents from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (the Department or DIMIA) and its services provider, Australasian Correctional Management Pty Limited (ACM), as well as evidence from former detention centre teachers and detainees all suggest that there were serious barriers to the provision of an adequate education inside detention centres.

However, external education significantly improves the education received by detainee children. It is unfortunate it took until late 2002 before it was available to the majority of children.

This chapter addresses the following general questions: There is a summary of the Inquiry's findings and three case studies at the end of the chapter.

12.1 What are children's rights regarding the provision of education in immigration detention?
12.2 What policies were in place regarding education for children in detention?
12.3 What education is provided to similar children in Australian schools?
12.4 What education was provided in internal detention centre schools?
12.5 What external education was provided to children in detention?

12.1 What are children's rights regarding the provision of education in immigration detention?

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:

1. Make primary education compulsory and available and free to all;

2. Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

3. Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;

4. Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;

5. Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 28

Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) applies equally to all children within Australia, whether or not they are in immigration detention. It sets out that the core minimum obligation is to ensure that primary education should be 'compulsory and available free to all'. Secondary education should be made 'available and accessible to every child'. Furthermore, 'educational and vocational information and guidance' should be made available and accessible to all children and measures should be taken 'to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates'.

Article 29 sets out the broad goals of education, including 'the development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential'.

The Department argues that the CRC does not establish a standard of education to which children are entitled:

While the Inquiry agrees that there is no absolute standard required by the CRC, the CRC is quite clear about relative standards. The principle of non-discrimination, set out in article 2 of the CRC, means that within a country there must be no lesser provision of education for any one group of children, regardless of nationality or immigration status and regardless of how the child arrived in the country. Article 28(1) of the CRC reinforces this general principle of non-discrimination by specifically recognising the right to education for all children on the 'basis of equal opportunity'.

The principle of non-discrimination with regard to the provision of education is also reinforced by the Convention against Discrimination in Education to which Australia is a party. It prohibits Australia from depriving 'any person or group of persons of access to education of any type or level', limiting 'any person or group of persons to education of an inferior standard' or establishing or maintaining 'separate educational systems or institutions for persons or groups of persons'. Specifically, the treaty requires that States Parties give 'foreign nationals resident within their territory the same access to education as that given to their own nationals'.

The Department argues that:

While the manner in which education is provided to children in detention may differ from the manner in which education is provided to children in the community, the Inquiry notes that this does not permit the Department to provide a level or quality of education inferior to that provided to similar children living in the Australian community who are not detained. Rather, when Australia implements a policy that requires detention of certain children, international law requires that special measures be taken to ensure that those children enjoy their right to education on the basis of equal opportunity. In other words, while the Inquiry acknowledges the difficulties that are presented by the detention environment in providing an adequate level of education to children who are detained, articles 28 and 2 of the CRC require Australia to overcome those problems in order to ensure an appropriate level of education.

Furthermore, article 22(1) of the CRC requires Australia to give special assistance to asylum-seeking children. In the context of education this means that schooling should be tailored to address the special needs of these children. The Refugee Convention makes it clear that the provision of education for refugee children should be equal to that provided for nationals of the same age with respect to primary education and equal to other non-national children with respect to secondary education.

The Refugee Convention also requires the provision of education to all children irrespective of whether they have been recognised as refugees. Similarly, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has held that children who have had their refugee status applications rejected are entitled to education commensurate to that available to other children resident within a country.

Furthermore, where there are various options regarding the provision of education to children in detention, article 3(1) of the CRC requires the Department to ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in determining the manner in which education will be provided.

The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (the JDL Rules) provide some guidance on how to provide appropriate education to children who have been deprived of their liberty. First, the JDL Rules state that education for detained children should be provided in schools external to detention facilities, through 'programmes integrated with the education system of the country'.The JDL Rules also state that:

Furthermore, the JDL Rules provide that children:

The quality of education provided to children in detention has an impact on Australia's compliance with a child's rights to enjoy the maximum possible development (article 6) and the right to be treated with humanity and respect while in detention, taking into account the age of children (article 37(c)). It may also influence an overall assessment as to whether Australia's mandatory detention laws permit the best interests of the child to be a primary consideration (article 3(1)).

In summary, Australia is obliged to provide education to detained asylum seeking children to a standard commensurate with that provided to similar children attending schools within the Australian community, keeping in mind what would be in the best interests of the child. The United Nations recommends that this education should not take place inside detention centres.

12.2 What policies were in place regarding education for children in detention?

The Department is responsible for ensuring that children in detention can enjoy their rights under the CRC to access education on the basis of equal opportunity with other children in Australia. Under the detention services contract, ACM was responsible for actually providing these services. The Department states that by requiring ACM to provide these services it was fulfilling its human rights obligations. However, the Department must do more than just make contractual provision for services. It must monitor the performance of the contract and ensure that any shortfall is rectified.

The monitoring of services is the responsibility of the Department's Manager in each centre. This responsibility included 'oversighting ACM service delivery and contract performance through day to day involvement in the centre as well as ongoing monitoring and reporting'.

The performance measure for the assessment of education is the Immigration Detention Standards (IDS). The 1998 IDS defined education programs as:

The principal ACM policy governing education was contained in a document entitled 'Education, Recreation and Leisure programs'. The stated purpose of the policy is to 'ensure the detainees of the Centre are provided with the opportunity to participate in programs to the extent that local resources and the amount of time available to the detainee allow'.

The ACM policy included 'general pre-school and primary school classes' in its list of programs, but did not mention provision of education for secondary school students. The ACM policy stated that consideration would be given to the 'availability of local resources' in the provision of programs but that 'program participation will be voluntary'. The policy document did not contain any specific requirements or guidelines regarding curriculum, hours of education or the qualifications of teachers.

Neither the Department nor ACM sought the assistance of State governments in developing standards or policy regarding the provision of education for children in detention. This is surprising given the pre-existing expertise of State education authorities in providing education to similar children in the Australian community.

12.3 What education is provided to similar children in Australian schools?

The central question in assessing whether Australia is meeting its obligations to children in immigration detention under the CRC is whether they are provided with education of a standard comparable to that provided to similar children in the Australian community. This requires consideration of the general standards of education provided in Australia, as well as the special provisions that are made for children similar to those in detention.

There are many children with similar experiences to detainee children who are educated within the Australian community. For example, children who arrive in Australia with a visa who seek asylum and live in the community on bridging visas; children who arrive under Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian Program; and children released from detention and living in the community on temporary protection visas all attend Australian schools. These children are of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and have significant educational, emotional and social needs. Collectively they are the group of children referred to in this chapter as 'similar children'.

This section therefore describes the education generally provided to similar children in the Australian community. In particular it describes the New Arrivals Program.

12.3.1 Curriculum

There is no national curriculum in Australia. Instead each State, through the department of education or a statutory body, determines and administers its own curriculum. Schools are responsible for ensuring that the prescribed curriculum is delivered to all students.

Each State has specialist programs to cater to the educational needs of a cohort of students similar to those in immigration detention. In particular, in each State there is either an English as a Second Language (ESL) curriculum or an established practice of using ESL documents as a guide for targeted language teaching for ESL learners within the general curriculum.

Importantly, throughout Australia, ESL instruction occurs across the curriculum. Students requiring ESL instruction, even those who have very little English, acquire language skills at the same time as they receive instruction in the mainstream curriculum. Students are often taught by specialist subject teachers who also have ESL qualifications.

National ESL documents are widely used in Australia as a guide to help teachers record and assess the progress of students learning English as a second language in reading, writing, speaking and listening. Generally, these documents provide:

a set of benchmarks for ESL learner achievement

a common language for reporting student achievement

guidance to teachers in making judgments about students' level of achievement

help in identifying ESL learners' needs to assist program and curriculum development.

The manner in which ESL is taught differs between States. Some states have a full ESL curriculum; some have documentation supporting ESL learning in mainstream curriculum areas; and some use national documents to assist in adapting curriculum for ESL learners. For example, Victoria has developed a specific ESL curriculum for all levels of schooling, and has ESL Course Advice documents for other key learning areas. In New South Wales, outcomes from national ESL documents have been incorporated into the English Syllabus for years 7-10 and there is a specific ESL curriculum for students in years 11-12. In South Australia, the ESL Scope and Scales document, published in July 2002, operates as a guide to the implementation of the curriculum for ESL learners. In Western Australia, there is no specific curriculum guide for the teaching of ESL. Rather, ESL teachers in the State use the national documents as both progress maps and planning documents. Across Australia, there are clear curriculum guidelines for developing programs for ESL learners.

12.3.2 New Arrivals Program

In the Australian community, children similar to those in detention usually attend Intensive English Centres (IECs) partially funded through the Commonwealth's New Arrivals Program. Children attending IECs have significant special needs. As well as their second language learning needs, they may have had little experience of schooling, and may need special support due to prior experiences of torture and trauma. Schools operating as part of the New Arrivals Program specifically work to meet the special educational and social needs of these children.

Children attending these schools are provided with an intensive English program, which in each State is taught within the context of the key learning areas of the relevant mainstream curriculum. This means that students acquire English language at the same time as they study the relevant State curriculum.

In the South Australian Primary New Arrivals Program, classes are small, organised by age, and students are taught the full range of primary school subjects in English. In the Secondary New Arrivals Program, students follow an intensive ESL course in all subject areas. This program is conducted:

The South Australian Department of Education describes the New Arrivals Program as follows:

Schools with ESL students in South Australia are provided with additional staffing, according to an assessment of the needs of their students. Within South Australia there is also support for new arrival ESL learners in geographically isolated schools. Professional development services are offered to teachers in schools where there are ESL learners, including schools in isolated areas.

Similar programs are offered in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia.Therefore, throughout Australia qualified staff meet the needs of newly arrived students through specialist programs. An example of the way in which one such program works is provided below.

12.3.3 Holroyd High School - providing education to new arrival students

Holroyd High School is in the Fairfield District of western Sydney. As well as providing mainstream schooling for Years 7-12, it is the largest of the fourteen IECs in NSW. The average monthly enrolment in the IEC in 2002 was 214 students. The majority of students are refugees. Students spend an average of three to four terms in the IEC.

Since January 1999 the IEC has enrolled forty-eight students on temporary protection visas. As well, a small number of students with temporary protection visas have enrolled directly into the mainstream high school. All of these students were in immigration detention. None arrived with any documentation of schooling undertaken while in detention.

All students entering the IEC are assessed for English language competence and literacy when they enrol. On the basis of the initial assessment, students are allocated to regular or special needs classes. Special needs classes are small classes which cater for students with low literacy, interrupted schooling, or trauma. Currently, Holroyd IEC has nine special needs classes, one of which is for beginning literacy, and six regular classes.

Students enrolling from immigration detention typically have some spoken English 'picked up' from interactions with the detention officers in the detention centres, but have no written English, unless they have previously studied English at school in their country of origin. In the IEC, students receive English language instruction through subject areas. Classes are organised by age. Students also do sport, and take part in a program of experiential excursions.

At the conclusion of the New Arrivals Program, students exit the IEC to Holroyd and other high schools, or to TAFE. For students at Years 10, 11 and 12 levels, the high school operates a bridging course in the second semester of each year to enable successful transition into senior high school or TAFE. This is entirely school funded.

In the high school, ex-IEC students are provided with ESL support, through parallel classes, withdrawal groups and team teaching. The school has also developed a unique Board of Studies endorsed school course for Years 9 and 10 ESL students, English for Specific Purposes. This course has School Certificate accreditation.

In Years 11 and 12, students with fewer than five years of formal English instruction may undertake the Higher School Certificate ESL course. In the IEC, older students access the dual-accredited national course, the Certificate of Spoken and Written English, Levels 1 and 2, and in the high school, Level 3.

The school provides assistance to needy students through the Student Assistance Scheme (SAS) for subject contributions, school uniform, shoes, excursions, stationery and equipment, and basic sustenance. Both the high school and the IEC operate clothing pools. The IEC also uses SAS funds to subsidise excursions and to provide swimming lessons. TPV and bridging visa students have high support needs in comparison to other needy students, as they have few resources when they arrive in the school.

The Holroyd High School example clearly demonstrates that children of very similar background to detainee children have their needs expertly catered for in schools within the Australian community.

12.4 What education was provided in internal detention centre schools?

The Department, ACM and former teachers at detention centres have told the Inquiry that there are several barriers to providing a full education program within detention centres. This section recognises those challenges and examines what efforts have been made by the Department and ACM to overcome those problems in order to ensure that children in detention can enjoy their right to education on the basis of equal opportunity to other similar children.

After addressing the general challenges to providing education inside detention centres, this section considers the following aspects of the education provided to children in internal detention centre schools:

the attendance levels in internal schools

the curriculum offered to children

assessment and reporting of children's progress

the number of teaching staff available to children

the hours of tuition offered to children

the educational infrastructure within the centres.

The Inquiry notes that by mid-2003 a significant proportion of children in detention were attending schools external to the detention centres. However, as most children detained since 1999 attended educational programs within detention, it is important to assess the quality of those programs. Furthermore, most of the children who gained access to external schools in 2003 had been detained for over two years during which time they were educated within the centres. Some children still in detention in November 2003 had never had the opportunity to go to external schools (see for example Case Study 3 at the end of this chapter). Therefore it is important to assess the programs offered within detention since 1999.

12.4.1 General challenges to providing an appropriate education in internal schools

Children's enjoyment of the right to education in detention centres is influenced both by the quality of the schooling offered to them and their capacity to absorb it within that environment.

The Department told the Inquiry that providing education within detention was uniquely challenging:

[T]here are a number of other factors that are rarely encountered in the wider community which complicate the provision of education to children in detention. These include:

differing cultural beliefs about appropriate levels of schooling according to the age and gender of the child;

disturbances within the detention facilities which result in the destruction of education facilities and/or result in an unsafe environment for both staff and children;

socialisation and learning difficulties associated with past torture and trauma;

a suspicion of authority arising from experiences with other governments and their agencies; and

difficulties adapting to new environments.

ACM also drew the Inquiry's attention to certain difficulties including:

fluctuating and transitory nature of the school aged detainee population;

vastly diverse cultural backgrounds and abilities of the children within a relatively small cohort of the same age group;

infrastructure constraints, exacerbated by the destruction of facilities by detainees;

need to ensure security and good order which ACM is contractually required to place before all other IDS;

difficult access to resources and facilities in remote centres;

long term detainee children's preoccupation with visa issues leading to loss of motivation to receive education.

ACM emphasised that it did not have any control over many of these factors.

Teachers working in detention centres confirmed that there were inherent barriers to providing a good education in detention. A former Woomera teacher, who worked in the centre from May to August 2001, stated that during 2001:

This teacher further stated that 'disruptions due to disturbances/riots, continual relocation/rehousing of detainees between compounds, releases and arrivals, detainee health and psychological states' all contributed to this difficulty.

Furthermore, another teacher formerly employed at Woomera summarised the problems as follows:

An overwhelming factor impacting on the children's ability to learn was their ever-increasing depression. Teachers and students all described how an initial excitement to learn gradually disappeared as their time in detention got longer. One former Woomera teacher told the Inquiry:

An unaccompanied child told the Inquiry that his increasing psychological distress during his time in detention meant that he had learnt nothing at all while he was there:

A teenage girl detained at Woomera in June 2002 also said that her detention affected her ability to concentrate:

The Department has stressed that the circumstances surrounding the detention of children during 2001, namely a large influx of detainees, should be taken into account in assessing the education with which they were provided. For example, the Department has suggested that:

Thus it appears that there are several aspects of the detention of asylum seeker children which make it difficult to provide a good education in detention. These factors include the changing numbers of students; the infrastructure available to teachers and students, especially in remote centres; the need to maintain security within detention centres; the occurrence of violent disturbances within the centres; the mental health problems caused by past torture and trauma and the detention environment; differing cultural backgrounds; and differing educational levels.

The fact that the Department and ACM were aware of these issues makes it all the more surprising that children were not immediately sent to mainstream Australian schools, which remove many of these barriers (see further section 12.5 on external education). In any event, it is clear that the Department and ACM were aware of the issues they needed to overcome in order to provide an adequate education. It is therefore important to examine what measures they took to address these challenges within the context of the internal schools.

12.4.2 Curriculum offered to children in internal schools

It was not a proper school, not like this, nothing like this, this is heaven.

Unaccompanied child comparing the education provided at Curtin to education at an Intensive Language Centre in Perth

(a) Challenges to providing an appropriate curriculum to children in detention

The Department and ACM highlight three difficulties in providing a full curriculum to children in immigration detention. First they argue that the special needs of detainee children mean that the standard Australian curriculum is inappropriate. Second, they state that it was difficult to develop a specific curriculum for detainee children because of the transitory nature of the detention centre population. Third, they highlight the barriers to ensuring an appropriate level of curriculum resources.

With respect to the issue of applying the standard Australian curriculum the Department stated the following:

a number of factors need to be taken into account in determining whether it is appropriate for detainee children to receive an education directly comparable with children of the same age in the relevant State, including the child's:

capacities and abilities;

numeracy levels;

literacy levels in English and in their own language; and

degree of socialisation into any school system.

Department then draws the conclusion that:

The ACM Education Coordinator from Woomera during 2001 also stated that the South Australian general curriculum was not used in Woomera as it was 'just impossible to use that kind of document with children that have no English at all'.

In the Inquiry's view, these arguments ignore that throughout Australia there is either an ESL curriculum or an established practice of using national ESL documents to adapt the mainstream curriculum for ESL students. Furthermore, it fails to recognise that the New Arrivals Program delivers this curriculum to children with very similar needs to detainee children. In this program, English language tuition is a priority, but it is delivered across a range of curriculum areas. It is disappointing that these models were not adopted at the outset.

Regarding the difficulty of developing a specific curriculum for children in detention the Department informed the Inquiry that 'it is entirely appropriate that schooling has a focus on English and socialisation skill, and this is consistent with community standards for a similar cohort'.

Furthermore, the Department informed the Inquiry that:

ACM further informed the Inquiry that:

ACM suggests that this statement 'argues against the feasibility or even desirability of a centralised, standardised curriculum in the times of rapidly changing circumstances in the detention centres'.

While the Inquiry acknowledges that the transitory nature and differing education levels pose challenges to providing a full curriculum these are barriers that automatically come with the creation of a mandatory detention system. It is the Department's obligation to address those challenges in a manner that ensures that children in detention receive an education of a standard commensurate with similar children living in the Australian community. It is therefore entirely appropriate to compare the education provided to children in detention with that provided to similar children in the Australian community. This is especially the case when models like the New Arrivals Program already exist to address many of these needs.

Regarding the third challenge of providing appropriate curriculum resources, the Department informed the Inquiry that from late 1999 until 2001, their focus was on meeting basic needs and that it was 'unrealistic to expect that a school environment could be ideally created in such a context'.

ACM also informed the Inquiry that it faced significant difficulties in providing sufficient educational resources:

However, once again, these are issues that arise with a mandatory detention policy that detains children in remote locations. Those issues do not excuse poor resourcing of educational programs; rather they highlight the heightened need for contingency planning.

It is therefore important to examine what efforts were made to address these challenges.

(b) Curriculum used in internal schools

Meaningful education must be based upon a carefully developed and appropriate curriculum. The Inquiry received a range of evidence regarding the quality of the curriculum taught in detention centres.

(i) Port Hedland

The Port Hedland Department Manager noted the following problems in the March 2001 quarterly report:

Reports for the following two quarters made general statements that the standard of education had improved at Port Hedland. However, the Inquiry also heard from a teacher formerly employed at Port Hedland who worked in the centre from August 2001 to March 2002, that learning programs were developed locally and entirely at the discretion of the teachers employed at the time. She reported that:

On the other hand, the Programs Manager at the time reported that he instructed teachers in the centre to spend a third of their time on each of English, Maths and another subject from the standard curriculum. He also said that the teachers in Port Hedland at the time were very capable and did not need more detailed instructions. He stated that the teacher quoted above said that she did not want more detailed instruction.

While the Inquiry accepts that the Programs Manager may have provided some instruction to teachers, curriculum planning should involve detailed consideration and coordinated implementation of the appropriate State curriculum documents. It does not appear that this occurred in any coordinated manner.

(ii) Curtin

When the Inquiry visited Curtin in June 2002, ACM education staff and Department Managers reported that teachers did not use the formal Western Australian curriculum within the centre's educational facility. Instead, instruction was focussed on numeracy, literacy and social skills.

The Inquiry does not agree that preparing students to attend the local school is justification for the provision of a limited program. Indeed, if integration was its purpose, that program should have been as close as possible to what was being taught in the local school. The ESL curriculum taught in the New Arrivals Program adopts this approach and would have provided an appropriate model.

One parent described the education offered in Curtin in June 2002 as follows:

A young person, who was by June 2002 attending Derby District High School, said of the internal program:

(iii) Woomera

Teachers who worked at Woomera in mid-2001 also reported that there was no coordination of the curriculum. One former ACM teacher stated that:

Another teacher employed in 2001 made similar comments:

In response to this evidence, the Department argues that:

While a teacher clearly should respond to a child's needs it must be on the basis of an established curriculum with appropriate goals. In Australian schools, individual teachers do not set the curriculum. Within each school learning programs consistent with State curricula are coordinated within the school, with appropriate resources and teacher development. Where the school is teaching ESL students, then it should apply the appropriate curriculum to the children. It is this coordination of curriculum that was absent within the detention centre educational facilities for some time.

(iv) Villawood

ChilOut, an organisation that has significant contact with children detained at Villawood also reported that there was a limited primary school curriculum at Villawood:

Documentary evidence provided by the Department suggests that in January 2002 classes were offered in English, Maths, Science, Human Society and Environment and Art at Villawood.

(c) Introduction of a State based curriculum in internal schools

The Department's submission states that '[e]ducational services for detainee children are provided, as far as possible, consistent with State/Territory curricula'.However, the Department acknowledges that it has taken some time to apply a full curriculum:

The ACM Education Coordinator from Woomera also reported that ACM considered developing a more extensive curriculum when it became clear that some children would be detained for long periods of time:

ACM planning documents from November 2001 provide the first indication that the education staff planned to develop a curriculum for Woomera based on ESL guidelines. The 2001 Woomera Education Coordinator suggested that guidelines had not been developed previously as at the time there was no ESL curriculum in operation in South Australia. However, at this time there existed an ESL Curriculum Statement for South Australian Schools (1996) and the national ESL Scales (1994) assessment and planning tool was in use within South Australian schools.

By February 2002, ACM teaching staff from Woomera reported that they were attempting to use the South Australian curriculum in their classes but that their efforts were severely hampered by a lack of resources. In their February 2002 monthly report, the ACM education staff state that '[t]he curriculum taught is based on a modified South Australian curriculum, for ESL learners' but that if they 'are to work towards teaching a more comprehensive curriculum then the issue of resources will have to be addressed immediately'.

The decision to extend the curriculum offered at the school was reported in ACM documents to have occurred as a result of the stabilisation of the detainee population.

In May 2002, Woomera teachers reported that '[c]hildren are settled at school and this will be reflected in an extension of curriculum activities that we would not have been able to attempt in the past'. Furthermore, they stated that:

Almost identical comments were made in June 2002.

When the Inquiry visited Woomera in September 2002, it appeared that children were offered a full school day. Teachers reported that their programs were based upon the South Australian curriculum. By this time the East Gippsland Institute of TAFE had been engaged to advise on curriculum implementation for both Woomera and Baxter.

However, parents and children detained at Baxter consistently reported during the Inquiry's visit in December 2002 that they felt that the curriculum used was not appropriate for their age and abilities, and expressed concern that it was not as extensive as that which would be available in external schools. For example, one family reported that they felt that there was no proper teacher, and was concerned that one of the classes contained students ranging in age from eight years to seventeen years. They also reported that there was very little available to the older students in the areas of maths and physics. The children of several other families reported that the education provided was below their level. Several families also reported that they were not able to obtain adequate feedback from teachers regarding their children's progress.

The father of children detained at Baxter told the Inquiry that:

This man was trying to teach his children himself to supplement the education that they received at Baxter.

Although the extension of the curriculum at Woomera and Baxter improved the education offered to the children detained there, the Inquiry is surprised that it did not occur sooner. By the time efforts were made to extend the curriculum at Woomera, most of the children had been detained there for over twelve months.

Furthermore, the curriculum was not applied at Curtin because staff stated that their objective was to prepare students for external schooling and therefore there was no need to implement the State curriculum. At Port Hedland all students were already attending external schooling by this time.

(d) Post-compulsory curriculum in internal schools

In all Australian States, two years of post-compulsory education are available to all young people who are generally aged between 16 and 18 years. However, the Inquiry received very little evidence that appropriate post-compulsory education was provided to students in detention.

The minutes of an Unaccompanied Minors Meeting at Curtin from June 2001 indicate that these children were encouraged to attend adult education. The unaccompanied children in the centre were reported as stating:

The Inquiry is of the view that adult English classes are not adequate for post-compulsory aged children who should have access to a full curriculum appropriate for their age, including ESL tuition if necessary.

A girl of post-compulsory school age detained at Curtin reported to the Inquiry in June 2002 that:

This young woman and her brother were not able to access the external schooling available to some other children detained at Curtin. By the time their English was assessed as being of a high enough level to permit attendance, they were of post-compulsory school age and excluded from going to Derby District High School. See further Case Study 3 at the end of this chapter.

Some programs were offered to children of post-compulsory school age at Port Hedland during 2001 and at Woomera in early 2002. However, these programs were significantly lesser than those which would have been offered to similar children attending schools in the Australian community.

The minutes of an Unaccompanied Minors Meeting at Port Hedland on 29 November 2001 indicate that some classes were offered to older children but do not specify whether they were targeted to their needs, or whether they were the general adult English classes. In any event, most of the unaccompanied children were reported as not attending. Meeting minutes state:

At Woomera, in a memo of 2 February 2002, the ACM Education Coordinator reported that:

Thus, although there is evidence that children aged 15 and over were able to access some education, it is clear that a full curriculum appropriate to their age was not offered.

(e) Curriculum offered in separation detention

The Inquiry has received evidence that in Port Hedland an appropriate curriculum was not provided to children when they were in separation detention. A teacher who worked there in 2001 reported that:

The teacher reported that the children from this boat were released from separation detention within 2-3 months. She explained that it was extremely difficult to provide education for children while they were held in separation detention:

They were absolutely chaotic, because the classes were held in the common room, which is a small room ... [I]t is a room that everybody uses and because the teacher was coming in without wearing any ACM uniform, we really were an attraction ... [W]hile we tried to separate children from adults, it just didn't work because they wanted some human interaction.

So you would have people coming in and talking, you had little tiny tots, two year olds pulling at you and saying, "A, B, C" and then you had full grown up men, walking around and saying, "Hello, hello" and you had women and it was just really, I could compare it to the circus. So, the numbers could vary from 20 to 40 people. Sometimes I took classes outside because I would arrive and the officer on duty had decided, "I am going to let these people out now for their hour". So I would arrive and say - and they would say, "Oh we will bring them back in now".

And I would say, "No, no, no, I don't want them to be brought back in, you know, this is their time outside, so we will go", I would go outside with them and for that time usually we play games, sing, dance, run around and I would just try to do light hearted things with the children at that point.

It appears that at Woomera, education was provided in each separate compound until late 2001, and although the amount of education offered in different compounds varied, children in separation detention generally received a similar level of education to that provided to the rest of the children detained in the centre. The Inquiry has received no evidence about education in separation detention at any other centre.

(f ) Curriculum resources available to teachers in detention centres

As mentioned above, one of the challenges faced by teachers in detention centre schools was the difficulty they had in accessing appropriate and sufficient resources to implement their curriculum.

A teenage girl described the educational resources available in detention as follows:

A teacher who worked at Port Hedland from August 2001 to March 2002 reported that:

The lack of appropriate books was particularly problematic as '[t]he school [has not had] a photocopier since last October [2001] ... working without text books and without a photocopier to hand, is a very difficult task for any teacher'.

A teacher working at Woomera in 2001 also described a curriculum resource problem:

This teacher reported that there was a budget for purchasing curriculum resources and that while 'they never actually knocked you back, but very rarely did [the curriculum resources] appear, let us put it that way'. She explained that ACM's rationale for the poor provision of teaching material was that:

The ACM Education Coordinator said that it was difficult to ensure appropriate resources during an influx of detainees, particularly in July and August of 2001.More generally, ACM told the Inquiry that:

The Department suggested to the Inquiry that ACM's Woomera monthly education reports indicate an improvement in curriculum resourcing, over time, especially in the latter half of 2001. However, these reports generally indicate a focus on resources for the teaching of adults.

Although the September 2001 ACM report states that 'A well-known new programme is being implemented for the early years children, which will facilitate their move into mainstream schools'; the December report notes a deficit in resources for children:

However, the December 2001 report also comments on the improvement of library resources, again without comment as to whether these resources were targeted at adults or children.

A former teacher and the ACM Education Coordinator who worked at Woomera from April 2001 to June 2002 reported that there were adequate resources in the centre for the limited ESL curriculum that was offered in the centre but not for running a full curriculum.

The ACM Education Coordinator also reported that at Woomera during 2002 there was a budget for purchasing resources and that consequently:

Therefore, evidence from teachers who formerly worked in centres, ACM staff and documents received by the Inquiry all indicate some problems with the provision of curriculum resources, although there were improvements at Woomera by the end of 2002.

The Inquiry acknowledges that the uncertainty about the population of the centre may have provided challenges in ensuring that there were appropriate curriculum resources. However, in the Inquiry's view, 'expecting the unexpected' is an inherent part of good detention centre management. There should therefore have been some element of contingency planning in order to ensure that children were offered an appropriate education, irrespective of influxes.

(g) Findings regarding the curriculum offered in internal schools

The Inquiry acknowledges that providing an appropriate curriculum in internal detention centre schools was challenging. There were particular challenges in the period of 1999-2001 when there was a large and transitory population of children in detention and curriculum resources were stretched. However the Inquiry finds that the Department failed to place sufficient priority on addressing those challenges as soon as possible in order to ensure that children were offered an appropriate curriculum.

Furthermore, the Inquiry rejects the Department's view that the curriculum applied in Australian schools is inappropriate for children in detention. This assertion ignores the fact that a similar cohort of children are well catered for in Australian schools where they have access to a full curriculum delivered through an ESL teaching methodology. The most relevant comparison and model is the curriculum administered by the New Arrivals Program.

In late 2002, there were efforts to introduce a full State-based curriculum in Woomera and Baxter, although they were initially poorly resourced. However, the Inquiry heard consistent evidence across several centres that, prior to that time, there was no coordination of curriculum design or implementation. The curriculum taught in detention centres fell far short of that provided in Australian schools attended by similar children. In particular, there were no attempts to apply or adapt existing State curricula within an ESL framework to children in detention.

Furthermore, there were inadequate curriculum resources to support adequate educational programs within detention. This was especially the case for children in separation detention at Port Hedland, at least during some periods in 2001.

Even after late 2002, there is no evidence of an appropriate curriculum being provided to children of post-compulsory age (and until 2003, these children did not have the opportunity to attend external schools).

The Inquiry notes that despite the improvements in late 2002, detainee parents and children still did not feel that they were receiving an education equivalent to that available in the Australian community.

12.4.3 Teachers available to children in internal schools

This section explores issues surrounding staffing of educational programs within detention. Most of the evidence received by the Inquiry concerns the staffing of educational programs at Woomera and Port Hedland.

(a) Challenges in providing sufficient teachers for internal schools

The Department and ACM both note that there were challenges in providing sufficient teachers for detention centre schools.

The Department suggested that the problems in ensuring sufficient staff at detention centres is 'not surprising ... as in the community, there might be difficulties in attracting and retaining suitably qualified staff in more remote locations'.

ACM also reported that it was difficult to ensure that there were enough teachers for a fluctuating population of children in detention:

While acknowledging these difficulties, two points must be noted. Firstly, the location of detention centres has exacerbated the problem of finding adequate numbers of teachers. Secondly, the Department has the responsibility to ensure an adequate education irrespective of the location of the children.

(b) Qualifications and training of teachers in detention centres

There are two issues to consider with regard to appropriate teacher qualifications in detention centre schools: first, whether they are fully qualified teachers; second, whether they have special ESL training.

In the Australian community there are clear standards regarding the qualifications of teaching staff. Teacher registration is required in Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. There is no requirement for teachers to be registered in New South Wales, or Western Australia. Teachers working in intensive English centres in all States are required to be qualified teachers trained in the teaching of ESL.

The IDS required that education programs for children be provided by 'qualified teachers'. However, ACM education policy did not include any specific requirements about the types of qualifications.

No evidence suggests that any teacher was without general State teaching qualifications. Department records of teacher qualifications in all the centres from April to September 2002 indicate that some, but not all teachers had ESL training. For example, records of teacher qualifications from Port Hedland from 31 January 2002 indicate that one of four teachers did not have ESL training.

There is no evidence of teachers at Villawood having ESL qualifications prior to July 2002. From July until September 2002 only one of three teachers had ESL training.

At Woomera, records indicate that from April to June 2002 all teachers had ESL training; however, none of the teachers employed in July 2002 were ESL trained. In August and September 2002 only one of five teachers had ESL training.

(c) Numbers of teachers in detention centres

The capacity to provide an adequate curriculum and adequate hours of tuition is determined in large part by the numbers and capacity of the teaching staff employed.

The Inquiry has received information suggesting that there were an insufficient number of teachers at both Woomera and Port Hedland during 2001. The Department suggested that this was a consequence of 'the extenuating circumstances facing the department and the detention services provider in 2001', namely an influx of detainees. However, as noted earlier, it is the Department's responsibility to ensure the provision of an adequate standard of education in the light of these circumstances.

The ACM monthly education report states that in August 2001 at Woomera:

On 1 August 2001, there were 282 children at Woomera, and on 1 September 2001 there were 456 children detained at Woomera. During these months, there were between five and 3.5 teachers available. This means that the best possible staff to student ratio during this time was one teacher to 56 students. By comparison, the Australia Bureau of Statistics reports that in 2001, the average staff to student ratio for all schools in Australia was one teacher to 14.7 students.

The average class size for Australian primary schools is between 25 and 30 students. Due to the large numbers of children detained at Woomera, the teachers simply had to reduce the number of hours of education delivered to children to 1-2 per day in order to maintain this class size.

There were similar problems over 2001 in Port Hedland. During part of the March quarter of 2001 there was no teacher at all at Port Hedland, when the population of children in the centre was at least 53. The Department Manager at Port Hedland reported to Central Office that:

The makeshift arrangements over this period were as follows:

Six months later, in October 2001, the Department Manager was still noting concerns regarding the low numbers of teachers at Port Hedland:

There were still problems in February 2002:

Thus the Department Manager at Port Hedland was clearly aware of the impact that the teacher shortage was having on the education of children. She also noted the connection between the low number of face-to-face hours and children's general behaviour.

The Inquiry observed a much higher staff to student ratio during visits to Woomera and Baxter in late 2002.

(d) Turnover of teachers in detention centres

The educational facilities within detention centres were largely staffed with teachers on short-term contracts, many of them being of six weeks duration. While this may have been an appropriate measure to deal with large and short-term influxes, it appears to have had a negative impact on the quality of education. Furthermore, it appears that the changing population was not the only, or primary, reason for the short-term contracts.

The ACM 2001 Education Coordinator at Woomera told a hearing of the Inquiry that the six-week contracts were provided as the 'detention environment is not suitable for everybody and some people found ... that it was not the right place for them'. The Coordinator reported that if staff 'found it a suitable environment ... they would go on to a three month contract'.

The Inquiry also heard that there is an incentive for staff to take six-week contracts due to the temporary recruitment agency rules that employment for a period longer than six weeks was seen as permanent work and therefore attracted a lesser rate of actual pay.

A former Port Hedland teacher told the Inquiry of the impact of short-term contracts:

A former Woomera teacher reported that during mid-2001, most teachers were on either six-week or three-month contracts, leading to a high rotation of teaching staff. However, since there was a serious teacher shortage during this same time, it appears that the short-term nature of the contracts did not result in a corresponding increase in the number of teachers.

Since September 2001, there appears to have been a much greater consistency of teachers. The teachers working in the centre at the end of 2002 were reported to have been there for over a year. The October 2001 ACM monthly education report from Woomera stated that:

In some centres there was greater stability in education staff. For example, Curtin had a relatively stable teaching staff, with two teachers employed for a period of two years, and two for more than one year since January 2000.

(e) ACM Uniforms for teachers

Teachers working in detention centres were generally expected to wear ACM uniforms.

Several teachers who worked at Woomera in 2001 commented that it was initially difficult for children to distinguish between teachers and detention officers. For example, one teacher said:

This teacher reported that it would have been easier to carry out her role as a teacher without being in uniform. Another teacher reported that although there was an initial impact on students of teachers wearing uniform, they eventually became used to it:

During the Inquiry's visits to Curtin in June 2002 and to Woomera in both June and September 2002, teachers were wearing ACM uniforms and security earpieces. The former Education Coordinator from Woomera informed the Inquiry that earpieces were worn in case of emergency as teachers had no other form of contact in education areas. However, the detainee children at Curtin in 2002 told the Inquiry that they perceived the teachers to be detention officers rather than teachers, because they looked the same as detention officers.

(f ) Detainee teachers

There was significant reliance on detainee teachers in educational facilities within detention centres until mid-2002. It appears that detainee teachers were generally employed as assistant teachers. They were paid the equivalent of $1 per hour for their work.

The two major issues of concern with regard to detainee teachers are: first, whether they taught unsupervised by Australian qualified teachers; and second, whether they were adequately trained for the work that they undertook.

The bulk of the evidence that the Inquiry has received regarding detainee teachers is from Woomera. ACM monthly education reports from September to December 2001 indicate that there were between 19 and 27 detainee assistant teachers employed at Woomera. In February 2002 there were 25 detainee assistant teachers employed.

It appears that detainee teachers were actively recruited:

Detainee teachers were in particular demand when the teacher shortage was at its most critical stage. A teacher who worked at Woomera between May and August 2001 reported that detainee teachers were vital to a continuing education program:

While it appears that most of the time detainees were assisting qualified teachers, the Inquiry has heard of instances in both Woomera and Port Hedland where detainee teachers conducted classes without supervision. The April 2002 ACM Woomera monthly education report notes that 'the 5 and 6 year olds continue to be in a 3 rd separate class taught by a resident teacher with occasional Education Officer input'. A memo from the Education Officer in May 2002 reports that:

In May 2002, the Department expressed some concern that ACM was not providing qualified staff for kindergarten classes at Woomera.

There was also significant reliance on detainee teachers in Port Hedland. An ex-teacher from the centre told the Inquiry that there was no time to guide detainee teachers on what to teach:

The little training that detainee teachers received was for their personal morale rather than on how to teach the children. For example, it appears that at Woomera during 2001:

However, an ACM teacher said that detainee teachers were instructed on child protection laws at Woomera during 2001:

(g) Findings regarding the teaching staff in detention centre education services

The Inquiry finds that detention centre teachers worked extremely hard to provide the best possible instruction to children in the circumstances under which they were working. However, the Inquiry also finds that those conditions severely compromised their capacity to provide an appropriate standard of education.

First, the Inquiry finds that there was a serious shortage of teachers at Woomera during 2001, compromising the quality and amount of education provided to children. For example, during August and September 2001, there were approximately four times as many students to each staff member in Woomera, as compared to schools in Australia. There was also a serious shortage of teachers at Port Hedland during 2001, until the time that students were allowed to attend external schools.

While all teachers employed at the centre had general teaching qualifications, there were occasions when there were no teachers with ESL training. Furthermore, there was some concern that the high turnover of teachers impacted on the quality and continuity of the teaching.

The Inquiry acknowledges that the remote and rural location of most of the detention centres and the fluctuating population in detention centres poses challenges in ensuring the appropriate number of teachers with the necessary qualifications at all times. However, both these problems were known to the Department prior to placing children in these facilities and, in the Inquiry's view, there have been insufficient efforts to overcome these issues. In particular, the availability of short-term teacher contracts does not appear to have been used to make up for short-term increases in the population. Instead, it appears that detainee teachers, who did not have appropriate qualifications, were sometimes used to alleviate staffing shortages. At other times, there were no extra teachers at all.

The employment of detainees as assistant teachers may well have been appropriate and desirable, and it appears that most of the time this is the capacity in which they were employed. However, there were occasions when unqualified detainees were used in the place of qualified teachers. Furthermore, there were insufficient efforts to provide detainees with the appropriate teacher training.

The Inquiry is also concerned that the requirement that teachers wear an ACM uniform led to confusion in a child's mind between teachers and detention officers, although children seemed to get used to this fairly quickly.

12.4.4 Hours of tuition available to children in internal schools

In most Australian schools, students are provided with approximately 6 hours of education per day (including breaks).

(a) Challenges in providing a full day of school in internal schools

The teacher shortage clearly impacted on the ability to provide a full day of schooling for all children. However ACM emphasised to the Inquiry that the primary barrier to providing a full day of education was the inadequate infrastructure over which they had little control. ACM's July 2001 monthly education report states that:

Furthermore, in evidence before a hearing of the Inquiry, the 2001 Education Coordinator for Woomera stated that:

The Department has also stated that in its view between one to three hours of tuition was adequate for detainee children:

ACM was also of the view that:

The educational infrastructure available to teachers is discussed in section 12.4.5. The Inquiry does not agree a full day's curriculum tailored to these needs is inappropriate. Similar children in the community attend a full day in the New Arrivals Program. Furthermore, as demonstrated later in this chapter, when children were offered the opportunity to attend schools outside the centre, they did not have any difficulty in adapting to a full day of school. In any event, evidence to the Inquiry suggests that detainee children's inability to concentrate is a consequence of the impact of the detention environment.

(b) Hours offered to children in internal schools

The Department's submission reports the hours of tuition available to students as at 31 January 2002 as follows:

Curtin, primary and secondary 5 hours 40 minutes

Port Hedland, primary and secondary 5 hours

Woomera, primary and secondary 3 hours

Villawood, primary and secondary 7 hours

Maribyrnong, no school age children detained on that date.

It is important to note that these figures represent availability at one point in time. It does not necessarily reflect what was available in the centres in the preceding or following months or years.

For example, the Inquiry has heard differing reports on the number of hours of tuition available at Villawood throughout 2002. The Department's submission states that there were seven hours of tuition per day available to both primary and secondary students in January 2002. In response to a question on notice in May 2002, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (the Minister) stated that both primary and secondary classes were conducted for five hours each weekday, 48 weeks a year. During the Inquiry's visit to Villawood in August 2002, staff observed that three hours of education was provided to both primary and secondary-aged children. Although these figures are from different periods of time, they demonstrate significant variation in hours of education which does not occur in Australian schools.

The Inquiry is concerned that the hours reported at Curtin are not reflective of what was actually provided. A January 2002 memo from the Curtin Education Department, states that primary and secondary children at Curtin at this time received 30 hours per week tuition. However, the timetable attached to the memo indicates that in the afternoon, children undertook only recreational activities or reading. In terms of core curriculum children were only offered computing, language and maths, in the morning of each school day, for a period of approximately three hours.

At Curtin after the April 2002 riots, education was limited to three hours per day. As described in section 12.4.3 above, regarding the number of teachers in internal schools, in Port Hedland there was almost no provision of education during the March quarter of 2001.

In December 2001, students aged between eight and twelve years commenced attending school at St Michael's, a disused Catholic school in Woomera town. Children at St Michael's were offered three hours of education per day, four days a week. ACM documents indicate that the number of classrooms at St Michael's impacted upon the provision of education: 'due to [there] only being 4 classrooms at the school we are taking the children down in two shifts every day'.

The Inquiry heard from detainee children that they were not receiving even three hours education at St Michael's:

A father said that:

ACM education staff confirmed that travel time seriously encroached on the hours of education offered to the children attending St Michael's. Their January 2002 report states that:

Providing education at St Michael's for younger children put additional pressure on the capacity to maintain education services to older children and other detainees remaining in the centre. At this time ACM education staff reported that '[a]ll teenagers have the opportunity to attend 1 hour of English per day. Teenagers from the Main and November [compounds] also have access to one hour of computer time per day'. In February 2002, ACM education staff reported that '[c]lasses for 13-17 year olds have been running in Charlie Compound from 9.00am to 12.00pm Monday to Thursday'. Children aged between 13-17 years were offered access to the program at St Michael's in early March 2002.

By April 2002 the numbers of children detained at Woomera had significantly decreased, which should have increased capacity to provide educational services. However, according to the Department, the number of hours of education remained at three per day:

Only in September 2002, by which time education was again being provided within Woomera (rather than St Michael's), was the school day lengthened to one that approximates a school day in the Australian community. During its visit to Baxter in December 2002, the Inquiry found that the hours of tuition also approximated a normal school day.

(c) Findings regarding hours of tuition

Children within Australian schools generally have access to approximately six hours of education per day (including breaks). There has been a significantly lower number of hours offered to some children in immigration detention, particularly those detained at Woomera.

The hours of education reported by the Department in its submission, as at 31 January 2002, are generally appropriate. However at Woomera, until late 2002, and in some instances in other centres, considerably fewer hours of tuition were offered to children educated in detention facilities, than to children in mainstream Australian schools. One of the worst examples was in the middle of 2001 when children at Woomera received between one and two contact hours per day.

The low number of tuition hours available to children is linked to the shortage of teachers and classrooms in detention centres (see further sections 12.4.3 and 12.4.5). The low number of hours made it very difficult to provide a full curriculum.

The Department rejects any suggestion that 'it was "unwilling" to address issues related to hours of tuition, and notes instead that the capacity of the department and services provider was appropriately focussed on meeting basic needs and ensuring people were processed as speedily as possible' during periods when there were large increases in the number of arrivals.

It is important to remember that it is incumbent on the Department to have systems in place that are designed to ensure that such external events do not affect the quality of education provided to children. Thus while acknowledging that this influx posed challenges within the constraints of detention centre management at that time, it is the Inquiry's view that the Department failed to place sufficient priority on ensuring that children would be unaffected by these events. For example, if children were going to external schools, an influx of children should not affect their ability to enjoy a full school day. A similar result would arise if children were in alternative places of detention in the community or if the detention legislation permitted the speedy release of children.

12.4.5 Educational infrastructure available in internal schools

As suggested above, the provision of adequate education also requires appropriate educational infrastructure, including classrooms, playgrounds and facilities for teachers. This includes providing an environment where children can feel safe and secure.

(a) Challenges in providing sufficient educational infrastructure

The Department states that:

However, at the same time, the Department accounts for some of the difficulties in the provision of education through 'disturbances within the detention facilities which result in the destruction of education facilities and/or result in an unsafe environment for both staff and children'.

For example, the Department informed the Inquiry that the destruction of educational facilities by fire at Woomera affected the capacity to provide education. Fires destroyed these facilities in August 2000 and then again in November and December 2001, when '[f]ive educational facilities were lost, being two kindergarten buildings in Main Compound, and one education building each in Oscar, November and Mike Compounds'. The Department further stated that:

ACM acknowledges that it had concerns regarding insufficient educational infrastructure within immigration detention centres but emphasises that infrastructure is beyond its control. In January 2002, ACM education officers at Woomera reported that:

Accommodation in the Main Compound is more than adequate with current numbers, but due to fires over the Christmas period there are no educational or activities buildings to use in Mike, November or Oscar compounds.

ACM also reported that:

The impact of violence in detention centres on the educational facilities available to children is of concern to the Inquiry. It demonstrates some of the inherent problems of detaining children in such an environment.

Nevertheless, even when not impacted by violence the infrastructure was inadequate, and this affected the education provided to children. The ACM Education Coordinator at Woomera in 2001 reported that: 'when you've got 400 children and four classrooms, it's actually not possible to get them in there for five hours a day and teach them all for five hours a day'.

(b) Facilities available for education purposes

ACM documents regarding Woomera indicate that during mid-late 2001 there was discussion about the lack of suitable accommodation for educational programs. The July 2001 report states that 'there is no more classroom space in the Main Compound to accommodate any extra hours and the currently large numbers of children'. The August 2001 report states that '[w]e continue to work at full capacity in the Main Compound. In India Compound we are using both the mess and a spare unfurnished room'. The September 2001 report states that '[w]e continue to work at near full capacity in Main, Mike and November compounds'. In October 2001 the report indicates that there was sufficient accommodation: '[a]s the numbers are decreasing, accommodation is adequate'.

Although most evidence regarding educational infrastructure was regarding Woomera, the Inquiry also heard that there were problems with infrastructure at Port Hedland and Curtin. A teacher who had worked at Port Hedland said:

When the Inquiry visited Curtin during June 2002, educational programs were being offered in two small dongas (demountable buildings) in the accommodation area, as the purpose-built school had been damaged in riots of April 2002. During the visit ACM staff reported that they hoped to relocate the school to the Main Compound.

School education buildings and recreation area at Curtin soon to be reopened, June 2002.

During visits to Woomera and Baxter in late 2002, the Inquiry found that there was adequate educational infrastructure for the number of students receiving education within the centre schools.

(c) Findings regarding educational infrastructure

The Inquiry finds that until late 2002 the educational infrastructure at Woomera was inadequate, compromising the provision of education. The Inquiry also received evidence suggesting that infrastructure at Port Hedland and Curtin was at times inadequate for the needs of the internal education program.

The large detainee populations at certain times and the destruction of education facilities during disturbances certainly contributed to the difficulty of ensuring adequate facilities. Both these factors highlight the inherent difficulties in trying to provide education within a detention environment. In particular, the fact that the facilities became the subject of violence in detention calls into question the Department's assertion that education facilities offer a safe and secure environment for children.

However, as stated earlier, the Department has an obligation to ensure that the detention of children does not affect the quality of a child's education. Had there been a system in place to send all children to external schools, for example, these issues would not have presented such serious problems.

12.4.6 Assessment and reporting offered to children in internal schools

It is necessary to assess a child's pre-existing abilities in order to adequately provide for their educational needs. As outlined by the NSW Department of Education, this can be a complex process:

The ACM policy regarding education required that '[e]ducational counselling will be provided in order to appropriately place detainees in available educational programs'. Furthermore, the Curtin Education Department Child Detainee Student Policy states:

Enrolments ...

1. Child detainees will be further assessed on academic, behavioural andattendance performance. This process will vary between 2-3 weeks for a newly enrolled detainee child.

2. Once this process is complete, a detainee student will be allocated to the appropriate class.

However, the Inquiry has not received any documentary evidence suggesting that this policy was routinely implemented. Furthermore, evidence from teachers suggests that the assessments did not routinely occur. For example, a former Port Hedland teacher told the Inquiry that '[t]here wasn't any profiling system. There wasn't anything done. It is supposed to be done when the kids first come into a school'.

Similarly, the Inquiry heard from a former Woomera teacher that she:

Meaningful education should also include reporting on achievement. All Australian schools have a method of reporting and these results are usually used to assist in constructing appropriate learning programs for students and to inform parents of their child's progress.

ACM policy on education states that: '[s]ome type of formal recognition of the detainee's accomplishment shall accompany specific course completions'.However, the same teacher cited above, who worked at Woomera during 2001, stated that reporting was very difficult due to 'the constantly fluctuating number of students, the contact time per class and the constant movement of children between compounds'. This teacher reported that 'there is no continuity of learning or an established formal classroom teaching ... so that you could establish records'.Furthermore, she reported that it was very difficult for teachers to provide students departing the centre with records of their achievement because they were not informed when children were leaving the centre.

The principal of the Adelaide Secondary School of English, which many children attended upon their release from Woomera, stated that children arrived at her school with no documentation whatsoever.

The 2001 Woomera ACM Education Coordinator confirmed that there was no reporting on student achievement at Woomera during 2001. She asserted, however, that some reporting to parents was undertaken, commencing in early 2002. She stated that:

ACM further emphasised that:

The Woomera monthly education report from April 2002 confirms that some reports were provided to parents at Woomera in early 2002:

The Inquiry also received a school report pro-forma from Woomera, used in late 2001 when the students commenced attending the St Michael's facility external to the centre.

(a) Findings regarding assessment and reporting

The Inquiry finds that there has been inadequate educational assessment and reporting for children in immigration detention.

The Inquiry did not receive any evidence that initial assessments of a child's educational level were conducted. Furthermore, there is very little evidence of reporting on student achievement. This lack of educational assessment and reporting on achievement has compromised the provision of appropriate education to children in detention.

The constantly fluctuating number of students and their sudden release may make it difficult to provide reports on student achievement when the children are released. However, there is no reason why student progress cannot be recorded on an individual basis and a report provided to students and parents at regular intervals during their time in detention. This is especially important for children who have been detained for lengthy periods of time.

12.4.7 Attendance levels in internal schools

Throughout Australia, State education legislation requires that all children attend school between the ages of six and fifteen. Two years of post-compulsory education are also provided to Australian children. These laws apply equally to children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and all other children. However, neither the Department nor ACM are of the view that school attendances can be enforced in detention centres.

(a) Challenges in ensuring attendance in internal schools

There are two related challenges in ensuring attendance at internal schools. Firstly, some children are reluctant to attend internal education programs because of mental health concerns or disinterest in the curriculum being offered. Secondly, the Department and ACM both note that they are of the view that attendance cannot, or should not, be enforced.

Regarding enforcement, the Department stated that:

ACM documents provided to the Inquiry indicate that they were also of the view that attendance was optional. The ACM Education Induction Talk informed detainees that:

Furthermore, a memo from the Education Coordinator of 6 February 2002 states that '[e]ducational opportunities are provided to all school aged children. However, attendance is optional and not all children take up this facility every time it is available'.

As mentioned above, the declining mental health of children in detention also impacted upon the ability of staff to encourage children to go to school. A boy at Curtin told the Inquiry how his diminishing hope affected his enthusiasm to learn:

A former Woomera teacher made similar observations:

The mental health of the children's parents also affects attendance:

As the children's parents psychological condition deteriorated, I observed that their children would also go downhill and stop attending classes.

Even if I had to educate them myself, if I were in a better state of mind I would be able to do so, but in this condition I can't. The schooling that they are provided with is not adequate, if it weren't for my teaching them maths, reading, they wouldn't have learnt anything.

ACM also suggested that cultural beliefs affected the level of attendance:

However, it must be noted that many children who had no interest in attending the classes provided onsite, had a great deal of enthusiasm for learning when they were offered the opportunity to attend schools outside the centre. It appears, therefore, that the children's eagerness to go to class may also have been connected to the quality of the education offered to them and the fact that it was conducted within the detention environment which is one of the causes of their mental decline (see further Chapter 9 on Mental Health).

(b) Difficulties in determining the actual attendance in internal schools

The level of attendance at education programs in detention is difficult to determine. The figures in the Department's submission to the Inquiry are based on ACM internal monthly reports and the Inquiry is concerned that the figures contained in these reports are unreliable. Firstly, analysis of the figures in the reports indicates inconsistencies. Secondly, there are two instances where the Inquiry has received differing reports on the hours of education provided within detention centres.

ACM monthly reports regarding education at both Curtin and Port Hedland indicate significant inaccuracies. For example, with regard to Curtin, exactly the same figures for hours of attendance and the numbers of students attending are given for every month of 2002, even though the number of children in the centre decreased significantly over the year. The reports consistently state that there were 45 children receiving education at Curtin, although from April 2002 onwards there were fewer than 45 children detained in the centre. ACM acknowledge that these reports are sometimes incorrect, stating that 'it would appear that in some instances the amenities table was copied from one monthly report to the next'.

Similar discrepancies can be found in the records for Port Hedland. For example, the ACM monthly report of February 2002 states that educational programs were provided for 62 children, a month during which they report that there were only 49 children detained in the centre. In March 2002 the report states that ACM was providing education programs for 38 children at a time when they report that there were only 33 children detained in the centre.

ACM explain that the discrepancy between the figure regarding educational programs and the number of children in the centre may be because the number of children reported detained in a month was occasionally not an average but the 'actual number on a sample day':

For example, the number of children in Port Hedland for February 2002 was erroneously reported as 49. In fact, the number of children in Port Hedland decreased from 78 to 52 during the month. Had the correct method of aggregating the actual numbers each day and then dividing the aggregate by the number of days in the month been used, the average number of children for the month should have been 65. The average attendance figure of 62 for that month is therefore not inconsistent with the number of children in the centre for the month.

Furthermore, the ACM education coordinator responsible for providing statistics at Port Hedland at the time gave evidence that in early 2002 he approximated figures for attendance at education as the method of calculation was very complicated and difficult.

While these explanations account for some of the discrepancies, they also demonstrate the difficulty of relying upon these records for an accurate impression of educational programs provided to children. As the Department's submission appears to be based on these numbers, its reliability is also in question.

(c) Apparent attendance levels in internal schools

Documents available to the Inquiry suggest that children's attendance at education programs inside detention centres decreased with the length of time that the children had been in detention.

In some instances, attendance also appears to decrease with the increasing age of the children. In a memo of March 2002, the Woomera Programs Manager reports that approximately 85 per cent of children aged between 5-12 years attended education classes daily, while approximately 70 per cent of children aged between 13-16 years attended education classes daily.

At Villawood, there has been very low attendance at internal education programs by secondary school-aged children. ACM documents indicate that for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 approximately 20 per cent of secondary school-age children attended school in the centre, while for 2001-2002 approximately 50 per cent of secondary school-age children attended school in the centre.

The Inquiry also received evidence that attendance at educational programs of particular groups of students was low. For example, an ACM document indicates that the attendance of adolescent girls at Woomera education programs in early 2002 was very low:

An ACM officer reported the reasons for which teenage girls were not attending class:

Department and ACM records from mid-2001 and early 2002 indicate that detention centre staff tried to encourage attendance at education programs, particularly for unaccompanied children. Minutes of meetings regarding unaccompanied children from June and July 2001 demonstrate that ACM officers were investigating the reasons for low attendance at school and that there were specific strategies in place to encourage unaccompanied children to attend education. However, these records also indicate that detention affects the unaccompanied children's desire to attend school.

For example, the minutes of 12 June 2001 note:

The UAMs appear to have the attitude:

'they will learn when they get out to Australia'

'they will work when they get out to Australia' None of them appear to want to commit themselves while they are in the camp.

In another meeting at Woomera regarding unaccompanied children on 3 July 2001, it is reported that:

General concern about low attendance was also recorded in the minutes of the teleconference regarding unaccompanied children on 17 January 2002:

The Department informed the Inquiry that 'unaccompanied minors over compulsory school age may choose to leave their schooling' and that although efforts were made, there were 'difficulties in encouraging attendance' for post-compulsory aged children.

(d) Findings regarding attendance

Although there is some evidence that staff actively encouraged children to attend school, in most cases these efforts do not appear to have been effective. While unreliable record-keeping makes it difficult to determine the exact attendance levels, it appears that it has generally been low, particularly with long-term detainee and older children. The primary reasons for non-attendance by children appear to be increasing depression and the absence of a stimulating curriculum suited to the various ages and levels of children.

There is no evidence that the Department sought to enforce school attendance for children between 6 and 15-years-old, as required in the Australian community.

12.4.8 Summary of the provision of education in internal schools

The preceding sections explain that education within detention facilities was inadequate, and certainly nowhere near the level of education offered to similar children in the community primarily for the following reasons:

The standard State and ESL curricula were not offered to children in detention until late 2002; this was especially problematic for children of post-compulsory school age.

There were severe teacher shortages and infrastructure restrictions resulting in an extremely short teaching day.

There was inadequate assessment and reporting.

The poor curriculum and mental health issues facing children in detention meant there was very little enthusiasm for attending the classes that were on offer.

The Inquiry recognises that many of these problems arise from challenges inherent in running a school within the detention environment. Many of those problems disappeared when children started going to Australian schools.

The next section outlines when children started attending community schools and why it took so long for access to these schools to be organised.

12.5 What external education was provided to children in detention?

Many of the problems encountered with the internal education program disappeared when detainee children attended the local schools in the communities surrounding the various detention facilities. Children were immediately enthusiastic about attending school. The primary reason for this was that children had the opportunity to leave the detention centre every day and interact with Australian children. However, children also reported a radical difference in the quality of the education that they were receiving.

In evidence to the Inquiry, the Department stated that it 'acknowledges that access to [external] schooling is likely to be appropriate and beneficial for most children':

This section discusses the following issues regarding external education:

when and where children have attended external schools

progress of negotiations for routine access to external education

impact of remote locations on access to external schools

payment for access to external education

participation in external education

impact of external education on detainee children

education in alternative detention.

The section concludes with a summary of findings regarding external education.

12.5.1 When and where children attended external schools

Access to external education has varied considerably across centres and over time. In evidence before the Inquiry the Department stated that '[o]ver the years at various times children from Maribyrnong, Villawood, Curtin, Port Hedland and Christmas Island have attended local schools outside the detention facilities'.The Inquiry is not aware, however, of the existence of regular access to external schooling prior to 2002 except in the cases of Curtin and Maribyrnong. Following is a brief synopsis of what has been available to detainee children.

Maribyrnong

1998 - Children had access to education at St Margaret Mary's Catholic primary school from the beginning of 1998. Approximately 12 children participated in this arrangement.

2002 - In October children commenced attending the local State schools.

Port Hedland

1998 - Two children enrolled at St Cecilia's Catholic School.

2002 - In April two children began attending St Cecilia's. All of the children attended the school from May onwards.

Curtin

2001 - Children commenced at Derby District High School in March 2001. Five children attended during 2001.

2002 - Approximately 16 children attended Derby District High School. This was a small proportion of the children detained at the centre at the time.

Villawood

2002 - In August 2002 some children commenced attending local State schools. More children in the centre commenced at external schools in October; however, not all children could participate.

Woomera

2002 - In December, primary school-aged children commenced attending St Barbara's Catholic Parish School in Roxby Downs two days a week.

2003 - By mid-2003 children detained at the Woomera Residential Housing Project were attending the Woomera Area School.

Baxter

2003 - In March 2003 secondary school-aged children commenced attending local State schools and in April 2003 primary school-aged children commenced attending local State schools. Some children were excluded from these arrangements.

12.5.2 Early ad hoc arrangements for access to external education

The Inquiry heard that initial access to external schools was organised locally and in an ad hoc fashion. For example, the Inquiry heard that the arrangement for child detainees from Curtin to attend Derby District High School was initiated after an approach was made to the Principal of the school by the ACM Manager from Curtin. There was no general approach from the Department or ACM to the Western Australian State education authority.

The arrangement at Port Hedland was also locally negotiated. The Principal of St Cecilia's reported to the Inquiry that in April 2002 he approached the Department's Manager to suggest that the detainee children attend his school. In Port Hedland ACM reported that prior negotiations had been conducted with State schools, but the detainee children were not accepted into the State schools as they were not Australian citizens.

The Department suggests that access to external education was negotiated in 2002 due to the 'evolving educational needs of longer-term detainee children from 2002 (as the caseload changed in response to the numbers of unauthorised boat arrivals ceasing)'.

The Department further argues that:

However, very few children detained between 1992 and 2001 had any access to external education, despite recommendations that this occur. For example, no child detained at Villawood was able to access external education until mid-2002. Clearly, the ad hoc arrangements did not deliver external education for many children in detention.

12.5.3 Negotiating routine access to external schools

The Department assumed complete responsibility for negotiation of access to education during 2002, when negotiations of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with State education authorities regarding placement of children in external schools commenced in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. Prior to this there was some confusion as to whether the Department or ACM was responsible for negotiating access for detainee children.

This is particularly evident in the case of Woomera, where responsibility for negotiations with the State education department alternated between the Department and ACM over 2001-2002.

ACM reports that negotiations between ACM and the Woomera Area School commenced in early 2001 when support was 'gained at the local level for children from [Woomera] to in some way use the facilities of the Woomera Area School'. However, ACM alleges that the South Australian Department of Education refused to let any detainees attend the school.

It seems that the negotiation process was then handed back to the Department, which states that it made contact with the South Australian Department of Education in mid-2001.

However, in February 2002 it seems that negotiations were back in ACM's hands. The South Australian Department of Education reports that in February 2002 'the matter of children in detention enrolling in Woomera Area School was raised by ACM with the school directly'. The SA Department's view was that this proposal 'put undue pressure on the school and that any request of the kind being presented should be made at government-to-government level'.

Negotiations continued between ACM and the school and in April 2002 ACM put a proposal to the principal of the Woomera Area School for the trial integration of a maximum of 15 lower primary aged children from Woomera.

It does not appear that this proposal made any progress and negotiations resumed between the Department and the South Australian Department of Education. In an appearance before the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in August 2002, the Department stated that it was 'still in discussions in South Australia where we do not yet have access to external school based education'.

This example demonstrates the lengthy and confusing process followed by the Department and ACM prior to 2002.

The first MOU to be finalised was between the Department and the NSW Department of Education and Training, on 28 June 2002. Discussions were initiated in April 2002. In May 2002, Ken Boston, then Director-General of Education, was quoted in the media as saying that:

The next MOU was finalised between the Department and the South Australian Government on 17 December 2002. However, access to external schooling for the children detained at Baxter was considerably delayed while the process of consultation with the local community in Port Augusta was concluded.

Negotiations with the Victorian Government commenced when the local Catholic primary school was unable to accommodate children detained at the centre in June 2002. These children were educated within Maribyrnong between June and October 2002. A draft MOU between the Department and the Victorian Government had progressed to a stage where detainee children could commence school in October 2002. The MOU was signed on 5 February 2003.

According to the Department, formal negotiations of a MOU with the Western Australian Government began in November 2002. As at September 2003, this MOU was still not finalised.

Each of the MOUs regarding external education has very similar content. In each agreement the Department acknowledges that it seeks to access public education in the local community for detainee children, provided the requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act) to detain unlawful non-citizens are met.

Under each agreement, participating schools must be approved as alternative places of detention, and the principal or teachers must be designated [or directed] persons responsible for the detention of the children. The agreements require directed persons to exercise a high level of responsibility with regard to detainee children.

The Department has sought to explain the delay in reaching these agreements as follows:

The Inquiry accepts that the willingness of State authorities to accept children into their schools will impact on the speed at which agreements are reached. However, the children in detention centres are the Department's responsibility and have been so since at least 1992. It is therefore disappointing that the Department did not approach State authorities in a comprehensive manner prior to 2002.

12.5.4 Payment arrangements for external education

One of the issues with regard to the provision of external schooling is the question of who should be responsible for meeting the cost. Within Australia, public primary and secondary education is largely funded by State authorities, with a lesser proportion of funding provided by the Commonwealth. Private schools receive the majority of their funding from the Commonwealth, with the remainder funded by State authorities and school fees.

However, the early localised arrangements for external schooling, for example in Derby (Curtin) and Port Hedland, suggest that attendance by detainee children was dependent on the generosity of the individual schools. In other words, it appears that neither ACM nor the Department met all of the costs of educating children who attended school under these arrangements.

In June 2002, the principal of the Derby District High School told the Inquiry that initially there was no funding for the students from Curtin to attend the school, and that the school absorbed the cost within its own resources. From 2002 the detainee students were counted as part of the total enrolment of the school, which meant that the Western Australian Government provided the bulk of the funding for the education of these children.

Similarly, initially there was no provision for payment of fees or other costs for children attending St Cecilia's Catholic School in Port Hedland. In October 2002, the Catholic Education Office of Western Australia requested a contribution to the costs of educating the detainee children. After a lengthy process of negotiation, in mid2003 the Department agreed to meet the costs of the children's education (including school fees and the equivalent Commonwealth funding provided for the education of other children at the school) backdated to the commencement of the negotiations in October 2002.

The Inquiry also received evidence that reluctance to meet the costs of external education affected the access of children from Maribyrnong to external schools. Children from Maribyrnong had been placed in the local Catholic primary school from 1998 onwards. However, when three children arrived at the centre in mid2001, the school was unable to accommodate them. ACM unsuccessfully attempted to place the children in local State schools. The Department then negotiated access to the State schools, which requested payment at the overseas student rate.

The Victorian Education Department's fees were $5842 (or $142.49 weekly) for primary children and $7190 (or $175.37 weekly) for secondary children, commensurate with the charges that apply to a fee paying student from overseas. If children required an intensive ESL course, the cost rose to $217.80 weekly.

Department staff at Maribyrnong reported the following in both July and August 2001:

The Department asserted that children could access ACM education programs while negotiations were conducted. However, this does not take into account the Centre Manager's claim that they were not appropriate.

With regard to the cost of external education, the Department noted that:

The recently signed MOUs do not incorporate any final agreement as to who meets the costs of external education for children in immigration detention. In each agreement, the Department acknowledges that there may be costs to the State education authority over and above any Commonwealth/State funding arrangements which may apply. Each agreement contains the statement that:

The Department will consult with each State education authority regarding costs once the agreement has been in place for six months.

It appears that once the new services provider contract is in operation, Group 4 Falck will be responsible for meeting the cost of external education. The Department informed the Inquiry that 'absolute clarity has been built into the proposed new detention services contract, with the payment of fees and other costs at external schools identified as the responsibility of the services provider'.

12.5.5 Impact of remote locations on access to external schools

The Department has indicated that the location of the detention centres made it difficult to arrange for detainee children to attend local schools because the child detainee population sometimes exceeded the capacity of the schools:

The Inquiry also heard evidence that remote area schools had difficulty in providing sufficient ESL support to its detainee students. For example, the principal of St Cecilia's told the Inquiry that he felt that the needs of the children could not be fully met as the school did not have any extra ESL assistance. In contrast, children detained within city centres have access to Intensive English Centres with a full range of specific services. This point was emphasised by the South Australian Education Department which stated that allowing children to attend the Woomera Area School:

The Inquiry acknowledges that the limited physical and professional capacity of remote area schools poses very real challenges to the Department in arranging for detainee children to attend these schools. The Inquiry takes the view that this problem highlights the inherent inconsistency between the current mandatory detention system, and the protection of children's fundamental rights. Nevertheless, there are solutions within the current system. If children must be detained they should either be detained in city detention centres where the access to schools is much easier, or they should be transferred to places of alternative detention such that they can access appropriate schools.

The Department has told the Inquiry that operational considerations mean that not all children can be detained in the metropolitan detention centres. Once again, this highlights the barriers that the mandatory detention system raises. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the best interests of the child was not a primary factor in determining the location of children and families as it appears that operational concerns took priority over the provision of services such as education.

12.5.6 Determining which children attended external schools

Prior to the establishment of agreements with State education authorities, the criteria for determining which children could attend external schools were established between the schools and detention centre staff.

Some children were excluded from attending external education under local arrangements. For example, the local agreement between Derby District High School and Curtin education staff stated that children would only be permitted to attend school if ACM staff assessed that the child could cope with the external school environment and their English and social skills were good enough.

In June 2002, Inquiry staff interviewed a family where one sibling attended the Derby District High School for twelve months prior to another sibling being assessed as having sufficient English to meet the selection criteria. The sibling who was excluded told the Inquiry that not being able to attend the external school was a cause of great 'sadness'. Exclusion of children from external school as a result of criteria such as these would not occur in the community where all new arrival children have access to full school programs, regardless of their level of English.

The impending closure of Curtin also prevented some children from going to Derby District High School, even though they were assessed as meeting criteria for participation. ACM education staff told the Inquiry in mid-June 2002 that seven children had reached the stage where they were ready to attend school in Derby, but that they were not going to be sent as it was not known when Curtin would close. Curtin finally closed in the third week of September. The principal of the Derby District High School told the Inquiry that he could see no reason for not enrolling students for a short period of time, such as six to eight weeks. These children were denied access to external education for a period of over three months. This is especially concerning as there was no immediate access to external education at Baxter, the centre to which the children were transferred, until March and April 2003.

The Inquiry also heard of situations where age affected opportunity to attend external school. This has occurred at both Woomera and Curtin. In Woomera, primary school-aged children commenced attending Roxby Downs Catholic Primary School in November 2002. At this time secondary school-aged children in Woomera could not go to external schools. Some of these students told the Inquiry in September 2002 that they were aware that children from other detention centres attended external education and they were extremely upset that they were not able to do the same.

At Curtin, children who were post-compulsory school age (16 to 18-years-old) were also unable to access external education. The impact of this exclusion is described in Case Study 3 at the end of this chapter.

The MOUs signed by State education authorities set out standard criteria for participation in external schools. All children who are expected to be in detention for longer than three weeks will be considered for external schooling. Participation is based on the Department's assessment of: (a) the length of time a child will be in detention and (b) whether the requirements of the Migration Act can be met. The State education authority also conducts an assessment of: (a) the child's socialisation capacities; (b) the child's abilities, including literacy in English and numeracy; and (c) the capacity of a local school to meet the needs of such a child.

Not all children are able to attend local schools under these criteria. For example, the children of one family detained at Villawood began attending an outside school soon after the NSW MOU was finalised, while the children of another remained in detention for another few months. The children in this second family were initially excluded due to security concerns; however, after some time the Department decided that the best interests of the children outweighed any security concerns and permitted the children to go to school. These children had been in detention for nearly three years by the time they were finally allowed to attend an external school. The situation of this family is described in Case Study 2 at the end of this chapter.

Children detained at Baxter have been excluded from attending external education in 2003.

12.5.7 Impact of external schooling on detainee children

External education has significant benefits for detainee children. The benefits include the experience of a full curriculum, the opportunity to socialise and make new friends, and the opportunity to regularly leave the detention environment. As stated in the introduction to this section, the benefits of external education for children have been acknowledged by the Department.

The Department reported that children were doing well at external schools:

For example:

the children from Curtin IRPC attending the local Derby school were described by the Principal of the school as being 'model students' who integrated very well, often excelled in their studies, and participated in school sporting competitions (one child was on the school soccer team and attended Country Week in Perth);

of the children currently attending local schools at Port Hedland IRPC: one is the Head Girl at her school; one is going to Perth for Country Week for an interschool soccer carnival; another recently went to Perth for a week with a school team and participated in the Young Australia Achievement program; and

of the children currently attending local schools at Baxter IDF: there is a high level of participation in extracurricular activities such as school excursions, including school camps and choirs, and sports (recently, some detainee boys were included in a team for a carnival of stateside representative soccer).

An adolescent boy from Curtin graphically reported to the Inquiry the importance of external education when asked whether he liked going to school. He said: 'Yeah, I like, because if I don't go there I will destroy'. In September 2002, this child was transferred from Curtin to Baxter where there was no opportunity to attend external education until March 2003.

Parents told the Inquiry that they preferred their children to attend external school. For example, mothers at Curtin said:

So what I am saying, probably it is more formal to send them to Derby they have more curriculum, schooling and education. They have more focus on subjects and give them more study to do in Derby.

Mother, Curtin, June 2002

[W]e cannot compare the schooling in Derby town with the school inside the camp. Here in this camp there was no difference in ages for all students there were the same text and when the text was given to them, then they repeated it again and again.

Mother, Curtin, June 2002

Derby District High School attended by some of the children in Curtin, June 2002.

Department staff also noted the positive impact of attending external schools. For example, the Department Manager from Port Hedland reported in June 2002 that the '[b]ehaviour and socialisation skills of the children [are] improving as a result of attending community schools'.

Although children attending external education are given an important opportunity to leave the detention environment, the Inquiry has heard that children in detention may not be able to take full advantage of this educational experience.

For example, the Inquiry heard repeatedly about the trauma of returning to the centre each day after going to external schools. The children were acutely aware of the difference between their lives and those of Australian students attending these schools. In June 2002 a young boy attending St Cecilia's in Port Hedland stated that:

Similarly, an adolescent boy from Curtin told the Inquiry, in June 2002, that:

Furthermore, while attending local schools is clearly preferable to on-site schooling, to the Inquiry's knowledge none of the schools which the children from remote centres attended are Intensive English Centres or schools running a New Arrivals Program. As set out in section 12.3, those programs offer the education best suited to the needs of most detainee children.

12.5.8 Education in alternative places of detention

The 14 unaccompanied children who were transferred from Woomera to foster care detention in Adelaide in early 2002, were all enrolled in the Adelaide Secondary School of English, the secondary New Arrivals Program centre in Adelaide. The South Australian Department of Education reports that an 'agreement is currently being negotiated between the Department of Human Services and DIMIA to, among other things, seek full cost recovery for educational services provided to children in alternative detention'.

The principal of the Adelaide Secondary School of English, which these students attend, reported that being in alternative detention does not compromise the students' participation in school activities. The students must be dropped off and collected from school, but otherwise, 'if there is an activity outside of school as long as a teacher is willing to supervise them then they can go and there's been no teacher that has said that they don't want to take them on an excursion'.

12.5.9 Findings regarding external schooling

The Inquiry is disappointed that it took more than a decade of detaining children in immigration detention facilities before there was a comprehensive approach to the provision of external schooling.

Early successes at obtaining access to external schools occurred on an ad hoc basis. However, over 2002 the Department made more widespread efforts at making arrangements with local schools.

Prior to negotiating MOUs, the Department made no proactive attempts to meet the costs of external education, instead waiting for approaches to be made from the schools or education authorities who had accepted the detainee children as students. A clearer understanding as to the responsibility for meeting the costs of education is outlined in the MOUs with State authorities and the new detention services contract.

The Inquiry is concerned by the criteria that are used to determine access by children to external schools. A child's level of socialisation, literacy or numeracy should not be a barrier for children in detention any more than it is for any other child in the Australian community. Children in the community are required to go to school no matter what their level of education or behaviour patterns. While the Department may legitimately take into account security concerns, this consideration should be interpreted in the light of the principle that the best interests of the child be a primary consideration.

Finally, the Inquiry is of the view that while external education is far preferable to internal education, it is less than ideal. Although many detainee children have benefited from external education, they may not be able to take full advantage of the experience due to the constraints of the detention environment. They or their parents may have poor mental health and returning to the centre each day may be traumatic. Friendships with other children from the school are restricted by the detention imperative. Furthermore, to the extent that external schools in rural and remote areas do not have the appropriate ESL capacity, those schools may not be the best suited to the special needs of these children. All of these factors indicate the difficulty of providing effective education of any kind for children held in detention centres.

12.6 Summary of findings regarding education for children in detention

The Inquiry finds that there has been a breach of articles 2(1), 3(1), 22(1) and 28(1) of the CRC regarding the right to education.

The effect of articles 2(1) and 28(1) of the CRC is to require Australia to provide children in detention access to the same level of education as any other child in Australia with similar needs. Article 22(1) requires that appropriate efforts be made to cater to the special needs of asylum-seeking and refugee children. In the context of Australia's current immigration detention system, this responsibility falls primarily on the Department.

The Commonwealth-funded New Arrivals Program caters specifically to the needs of asylum-seeking and refugee children living in the Australian community. This program provides an appropriate benchmark for the assessment of education provided to children in detention.

While there have been significant variations in the amount and quality of education provided in different detention centres at different times, the Inquiry finds that, until some children began attending schools in the Australian community in 2002, the education available to children in detention fell significantly short of the level of education provided to children with similar needs in the community. The Inquiry finds that the Commonwealth breached articles 2(1), 22(1) and 28(1) of the CRC for the reasons set out below.

Prior to late 2002, the on-site detention centre schools failed to develop a curriculum suited to the needs and capacities of children in immigration detention. The evidence suggests that there were no efforts to coordinate curriculum design or implementation and until late 2002 no systematic attempt to adopt the State curricula available and apply it within the ESL framework. Furthermore, unlike in Australian schools, there was no suitable curriculum for children above the compulsory age of education. Despite improvements in late 2002, when there were efforts to teach a State-based curriculum in Woomera and Baxter, parents and children still felt the education was inferior to that available in the Australian community.

Children were inadequately assessed as to their educational needs, and there was insufficient reporting of children's educational progress. Furthermore, there was insufficient infrastructure, curriculum resources, and teachers available to support the curriculum that was being taught.

While all teachers hired by ACM had general teaching qualifications, there were occasions when there were no teachers with ESL qualifications. Furthermore, there were times when detainees without teaching qualifications were used to make up the shortfall in qualified teachers. A high turnover of teachers also impacted on the quality of teaching.

In situations where there was a shortage of teachers and classrooms, the hours of schooling were well under the standard six-hour day in Australian schools. One of the worst examples was in Woomera in mid-2001, when children were offered between one and two contact hours a day.

While there were efforts to encourage children to attend classes, neither the Department nor ACM required children under the age of 15 to attend classes. The attendance levels were generally low, particularly with long-term detainees and older children. This was related to a combination of increasing depression in long-term detainees and the absence of a sufficiently stimulating curriculum.

Thus despite the enormous efforts of teachers to provide the best possible education within the circumstances, there were formidable barriers to providing an adequate education to children within detention centres.

The Department suggests that it did the best it could in the light of large influxes of children, destruction of classrooms during riots, difficulties in recruiting teachers to remote and rural areas and the varying needs of the children in detention centres. The Inquiry acknowledges that there were many challenges to providing an adequate level of education to children within detention centres, especially when children were there for long periods of time. However, the CRC makes it clear that the Department had an obligation to overcome those difficulties in order to ensure that children enjoyed a level of education comparable to similar children in the Australian community. In the Inquiry's view the Department made insufficient efforts to address those issues until 2002 when it commenced negotiating routine access for children to external schools in the community.

While there were ad hoc arrangements to send individual children to schools prior to 2002, the first time a large group of children attended a community school was in early 2002. At this time children from Curtin began attending Derby District High School, a local State school, and children in Port Hedland began attending St Cecilia's, a local Catholic school. At the same time the Department began to pursue comprehensive arrangements with State education authorities.

Arrangements for external schooling are a marked improvement in the level of education provided to children in detention, although the Inquiry notes that the fact that children must return from school every day to a detention centre prevents them from taking full advantage of the external education experience.

Furthermore, there are still children in detention who are excluded from attending Australian schools and the Inquiry questions the application of some of the criteria on which they are excluded. For example, while concerns about flight risks may be a legitimate reason, this consideration must be assessed against the best interests of the child, which needs to be a primary consideration in any decision made. In addition, in the event that external schools in rural and remote areas do not have the appropriate ESL capacity, those schools may not be the best suited to the special needs of these children.

The Inquiry finds that to a certain extent the long-term detention of children inevitably leads to inadequacies in the education provided because of the difficulties presented by the detention environment. This reinforces the Inquiry's concern that Australia's mandatory detention laws, and the manner in which they are applied by the Minister and Department, fail to adequately consider the best interests of the child as required by article 3(1) of the CRC (see further Chapters 6 and 17). Furthermore, it highlights the connection between compliance with article 37(b) of the CRC, which requires detention as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, and compliance with article 28(1) of the CRC.

The Inquiry also notes that in making decisions about the location in which children are detained (the remoteness of some of Australia's detention centres presenting logistical difficulties in providing an adequate level of services), a proper consideration of the best interests of the child will include an assessment as to whether their right to education can be met in that location. In the Inquiry's view, the decision to detain children in remote locations contributed to the inadequacy of their education and suggests that their best interests may not have been a primary consideration in those decisions, contrary to article 3(1). This issue is discussed further in Chapter 17, Major Findings and Recommendations.

The right to enjoy a level of education, on the basis of equal opportunity with similar children in the Australian community, is closely linked to a child's right to achieve the highest possible level of development under article 6(2) of the CRC. It is also an important factor to take into account when assessing Australia's compliance with article 37(c), which requires that there is respect for the inherent dignity of children, taking into account the needs of their age. Since compliance with the JDL Rules is a useful guide for assessing whether or not there has been compliance with article 37(c), it is relevant to note that those rules recommend that children be sent to schools external to a detention facility and that there be an appropriate curriculum for those children beyond the compulsory age of education. As set out above, there have been periods of time during which those rules have not been complied with. However, the Inquiry makes no conclusive finding regarding articles 37(c) or 6(2) in this chapter. Rather it flags these issues for consideration in Chapter 17.

12.7 Case studies

12.7.1 Case Study 1: Inadequate on-site education for a 15-year-old girl, Woomera

These are the words of a 15-year-old girl first detained at Woomera on 5 January 2001. They were recorded in an interview with a psychiatrist in July 2002, when she had been in detention for over 18 months.

For most of 2001 there was only between one and three hours of tuition available to students at Woomera, four days a week. In December 2001, some children from Woomera began attending classes at St Michael's, a disused school building in Woomera town where ACM teachers taught children from the detention centre. When the first children started going to St Michael's, she remained behind in the centre as she was too old. She could have attended St Michael's from April 2002 onwards, but by May 2002 she had lost interest in attending school due to her depression.

ACM medical records from 15 May 2002 state that she 'still feels upset and depressed. She has no interest in activities and doesn't wish to go to school. Has nightmares, poor energy. Would be interested in going to a normal school'.

Although some of the primary school-aged children from Woomera finally had an opportunity to attend the Roxby Downs Catholic School two days a week in late 2002, she and her sister were not able to attend due to their age.

She finally commenced classes at an external secondary school, the Woomera Area School, on 28 April 2003, over two years after she was first detained at Woomera. She was released from detention on a temporary protection visa in August 2003.

12.7.2 Case Study 2: Impact of restricted access to external education, Curtin, Port Hedland and Villawood

This family arrived in Australia in December 1999, when their children were aged 4, 9, 13, and 15. The family was initially detained at Curtin and then transferred to Port Hedland in May 2000. In July 2001, the family was relocated to Villawood. They were detained for over three years prior to leaving Australia in early February 2003.

This family had a volatile time in detention, with both parents and the two older sons charged with involvement in riots at Port Hedland. For a period of time during 2001 the parents and older sons were kept in State correctional facilities, with the two younger children cared for by other detainees. The family came to be considered a security risk.

This had a serious impact on the younger children of the family. When external schooling was finally arranged for children detained at Villawood in mid-2002, the children from this family were denied access due to security concerns, even though they had been in detention for over two and a half years.

Frustration at being denied access to external schooling reached the stage in July 2002 where the two youngest children from the family then refused to attend the internal school at Villawood.

On 1 August 2002, the Villawood Department Manger stated that he believed that 'placement into local school would be high risk' due to the potential for the children to 'abscond/escape', assisted by the family's strong community support group.

An August 2002 report on the younger son states that he had made excellent progress at school, but that he is:

In mid-August 2002, both of these children were certified by ACM medical staff as being medically fit to attend external school. A report from the centre psychologist of 12 August 2002 states that:

On 12 August 2002 the children stated a desire to attend external schooling:

On 22 August 2002, a senior Department officer expressed the view that the children should attend school, stating that 'given the long term nature of their detention, I think we need to balance the security concerns with the possible psychological benefits'.

The same day the Department and the NSW Department of Education and Training agreed to initiate educational assessments for these children. The assessments were conducted on 12 September 2002. On 17 September, the NSW Department of Education and Training notified the Department that the children were suitable for external schooling, with some additional English literacy support. At this stage, only one week of Term 3 remained, so the children commenced school at the beginning of Term 4, in mid-October 2002.

The family left Australia in February 2003. Of their three years in detention, the children of this family attended mainstream schools for less than three months.

12.7.3 Case Study 3: Education for older children, Curtin

The children of this family were detained at Curtin in mid-2000, when the daughter was 17-years-old and the son was 16-years-old.

These young people had been detained for over two years when the Inquiry met them at Curtin in June 2002. They were extremely distressed that they had been denied educational opportunities due to their age.

The brother reported that:

... we've been here two years. When we first arrived here I and my sister talked to the authorities and I asked them for some education opportunities. They told us at the time because we didn't know enough English there was no point in sending us to school. Now that we have been here for 2 years they tell us that we are over 16 years and they can't send us to school according to their rules. So there have always been some excuses.

The young people claimed that no efforts were made to provide external education for them, and believed that it might be in part due to the pending closure of the detention facility.

We have actually talked to the authorities in here about the possibilities of some opportunities for people over 16 years of age but they told us that because they're planning to relocate the camp at the moment anything they will do will be temporary so they can't do anything at the moment.

These young people both reported that the quality of education offered in the camp was poor. The brother told the Inquiry:

Before all these problems and complications at the camp there were some classes. Both my sister and I would participate in the classes. The quality of the education was extremely poor in the classes and there was no opportunity basically for learning anything. At the moment my sister and I are longing to learn English, your language, but at the moment in the camp there is no facilities like computers or a teacher or even books. Other children go to school outside the camp and they have the opportunity to improve their English but my sister and I were denied that right.

His sister reported that:

About those classes that my brother told you we used to attend before, there was only one class and everybody like from five year old and I were put in the same class. And what they did was put a photocopy of some basic mathematics in front of us and they were trying like for example to teach me simple addition and these sort of things - basic mathematics.

The children's mother was also distressed about the poor educational opportunities available to these children:

They even deprived my children from education. I have been talking to people in here, the authorities in here, people responsible and every time I went and complained about education of my children they said that they don't know enough English to be able have any education. Whereas when we first came here two years ago there were three other children who used to go to school and knew about the same amount of English that my children did.

In two years every time you talk to them they delayed and postponed my request. I have got to the point that now my children are 17 and 18 and they say that in Australia only children under 16 can go to school. Mind you even before people who are 16 years at the camp, there are some children at 16 go to school, but even they are not put in the proper age bracket because it's a mix and all ages have been put in the same class. If they really wanted to consider the education of the children and they really wanted to help them they would have separate classes for different ages. [My son] tries to speak English a little bit and [my daughter] is at the same level of English that [my son] has so you know how much English [my children] know.

This family was relocated to Baxter, where secondary school-aged children commenced attending external schools in March 2003. These children were not able to attend due to their age.

Endnotes

1. Inquiry, Interview with detainee father, Woomera, June 2002.

2. DIMIA, Submission 185, p77.

3. Convention against Discrimination in Education, article 1.

4. Convention against Discrimination in Education, article 3.

5. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

6. Refugee Convention, article 22.

7. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Belgium, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.38, 20 June 1995, para 9; Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Denmark, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.33, 15 February 1995, para 14.

8. United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (the JDL Rules), Geneva, 1990, rule 38.

9. The JDL Rules, rule 38.

10. The JDL Rules, rule 39.

11. See further Chapter 5 on Mechanisms to Protect Human Rights.

12. DIMIA, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 2 December 2002, p6. See further Chapter 5 on Mechanisms to Protect Human Rights.

13. IDS, 1998, Definitions, www.immi.gov.au/detention/det_standards.htm.

14. IDS, 1998, para 9.4.1.

15. IDS, 1998, para 4.4.

16. ACM, Policy 13.1, Education, Recreation and Leisure Programs, Issue 5, 31 May 2002, para 3.1.

17. ACM, Policy 13.1, para 4.1.

18. For example Curriculum Corporation, ESL Scales, Carlton, 1994; Australian Education Council, Curriculum and Assessment Committee, ESL Bandscales, Australia, 1993.

19. Victorian Department of Education, Curriculum Standards Framework, located at http:// www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/csfcd/home.htm, viewed 4 April 2003.

20. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, National Report on Schooling in Australia 2000, 2000, ch 2.

21. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, National Report on Schooling in Australia 2000, 2000, ch 2.

22. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, English as a Second Language New Arrivals Program, http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/literacy&numeracy/ESL/index.htm, viewed on 4 April 2003.

23. There are currently six primary and two secondary New Arrivals Program schools in South Australia.

24. Maria Iadanza, Principal, Adelaide Secondary School of English, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 1 July 2002, p41.

25. South Australian Department of Education, Email to Inquiry, English as a Second Language Program, 5 November 2002.

26. South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment, Submission 154, pp3-4. The South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment changed its name to the Department of Education and Children's Services on 1 July 2002.

27. New South Wales Department of Education and Training, http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/ studentsupport/programs/esl.php, viewed 3 April 2003; Western Australia, Department of Education and Training, http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/esl/index.htm, viewed 3 April 2003; Sofweb, Department of Education and Training, Victoria, www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/lem/esl/enew.htm, viewed 3 April 2003.

28. Summary provided by Principal, Holroyd High School.

29. DIMIA, Submission 185, pp79-80.

30. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

31. Australian Education Union, Submission 226, p11.

32. Australian Education Union, Submission 226, p12.

33. Dr Tom Mann, Submission 254c, p1.

34. Dr Tom Mann, Submission 254a, para 28.

35. Inquiry, Focus group, Melbourne, May 2002.

36. Inquiry, Interview with teenage girl, Woomera, June 2002.

37. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003. See also DIMIA, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 2 December 2002, p6.

38. Inquiry, Focus group, Perth, June 2002.

39. DIMIA, Submission 185, pp77-78.

40. DIMIA, Submission 185, p78.

41. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p31. This is despite a claim made in the ACM Management Plan for Children at the WIRPC Centre, 15 March 2001, that the 'South Australian curriculum is available to all students', (N2, Q3, F2). The Inquiry notes that in South Australia the curriculum operates under the South Australian Curriculum, Standards and Accountability (SACSA) Framework, administered by the South Australian Department of Education and Children's Services. In July 2002 the ESL Scope and Scales document was published. This support document for the SACSA Framework operates as a guide to the implementation of the curriculum for ESL learners. Prior to the implementation of the Scope and Scales, there existed a locally written ESL curriculum statement for South Australian schools which was used in conjunction with the national ESL Scales document.

42. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

43. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

44. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

45. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

46. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

47. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

48. DIMIA Port Hedland, Manager Report, January to March 2001, (N1, Q4a, F5).

49. Katie Brosnan, Transcript of Evidence, Perth, 10 June, 2002, p33.

50. Geoffrey Howard, Statutory Declaration, 8 September 2003. ACM, Letter to Inquiry, 10 September 2003.

51. The Department has suggested that this curriculum focus is appropriate, quoting the submission of the NSW Department of Education and Training, Submission 257, p5. 'The development of students' literacy and numeracy skills and understanding through a broad range of subjects is a fundamental focus of the curriculum and this is supported by the provision of English as a Second Language tuition for students whose first language is not English': DIMIA, Response to the Draft Report, 10 July 2003. The Inquiry notes however, that this evidence suggests that a broad range of subjects is offered, through which literacy and numeracy are developed, rather than a more limited provision of classes only in literacy and numeracy as occurred at Curtin.

52. Inquiry, Notes from visit, Curtin, June 2002.

53. Inquiry, Interview with detainee father, Curtin, June 2002.

54. Inquiry, Interview with teenage boy, Curtin, June 2002.

55. Dr Tom Mann, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p49. Dr Mann worked at Woomera school from March to September 2001.

56. Inese Petersons, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p31. Ms Petersons worked at Woomera school between May and July 2001.

57. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

58. ChilOut, Submission 120, pp5-6.

59. ChilOut, Submission 120, p6.

60. ChilOut, Submission to 120, p6.

61. Villawood Community Reference Committee Meeting, Minutes, 15 August 2001, (N1, Q5, F6).

62. ACM Villawood, VIDC Primary School Timetable, 31 January 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

63. DIMIA, Submission 185, p81.

64. DIMIA, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 2 December 2002, p45.

65. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p31.

66. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, pp30-31.

67. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, February 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

68. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, May 2002, (this report is incorrectly dated 28 April 2002) (N1, Q12, F13).

69. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, June 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

70. Inquiry, Notes from visit, Baxter, December 2002.

71. Inquiry, Interview with detainee, Baxter, December 2002.

72. ACM Curtin, Curtin Education Department, Child Detainee Student Policy, May 2000, (N1, Q12, F13). The Department states that 'the fact that children of 16-17 years were entitled to access the adult education classes is not, of itself, proof that post-compulsory school age children were denied access to the Curtin IRPC school'. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003. The Inquiry notes that the Child Detainee Student Policy, however, indicates that age-appropriate education was not available to post-compulsory aged children.

73. ACM Curtin, Detainee Management Strategies, March 2001, (N2, Q3, Supp 2).

74. DIMIA Curtin, Unaccompanied Minors Meeting Minutes, 29 June 2001. DIMIA, Letter to Inquiry, 27 November 2002, Attachment B.

75. Inquiry, Interview with teenage girl, Curtin, June 2002.

76. DIMIA Port Hedland, Unaccompanied Minors Meeting Minutes, 29 November 2001, DIMIA, Letter to Inquiry, 27 November 2002, Attachment B.

77. ACM Woomera Education Coordinator, Memo, Response to DIMA Enquiries, to ACM Woomera Centre Manager, 7 February 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

78. Separation detention is examined in Chapter 7 on Refugee Status Determination.

79. Katie Brosnan, Transcript of Evidence, Perth, 10 June 2002, p10.

80. Katie Brosnan, Transcript of Evidence, Perth, 10 June 2002, p10.

81. Katie Brosnan, Transcript of Evidence, Perth, 10 June 2002, p10.

82. NSW Commission for Children and Young People, Submission 258, p31.

83. Katie Brosnan, Submission 227, pp1-2.

84. Katie Brosnan, Transcript of Evidence, Perth, 10 June 2002, p6. See also Amnesty International Australia, Submission 194, p21.

85. Inese Petersons, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p30.

86. Inese Petersons, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2003, p30.

87. Inese Petersons, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p30.

88. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p39.

89. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

90. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, September 2001, (N1, Q12, F13).

91. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, December 2001, (N1, Q12, F13).

92. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p36.

93. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p38.

94. Inquiry, Focus group, Perth, June 2002.

95. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

96. Teachers in Queensland must register with the Board of Teacher Registration; teachers in South Australia with the Teachers Registration Board of South Australia; in Victoria non-government teachers must register with the Registered Schools Board. See also South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment, Submission 154, p2.

97. IDS,1998, definitions.

98. ACM Port Hedland, Report - PHIRPC Education Centre, undated, (N1, Q12, F13).

99. DIMIA, Letter to Inquiry, 13 December 2002.

100. DIMIA, Letter to Inquiry, 13 December 2002.

101. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

102. Dr Tom Mann, Submission 254b, p1.

103. Inese Petersons, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p29.

104. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, August 2001, (N1, Q12, F13).

105. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends 2002, at http://www.abs.gov.au, viewed 22 July 2002.

106. DIMIA, Letter to Inquiry, 24 December 2002, Attachment F.

107. DIMIA Port Hedland, Manager Report, March 2001, (N1, Q4a, F5).

108. DIMIA, Contract Operations Group Minutes, 19 July 2001, (N1, Q3, F4).

109. DIMIA Port Hedland, Manager Report, October 2001, (N1, Q3a, F5).

110. DIMIA Port Hedland, Manager Report, February 2002, (N1, Q3a, F5).

111. The Department informed the Inquiry that '[w]hile the department is of the view that short term contracts are not generally desirable, it is understandable that in some instances such contracts might be required to both attract individuals and to assess suitability for the positions'. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

112. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p53.

113. Inquiry, Notes from visit, Port Hedland, June 2002.

114. Rose O'Connor, Submission 230, p2.

115. Dr Tom Mann, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p53.

116. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p32.

117. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, October 2001, (N1, Q12, F13).

118. The Department informed the Inquiry that this is not the case in all centres, specifically that teachers at Villawood were not required to wear uniform: DIMIA, Response to the Draft Report, 10 July 2003. See also ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p48.

119. Inese Petersons, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, pp24-25.

120. Dr Tom Mann, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p50.

121. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p48.

122. The Department informed the Inquiry that: 'With respect to the "remuneration" of detainee assistants, participation was voluntary and the value of the meaningful program (the points system) was accepted by all volunteers. Such activities are not 'work' because, as unlawful non-citizens, detainees are prohibited from working under the Migration Act. It would therefore be inappropriate for such activities to receive remuneration consistent with Australian rates of pay for work'. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

123. ACM Woomera Education Coordinator, Memo, Response to DIMA Enquiries, to ACM Woomera Centre Manager, 7 February 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

124. ACM Woomera, Education Induction Talk, undated, (N1, Q12, F13).

125. Inese Petersons, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p28.

126. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, April 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

127. ACM Woomera Education Coordinator, Memo, Requirement for an Extra Education Officer, to ACM Woomera Centre Manager, 22 May 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

128. DIMIA, Contract Operations Group Minutes, 23 May 2002, (N1, Q3, F4).

129. Rose O'Connor, Submission 230, p3.

130. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, November 2001, (N1, Q12, F13).

131. Inese Petersons, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p32.

132. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

133. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, July 2001, (N1, Q12, F13).

134. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p40.

135. DIMIA, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p76.

136. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003; See also, Geoffrey Howard, Statutory Declaration, 8 September 2003. ACM, Letter to Inquiry, 10 September 2003.

137. DIMIA, Submission 185, pp149-152.

138. Question 227 (11), (14). Commonwealth House of Representatives Hansard, 28 May 2002, pp2548- 2550.

139. ACM Curtin Education Department, Memo, HREOC Review, 31 January 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

140. ACM Woomera, Type and Frequency of Classes 2001, 31 January 2002, (N1, Q12, F13); ACM Woomera Education Coordinator, Memo, Response to Enquiries on Education Facilities 2001/ 2002, to DIMIA Woomera Manager, 12 February 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

141. ACM Woomera Education Coordinator, Memo, Revised Timetabling and Extended Contact Hours, to ACM Centre Manager, 2 November 2001, (N1, Q12, F13). ACM Woomera Education Coordinator, Memo, Response to DIMA Enquiries, to ACM Centre Manager, 7 February 2002, (N1, Q12, F13); ACM Woomera Education Coordinator, Memo, Schooling at the WIRPC, to ACM Centre Manager, 6 February 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

142. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Reports, July 2001, August 2001, September 2001, October 2001, November 2001, (N1, Q12, F13).

143. Dr Tom Mann, Submission 254a, para 18.

144. Inese Petersons, Submission 220a, para 4.

145. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, January 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

146. Inquiry, Interview with teenage boy, Woomera, June 2002.

147. Inquiry, Interview with detainee father, Woomera, June 2002.

148. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, January 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

149. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, December 2001, (N1, Q12, F13). ACM education staff reported that '[o]wing to the commitment to the project at St Michael's and the need to offer a service in all other compounds within existing staffing resources it has been difficult to maintain last month's contact hours'.

150. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, January 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

151. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, February 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

152. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, March 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

153. DIMIA, Submission 185, p83.

154. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

155. DIMIA, Submission 185, p82.

156. DIMIA, Submission 185, p80.

157. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

158. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

159. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

160. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, January 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

161. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p40.

162. Dr Tom Mann, Submission 254b, p1.

163. Dr Tom Mann, Submission 254a, para 17.

164. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p36.

165. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, July 2001, (N1, Q12, F13).

166. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, August 2001, (N1, Q12, F13).

167. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, September 2001, (N1, Q12, F13).

168. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, October 2001, (N1, Q12, F13).

169. Rose O'Connor, Submission 230, pp1-2.

170. The Department expresses the view that 'the department does acknowledge that service provision in detention facilities was necessarily focussed on basic needs when large numbers of unauthorised arrivals needed to be accommodated at short notice in detention facilities. At that time, large numbers of people were also being quickly processed and many left detention facilities after approximately three months. In such a context, it would be unreasonable to expect or require a comprehensive assessment of educational needs for every child'. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

171. New South Wales Department of Education and Training, Submission 257, p3.

172. ACM, Policy 13.1, Education, Recreation and Leisure Programs, Issue 6, 12 August 2002. Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003. The Inquiry also received centre operating procedures regarding education at Villawood from October 2001 and Port Hedland from March 2002 that contained this requirement. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2002.

173. ACM Curtin, Curtin Education Department, Child Detainee Student Policy, October 2000, (N1, Q12, F13).

174. Rose O'Connor, Transcript of Evidence, Perth, 10 June 2002, p7.

175. Inese Petersons, Submission 220a, para 10.

176. ACM, Policy 13.1, para 4.6.

177. Inese Petersons, Submission 220a, para 11.

178. Inese Petersons, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p27.

179. Inese Petersons, Submission 220a, para 12. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, pp33-32.

180. Maria Iadanza, Principal, Adelaide Secondary School of English, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 1 July 2002, p41.

181. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p33, p53.

182. ACM, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p33.

183. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

184. ACM Woomera, Monthly Education Report, April 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

185. Amnesty International Australia, Submission 194, p21.

186. ACM Port Hedland, Report - PHIRPC Education Centre, undated, probably early 2002; ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

187. See for example, Education Act 1990 (NSW), s22; Education Act 1972 (SA), s5, s75; School Education Act 1999 (WA), s6.

188. DIMIA, Submission 185, p78.

189. ACM Woomera, Education Induction Talk, undated, (N1, Q12, F13).

190. ACM Woomera Education Coordinator, Memo, Schooling at the WIRPC, to ACM Woomera Centre Manager, 6 February 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

191. Inquiry, Interview with teenage boy, Curtin, June 2002.

192. Dr Tom Mann, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p55.

193. Dr Tom Mann, Submission 254a, para 33.

194. Inquiry, Interview with detainee father, Curtin, June 2002.

195. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

196. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

197. ACM report that this figure represents the number of children in the centre on 1 March 2002. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

198. ACM, Response to Draft Report, 5 September 2003.

199. Geoffrey Howard, Statutory Declaration, 8 September 2003. ACM, Letter to Inquiry, 10 September 2003.

200. ACM Port Hedland, Statistics on Children in Detention, 30 January 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

201. ACM, Children's Health, Educational and Recreational Information, undated, (N1, Q12, Supp 1).

202. ACM Woomera Acting Programs Manager, Memo, DIMIA Response 15.03.02, to ACM Woomera Centre Manager, 18 March 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

203. ACM Villawood Programmes Manager, Memo, Statistics on Children in Detention, to ACM Villawood Centre Manager, 31 January 2002, (N1, Q8, F9). In 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 approximately 70 per cent of all primary school aged children attended school, and for 2001-2002, 100 per cent of all primary school aged children attended school.

204. ACM Woomera Education Coordinator, Memo, Response to Enquiries on Education Facilities 2001/ 2002, to DIMIA Woomera Manager, 12 February 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

205. ACM Woomera, Unaccompanied Minors (UAM) Committee Meeting, 12 February 2002, (N2, Q5, F4).

206. ACM Woomera, Unaccompanied Minors (UAM) Committee Meeting, 12 June 2001, (N2, Q5, Supp 1).

207. ACM Woomera, Unaccompanied Minors (UAM) Committee Meeting, 3 July 2001, (N2, Q5, Supp 1).

208. DIMIA, Unaccompanied Minor Teleconference, 17 January 2002. DIMIA, Letter to Inquiry, 27 November 2002, Attachment B.

209. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

210. Inquiry, Focus group, Perth, June 2002.

211. DIMIA, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 2 December 2002, pp7-8.

212. DIMIA, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 2 December 2002, p8.

213. See also Chapter 11 on Children with Disabilities.

214. The Department suggests that earlier attention to providing access to external education did not occur due to 'the practicalities of large numbers of high turnover populations accessing education' and that there was an increased focus due to 'the evolving educational needs of longer term detainee children from 2002 (as the caseload changed in response to the numbers of unauthorised boat arrivals ceasing)'. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

215. Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Asylum, Border Control and Detention, February 1994, p193. It was further mentioned as 'desirable' by the same Committee in its 1998 Inspection Report: Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Immigration Detention Centres: Inspection Report, August 1998, p40. Also recommended in HREOC, Those who've come across the seas, 1998, p186.

216. Inquiry, Notes from visit, Curtin, June 2002.

217. Inquiry, Notes from visit, Port Hedland, June 2002. Provision of external schooling in Western Australia is complicated by the provision in the School Education Act which excludes children without a valid visa. ACM reported that this was an impediment to enrolling children in public schools in Port Hedland. It does not appear to have been a problem in Derby.

218. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

219. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

220. ACM Woomera Education Coordinator, Memo, Negotiations with Woomera Area School and SA DFE, to DIMIA Woomera Manager, 12 February 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

221. DIMIA, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p62.

222. South Australian Department of Education, Employment and Training, Submission 154, p6.

223. ACM Woomera Centre Manager, Proposal for Integration of Children from the WIRPC into the Woomera Area School, 9 April 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

224. DIMIA, Deputy Secretary, Aspects of HREOC's annual report 2000-01 concerning immigration detention centres, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Human Rights Subcommittee Hansard, 19 August 2002, p27.

225. L Doherty, 'Plea to free detained children for school', Sydney Morning Herald, 13 May 2002.

226. DIMIA Maribyrnong, Manager Report, June 2002, (N1, Q3a, F5). 'ACM have attempted to include three detainee minors in public schools. Negotiations between the State Department of Education and DIMIA Detention Policy Area have started'. See also DIMIA, Deputy Secretary, Aspects of HREOC's annual report 2000-01 concerning immigration detention centres, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Human Rights Subcommittee Hansard, 18 September 2002, p55.

227. DIMIA, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, p61.

228. Arrangements for the Provision of Education Services in NSW Government Schools to Immigration Detainee Children in NSW, 28 June 2002, p1, (N1, Q12, F13); Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State Government of Victoria, Providing Access for Immigration Detainee Children in Victoria to Education in Victorian Government Schools, p3, (N4, Q8, F7); Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State Government of South Australia, Providing Access for Immigration Detainee Children in South Australia to Education in South Australian Government Schools, 17 December 2002, p2. DIMIA, Letter to Inquiry, 24 December 2002, Attachment D.

229. Arrangements for the Provision of Education Services in NSW Government Schools to Immigration Detainee Children in NSW, 28 June 2002, (N1, Q12, F13), p3.

230. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

231. DIMIA, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 4 December 2002, pp64-70.

232. DIMIA Port Hedland, Manager Report, November 2001, (N1, Q3a, F5).

233. This officer also reported that 'there were concerns from people in the Woomera township about having children from the detention centre in the mainstream school - for example, there were concerns expressed about exposure of children to infectious diseases'. Former Department Infrastructure Manager, Woomera, Submission 253, para 29.

234. Former Department Infrastructure Manager, Woomera, Submission 253, para 32.

235. DIMIA Maribyrnong, Manager Report, July 2001, (N1, Q3a, F5).

236. DIMIA Maribyrnong, Manager Report, July 2001, August 2001 (N1, Q3a, F5). The Deputy Secretary of the Department, in evidence to the Inquiry stated that the negotiations with the State education authority commenced in August. On the basis of this evidence, ACM suggest that they could not have declined to enrol children on the basis of cost in July 2001 as the access had not yet been negotiated. However, as the schedule of fees is included in the July report, and as this report was created by the Department Manager in the centre, the Inquiry prefers the version of events contained in the Department Manager reports.

237. DIMIA, Deputy Secretary, Comments on Transcript of December 2002 Hearing, 19 March 2003.

238. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

239. Arrangements for the Provision of Education Services in NSW Government Schools to Immigration Detainee Children in NSW, 28 June 2002, p5 (N1, Q12, F13); Providing Access for Immigration Detainee Children in South Australia to Education in South Australian Government Schools, 17 December 2002, p9. DIMIA, Letter to Inquiry, 24 December 2002, Attachment D. Providing Access for Immigration Detainee Children in Victoria to Education in Victorian Government Schools, p9, (N4, Q8, F7).

240. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

241. DIMIA, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 2 December 2002, pp7-8.

242. Department of Education and Children's Services, South Australia, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 2 July 2002, p17.

243. DIMIA, Transcript of Evidence, Sydney, 2 December 2002, p6. See further Chapter 6 on Australia's Detention Policy and Chapter 17, Major Findings and Recommendations, which discuss the best interests of the child in the context of detention.

244. Providing Access for Immigration Detainee Children in South Australia to Education in South Australian Government Schools, 17 December 2002, p4. DIMIA, Letter to Inquiry, 24 December 2002, Attachment D.

245. '"Buddies" welcome detainees to school', The Australian, 18 March 2003. 'As at 6 June 2003, seven school aged children from Baxter are not attending external schools. Of these, four have been assessed as not yet meeting the criteria for attendance at external schools'. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

246. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

247. DIMIA Port Hedland, Manager Report, June 2002, (N1, Q3a, F5).

248. Inquiry, Interview with detainee child, Port Hedland, June 2002.

249. Inquiry, Interview with teenage boy, Curtin, June 2002.

250. Inquiry, Notes from visit, Port Hedland, June 2002.

251. DIMIA, Submission 185, p40; ACM Curtin Programs Coordinator, Memo, Parents Interviews at Derby District High School, to ACM Curtin Centre Manager, 23 July 2002; ACM Curtin Teacher, Memo, Parent Teacher Meeting - DDHS Children, to ACM Curtin Centre Manager, 28 June 2002, (N1, Q12, F13).

252. South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment, Submission 154, p5.

253. Maria Iadanza, Principal, Adelaide Secondary School of English, Transcript of Evidence, Adelaide, 1 July 2002, p47.

254. Child and Family Psychiatrist, Department of Psychological Medicine, Women's and Children's Hospital Adelaide, Psychiatric Report, 3 July 2002, (N3, F13).

255. See further section 12.4.4 on Hours of tuition.

256. ACM Woomera, Medical Records, 15 May 2002, (N3, F13).

257. DIMIA Villawood Manager, Email, to DIMIA Central Office, 1 August 2002, (N5, Case 31, p665).

258. ACM Villawood Programs Manager, Memo, to ACM Villawood Centre Manager, 10 July 2002, N5, Case 31, p466).

259. DIMIA Villawood Manager, Email, to DIMIA Central Office, 1 August 2002, (N5, Case 31, p665).

260. ACM Villawood, Child Management Care Plan, 22 August 2002, (N5, Case 31, p446).

261. ACM Villawood, Medical Certificate, 8 August 2002, (N1, Case 31, p486). ACM, Villawood, Medical records, 8 August 2002, (N1, Case 31, p579).

262. ACM Villawood Psychologist, Memo, to DIMIA Villawood Manager, 12 August 2002, (N1, Case 31, p43).

263. ACM Villawood Psychologist, Memo, to DIMIA Villawood Manager, 12 August 2002, (N1, Case 31, p43).

264. DIMIA Deputy Secretary, Email, to DIMIA Villawood Manager, 22 August 2002, (N5, Case 31, p664).

265. DIMIA, Response to Draft Report, 10 July 2003.

13 May 2004

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12. Education for Children in Immigration Detention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention A child's experience of detention is fundamentally affected by the level of education with which they are provided. This chapter assesses the provision of education to children in detention, compares it to the provision of education to similar children living in the Australian community, and determines whether the education that has been provided to children in detention meets Australia's international human rights obligations.

# data[].attributes.body
The Commission does not believe that this amounts to sufficient provision of education for secondary school age children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contents

1 Introduction

This report contains a summary of observations arising from the Australian Human Rights Commission visit to immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island in October 2012.

Commission President, Professor Gillian Triggs, visited Christmas Island from 9-12 October, assisted by two Commission staff members. The purpose of the visit was to assess the conditions of detention against internationally accepted human rights standards.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance provided by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) in organising and facilitating the visit, and the positive cooperation received from DIAC officers and detention service provider staff members during the visit.

The Commission provided a copy of this report to DIAC in advance of its publication, in order to provide DIAC with an opportunity to prepare a response. DIAC's response is available on the Commission's website.

2 Background

Because of these concerns, the Commission undertakes a range of monitoring activities, including making periodic visits to Australia's immigration detention facilities to assess whether conditions of detention meet internationally-accepted human rights standards.

The Commission has visited immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island on three prior occasions in recent years, in 2008, 2009 and 2010; and published detailed reports regarding the 2009 and 2010 visits.

The Commission's 2009 and 2010 reports found that Christmas Island is not an appropriate place in which to hold people in immigration detention, for a range of reasons including the nature of the detention facilities, the limited infrastructure, the lack of community-based accommodation options and the restrictions on asylum seekers' access to essential services and support networks.

In addition, the 2010 report found that concerns about detaining asylum seekers on Christmas Island were compounded by severe overcrowding and a consequent deterioration in many aspects of the conditions of detention.

3 Summary

The Commission's 2012 visit to Christmas Island was shorter than previous visits and, due to the time available, the Commission did not set out to monitor comprehensively all aspects of conditions of detention in the immigration detention facilities there. Consequently, this report provides a summary of some of the key aspects of the conditions of detention in immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island. It also provides some commentary on key aspects of Australia's current policy regarding asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat as it relates to people in detention on Christmas Island.

DIAC officers and staff members of detention service providers are clearly working under considerable pressures on Christmas Island, caused by a range of factors. These include the large number of people in detention, the uncertainty amongst the detention population due to the prospect of transfer to a third country for processing of their asylum claims, and infrastructure constraints and logistical difficulties resulting from the small size and remoteness of the island. The Commission acknowledges the efforts made by staff to ensure that people in detention are treated appropriately despite the challenging circumstances.

There have been some significant developments in law, policy and practice relating to asylum seekers who have arrived in Australia without authorisation, since the Commission's 2010 report regarding conditions in immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island. Specifically:

From late 2010 onwards, a significant number of asylum seekers have been transferred into community-based arrangements on the mainland, either into community detention or onto a bridging visa. The Commission has welcomed this initiative.

From March 2012, a single refugee status determination process was resumed, governed by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act), and allowing merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal of primary decisions regarding refugee status, regardless of whether an asylum seeker arrived by air or by sea, or with or without prior authorisation. This single process applied to all asylum seekers who arrived in Australia from this time until 13 August 2012.

The most significant development, however, is the passage of legislation in August 2012, requiring the transfer of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat to a 'regional processing country' for the processing of their protection claims. Almost all of the asylum seekers detained on Christmas Island at the time of the Commission's visit arrived in Australia either on or after 13 August 2012, and as such are liable to transfer to a third country.

The Commission recognises that in some areas conditions of detention on Christmas Island have improved since the Commission's last visit in 2012, including:

the introduction of monthly visits of one week each by a psychiatrist to Christmas Island

the installation of dental facilities on Christmas Island and regular visits by a dentist to Christmas Island

the establishment of children's play equipment within the Construction Camp facility.

However, following this visit to immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island, the Commission continues to hold serious concerns about the appropriateness of holding asylum seekers in immigration detention on Christmas Island.

The Commission's major concerns are summarised below and discussed in further detail throughout this report.

Overarching legislative and policy concerns

The Migration Act now requires that all people who arrive in excised offshore places without authorisation are subject to mandatory detention.

Asylum seekers who have arrived in Australia since 13 August 2012, including families with children and unaccompanied minors, are required to be transferred to a 'regional processing country' as 'soon as reasonably practicable'. In the Commission's view, transfer of asylum seekers to a third country for processing of their protection claims could lead to serious human rights breaches.

At the time of the Commission's visit, those asylum seekers liable to transfer to a third country for processing of their protection claims did not know how long they might remain in immigration detention in Australia, when they might be transferred to a third country, or precisely when the processing of their protection claims might commence. The Commission has welcomed the subsequent announcement that some asylum seekers liable for transfer to a third country will be granted bridging visas and will have their claims processed in Australia. The Commission urges the transfer of asylum seekers currently in detention into community-based arrangements as soon as possible.

Transfer of asylum seekers to third countries for processing of their protection claims

DIAC officers on Christmas Island face significant difficulties in providing adequate information to people in detention about the potential transfer of asylum seekers to third countries for processing of their protection claims.

The restrictive high security compound, the Support Unit, is currently used for the processing of people whose transfer to a third country is imminent.

Detention of unaccompanied minors and families with children

Children continue to be subjected to mandatory detention on Christmas Island, in breach of Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Families with children and unaccompanied minors are detained in closed immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island (the Construction Camp, Aqua Compound and Lilac Compound). In the Commission's view, none of these facilities provide an appropriate environment for families with children or unaccompanied minors.

At the time of the Commission's visit, a mix of single adult men and families with children were being detained in the Aqua Compound. This co-location of different groups of people poses a risk to safety and may lead to a breach of Australia's obligations under the CRC.

There remains a conflict of interest in the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship or DIAC officers, under delegation, acting as the legal guardian of unaccompanied minors detained on Christmas Island.

Conditions and services in detention

The immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island are not appropriate for asylum seekers. The Commission has ongoing concerns about the prison-like nature of the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre (IDC), the harsh conditions in the Aqua and Lilac compounds, and the inappropriateness of the Construction Camp as a place for accommodating families with children and unaccompanied minors.

The Commission found that there was significant overcrowding in immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island, most noticeably in Aqua Compound and the Construction Camp. Overcrowding has a significantly negative impact on the living conditions for many people, particularly those accommodated in dormitory bedrooms.

The very large number of people detained in immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island has placed strain on access to facilities and services in all immigration detention facilities, including communication facilities, recreational facilities, educational activities and opportunities for people to leave the detention environment on external excursions.

Access to mental health care

The Commission heard that there has been a substantial increase in demand for mental health services on Christmas Island, and is concerned that the mental health service currently operating there may not be able to meet this increased level of demand.

4 Activities undertaken during the visit

During its visit the Commission undertook the following activities:

entry and exit meetings with DIAC and Serco management

meetings with staff members of health and mental health service providers

tours of Christmas Island IDC, Aqua Compound, Lilac Compound, the Construction Camp immigration detention facility and the Phosphate Hill Processing Centre

individual and group meetings with people detained at the Christmas Island IDC, Aqua Compound, Lilac Compound and the Construction Camp immigration detention facilities

a meeting with a representative from Maximus Solutions, an organisation contracted by DIAC to provide independent observers to sit in on official interviews undertaken with people who say that they are under 18 years of age

a meeting with representatives from the International Organisation for Migration.

5 Overview: immigration detention on Christmas Island

The vast majority of the people in immigration detention on Christmas Island are asylum seekers. A small number of crew members are also detained on Christmas Island. At the time of the Commission's visit almost all of the asylum seekers in detention on Christmas Island had arrived on or after 13 August 2012, and are therefore liable to be transferred to a third country for processing of their protection claims.

During the Commission's visit, there were 1989 people in detention on Christmas Island, including 315 children.

DIAC informed the Commission that at the time of the Commission's visit, the majority of people detained on Christmas Island were Sri Lankan (944 people) or Iranian (415 people). Other major nationalities included Afghani (267 people), Pakistani (121 people), Iraqi (111 people) and Burmese (68 people). In addition, 38 people reported that they were stateless.

The majority of people in detention on Christmas Island at the time of the Commission's visit arrived in Australia on or after 13 August 2012. There were 212 people who arrived in Australia during August, 1593 people who arrived during September and 181 people who arrived during October.

There are five immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island:

Christmas Island IDC, a high security detention centre used for adult males, with an operational capacity of 400 and a contingency capacity of 850. When the Commission visited, there were 975 adult men detained in the IDC.

Lilac Compound, a secure immigration detention facility adjacent to the Christmas Island IDC, which at the time of the Commission's visit was primarily used for unaccompanied minors. Lilac Compound has an operational capacity of 150 and a contingency capacity of 200. When the Commission visited, there were 114 people detained in Lilac Compound, including 101 unaccompanied minors and 13 adult men.

Aqua Compound, a secure immigration detention facility adjacent to Lilac Compound, which at the time of the Commission's visit was used to accommodate a mix of single adult men, families with children and unaccompanied minors. Aqua Compound has an operational capacity of 200 and a contingency capacity of 400. When the Commission visited, there were 415 people detained in Aqua Compound, including 347 men, 33 women and 35 children.

The Construction Camp immigration detention facility, a low security detention facility, which at the time of the Commission's visit was primarily used to accommodate family groups, including families with children. The Construction Camp has an operational capacity of 200 and a contingency capacity of 310. When the Commission visited, there were 485 people detained in the Construction Camp, including 144 men, 162 women and 179 children.

At the time of the Commission's visit, the detention facilities were being operated by Serco Australia, the detention service provider contracted by the Australian Government.

6 Third country processing of asylum seekers' protection claims

In August 2012 the Commonwealth Parliament passed legislation that requires that asylum seekers who arrive in Australia's excised offshore places without authorisation are sent to a 'regional processing country' as soon as is 'reasonably practicable'. In August and September 2012 respectively, the Australian Government formalised memoranda of understanding with the governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea. In September and October 2012 respectively, Nauru and Papua New Guinea were designated as 'regional processing countries' under the Migration Act. On 13 September 2012, the first group of asylum seekers were sent from Christmas Island to Nauru.

As almost all the asylum seekers in detention on Christmas Island at the time of the Commission's visit arrived on or after 13 August 2012, the Commission considered aspects of their treatment relevant to their potential transfer to a third country. These include the extent to which they were provided information about the legislative changes, the pre-transfer risk assessment processes, and some aspects of the transfer process itself.

DIAC and Serco management reported that people in detention on Christmas Island who could be subject to transfer to a third country for processing of their protection claims face no restrictions while they are in immigration detention in Australia. For example, they have access to telephones and the internet equal to that of people previously detained on Christmas Island whose protection claims were to be processed in Australia.

6.1 Information about third country processing arrangements

Some asylum seekers in detention on Christmas Island said that they had not received sufficient information about the possibility that they may be transferred to a third country for processing of their protection claims. Some people expressed the view that DIAC Case Managers were not able to adequately answer any of their questions. The Commission recognises that DIAC staff, including Case Managers, have been in an extremely difficult position, as in many cases they have not been able to answer questions posed by asylum seekers relating to when they might be transferred to a 'regional processing country' or how long they might expect to stay in a 'regional processing country'.

It was clear from the Commission's visit that information is provided to all asylum seekers liable to transfer to a third country for processing of their protection claims, as part of the induction information provided on arrival at Christmas Island. The Commission was provided with the script for the statement that was read to asylum seekers at the time of the Commission's visit. The statement clearly says that 'anyone who arrived in Australia by boat on or after 13 August 2012, to seek protection, is liable to be transferred to a regional processing country to have their protection claims assessed'. The statement acknowledges that 'this information may cause uncertainty regarding your future', and explains that prior to transfer asylum seekers will have 'access to a range of services including doctors and psychological support staff'.

However, the Commission is concerned that nowhere in the script, or the suggested answers to questions, is it stated that asylum seekers will be safe in Nauru or any other 'regional processing country'. Some people in detention on Christmas Island expressed concern about their safety following transfer.

6.2 Pre-transfer risk assessment processes

During the Commission's visit it was clear that DIAC, Serco and health services provider staff all took the pre-transfer risk assessment process seriously and that measures were being taken to ensure that any person with a vulnerability that they believed could not be adequately managed in a third country would be referred to the Minister with a recommendation that he exercise his discretionary power under s198AE of the Migration Act to exempt the person from transfer to a 'regional processing country'. It appeared that particular weight was being given to the health services provider's assessment of whether a person has any health-related vulnerabilities.

Following the Commission's visit, the documents relating to pre-transfer assessment processes have been made public, including:

Departmental guidelines for assessment of persons prior to transfer pursuant to section 198AD(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Section 198AD(2) guidelines)

Minister's determination power under section 198AE of the Migration Act 1958 to determine that section 198AD does not apply (Section 198AE guidelines).

This report will not provide a detailed analysis of these documents. However, it is worth noting a few important points:

The Section 198AD(2) guidelines indicate that all unaccompanied minors (and other children where unusual circumstances suggest that it may not be in the child's best interests to remain with a family group) should be referred to the Guardianship Policy Section which will organise a best interest determination. The Minister has requested that cases where the relevant officer has assessed that it would be in the best interests of an unaccompanied minor to remain in Australia are referred to him for consideration of exercise of his power to determine that they are not transferred to a third country. The CRC requires that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Consequently, it is appropriate that a best interests determination is undertaken and the results considered by the Minister. However, the Commission holds serious concerns about whether it could ever be in an unaccompanied minor's best interests to be transferred to a third country for processing of his or her protection claims.

All of these documents consider the principle of family unity. The Section 198AD(2) guidelines indicate that there is provision in the Migration Act for dependants of people liable for transfer to a third country for processing of their protection claims to be transferred to a regional processing country with that person as a family group. The Minister has also requested that cases where a person liable for transfer has a 'spouse/partner, parent or child in Australia who will not be taken' to a regional processing country with the offshore entry person be referred to him for consideration of his power to determine that a person is not transferred to a third country. The Commission recognises that the specific circumstances of each family will impact on which alternative might apply, in particular the immigration status of the family members residing in Australia. However, whatever the immigration status of family members in Australia, the Commission believes that people who have arrived in Australia by boat from 13 August 2012 onwards who have family members in Australia should not be transferred to a third country for processing of their protection claims.

The documents make it clear that the pre-transfer assessment process will consider the issue of whether a person liable to be transferred to a third country has credible protection claims against the third country. The Section 198AD(2) guidelines state that: 'Where a person has raised protection claims against a designated RPC [regional processing country], the departmental officer should refer to the relevant country information and assurances given by the RPC ... to assess if those claims are credible.' The guidelines go on to state that: 'Advice can be sought from an Onshore Protection officer with training and expertise in the consideration of protection claims.' The Commission has serious concerns that the guidelines indicate that 'assurances given by the RPC' should be taken into account in assessing a claim for protection raised in this country. This runs counter to internationally established processes for the assessment of protection claims. In addition, the guidelines do not indicate that the person making the assessment has any appropriate training to consider protection claims, nor does it give any guidance as to the circumstances in which advice should be sought from an Onshore Protection officer. The Commission has serious concerns that these guidelines do not provide the guidance necessary to ensure that a robust assessment is made of any protection claims that may be raised in a 'regional processing country'.

6.3 Transfer processes

During its visit to Christmas Island the Commission was informed that the high security Support Unit is used on the day of transfer as a venue for the final steps in processing people who have been selected for transfer to a third country. The Support Unit is a self-contained, high security unit, situated in the IDC. The bedrooms are essentially small cells, with solid metal doors and grills on the windows. All furniture is hard and bolted to the floor. There are CCTV cameras in the bedrooms, including the toilet and bathroom areas, which cannot be turned off.

The Commission recognises that DIAC may perceive a need to hold people whose transfer is imminent in a secure environment separate from the rest of the population, and that they are operating within the infrastructure constraints of the IDC. Nevertheless, the Commission has significant concerns about the placement of asylum seekers in such a restrictive facility, even for a very short period of time.

7 Potential for indefinite or arbitrary detention of asylum seekers subject to transfer to a 'regional processing country'

The Commission is seriously concerned at the mandatory, indefinite and potentially prolonged detention of the large number of people who have arrived in Australia on or after 13 August 2012. Any person who has arrived in Australia on or after this date is liable to be transferred to a third country for processing of their protection claims.

Following the recent amendments, the Migration Act now requires the detention of people who arrive in excised offshore places. In the Commission's view, instead of requiring the mandatory detention of broad groups of people, Australian law and policy should only require the detention of a person if it is necessary in their individual case. Further, time limits and access to judicial oversight should be introduced to ensure that if a person is detained, they are not detained for any longer than is necessary. These are basic protections and are required of the Australian Government under its international obligations, including the obligation to ensure that no person is arbitrarily detained.

The Commission acknowledges that the use of immigration detention may be legitimate for a strictly limited period of time. However, the need to detain should be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration individual circumstances. A person should only be held in an immigration detention facility if they are individually assessed as posing an unacceptable risk to the Australian community and that risk cannot be met in a less restrictive way. Otherwise, they should be permitted to reside in community-based alternatives to detention - if necessary, with appropriate conditions imposed to mitigate any identified risks. This includes people liable to be transferred to a third country for processing of their protection claims.

The Commission has long held the view that the essential safeguard required to ensure that arbitrary detention does not occur is access to review by a court of any decision to detain, or to continue a person's detention. Currently, in breach of its international obligations, Australia does not provide this.

The Commission welcomes the announcement that some people who arrived in Australia after 13 August 2012 will be granted bridging visas and permitted to live in the community. However, the Commission is concerned that without the right to work these people will find it difficult to maintain an adequate standard of living. The Australian Government should ensure that all people transferred into community-based arrangements are provided with an adequate level of support.

The Commission remains concerned that some people who are liable to be transferred to a third country for processing of their protection claims, including children, may still face prolonged periods of detention in closed facilities prior to being transferred into community-based arrangements. The Commission urges the prompt consideration of all post-13 August 2012 arrivals for community-based arrangements.

8 Mandatory detention of children on Christmas Island

The Commission has particular concerns that families with children and unaccompanied minors continue to be subjected to mandatory detention on Christmas Island, despite the Migration Act containing as a principle that a minor shall only be detained as a measure of last resort. As noted above, the Commission has long opposed the mandatory detention of children because it leads to fundamental breaches of their human rights, including their right to be detained only as a last resort, and for the shortest appropriate period of time. In order to comply with its obligation under the CRC, in deciding whether to detain a child, the Australian Government should consider any less restrictive alternatives available. A child should only be detained in exceptional circumstances.

The Commission continues to advocate for changes to the Migration Act to ensure that children are only detained as a measure of last resort; and that if they are detained, it is for the shortest appropriate period of time and subject to independent and judicial review mechanisms. The Commission has repeatedly recommended that the Australian Government should implement the recommendations of the report, of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, A last resort?, that Australia's immigration detention laws be amended to comply with the CRC, including:

There should be a presumption against the detention of children for immigration purposes.

A court or independent tribunal should assess whether there is a need to detain children for immigration purposes within 72 hours of any initial detention (for example, for the purposes of health identity or security checks).

There should be prompt and periodic review by a court of the legality of continuing detention for immigration purposes.

All courts and independent tribunals should be guided by the following principles:

detention of children must be a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time

the best interests of children must be a primary consideration

the preservation of family unity

special protection and assistance for unaccompanied children.

9 Detention placement for children on Christmas Island

The Commission has welcomed the commitment made by the Australian Government that children will not be held in high security immigration detention facilities. However, while children are no longer detained in high security facilities, they are still detained in closed low security facilities. On Christmas Island they are detained in Aqua and Lilac compounds and the Construction Camp facility. As discussed below, the Commission believes that it is misleading to call any of these facilities alternative places of detention. These are all secure facilities, from which people who are detained there are not free to come and go. In the Commission's view, none of these facilities provide appropriate accommodation for families and children or unaccompanied minors. In Aqua and Lilac compounds, the conditions are particularly harsh.

During its recent visit, the Commission was very concerned to observe the co-location of families with children and single adult men in Aqua Compound. The Commission recognises the significant logistical difficulties faced by DIAC in accommodating the large number of boat arrivals in recent months. However, Australia has obligations under the CRC to ensure 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'. The co-location of children with adults to whom they are not related could amount to a breach of this right.

A spokesperson for the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has said that family groups and single adult men are only co-located if they had shared a boat and while initial health checks were completed. However, when the Commission visited Aqua Compound there were people accommodated there from a number of different boats.

That this situation has occurred reinforces the Commission's view that Christmas Island is an inappropriate place in which to detain asylum seekers, especially child asylum seekers.

10 Unaccompanied minors in detention

Australia's obligations under the CRC to only detain children as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time apply to unaccompanied minors. UNHCR guidelines also provide that unaccompanied minors should not be detained, particularly in isolated areas. In addition, because of their particular vulnerability, the CRC requires that the government provide unaccompanied minors with special protection and assistance.

During the Commission's visit to Christmas Island, there were 101 unaccompanied minors detained in Lilac Compound. As discussed in section 11.3 below, the Commission did not find the conditions in Lilac Compound appropriate for immigration detention purposes, and especially inappropriate for the detention of children.

Unaccompanied minors detained on Christmas Island do not have dedicated carers. They are supervised by Serco officers. An Independent Observer is generally present as a support person at all interviews of unaccompanied minors. DIAC currently contracts the company Maximus Solutions to provide Independent Observers on Christmas Island. It is important to note that the role of an Independent Observer is very limited. Independent Observers do not advocate or care for unaccompanied minors in detention more generally and do not provide advice or information to minors about the interviews in which they are participating. Rather, they observe interviews to ensure that the minor is treated appropriately and can ask for an interview to be paused if they feel that the unaccompanied minor is stressed.

The Commission's visit to Christmas Island has reinforced its long-standing concerns regarding the guardianship arrangements for unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in Australia. The CRC requires Australia to ensure 'alternative care' for unaccompanied minors. Effective guardianship is an important element of the care that unaccompanied minors need. The CRC also requires that the best interests of the child be the 'basic concern' of the child's legal guardian. This suggests that the best interests of an unaccompanied minor must not only be a primary consideration (as required by article 3 of the CRC), but the primary consideration for his or her legal guardian.

In Australia, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is the legal guardian of all unaccompanied minors seeking asylum. The Minister can delegate those powers to DIAC officers. The Commission has for many years raised concerns about these arrangements. In the Commission's view, they create a fundamental conflict of interest. It is not possible for the Minister or a DIAC officer to ensure that the best interests of an unaccompanied minor are their primary consideration when they are simultaneously the child's guardian, the detaining authority and, in the case of the Minister, the decision-maker about whether the child will be transferred to a third country. The Commission's concerns about the guardianship arrangements for unaccompanied minors have been heightened by the arrangements to transfer asylum seekers, including unaccompanied minors, to a third countries for processing of their protection claims. In the Commission's view, the fact that the Minister for Immigration no longer has to provide his consent in writing for a child for whom he acts as guardian to be removed from Australia does not remove the conflict of interest inherent in his multiple roles.

The Commission has repeatedly recommended that an independent guardian should be appointed for unaccompanied minors in immigration detention.

The Commission met with a number of unaccompanied minors in detention on Christmas Island. Some of these children expressed significant anxiety about the possibility that they would be transferred to Nauru, the length of time that it might take for their claims to be processed, and the length of time that they might be separated from their families. The boys reported uniformly that they have been well treated by staff in immigration detention. Their primary concern regarding conditions of detention was that they are offered insufficient meaningful activities with which to occupy their time in detention.

11 Conditions of detention

Under international standards, authorities should seek to minimise differences between life in detention and life at liberty in the design and delivery of detention services and facilities.

The Commission has previously raised concerns that the immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island are not appropriate for asylum seekers, particularly families with children and people with a background of torture or trauma. The Commission acknowledges that DIAC is working within considerable infrastructure constraints on Christmas Island. However, in the Commission's view, the fact that suitable infrastructure is not available on Christmas Island is one reason why people should not be detained on the island.

During the Commission's visit it appeared that the overcrowding of all facilities was having a significant impact on both the conditions of detention and the services provided to people in detention on Christmas Island. At the time of the Commission's visit, a large number of people were sleeping in dormitory accommodation. In addition, the Commission observed situations where people in detention had to queue for long periods of time for meals, or to purchase items at the canteen. The Commission also heard from people in detention about the impact of overcrowding, particularly on their access to educational and recreational programs. Serco management acknowledged that the significant numbers of recent arrivals had placed a strain on some service delivery areas. For example, they reported that there had been delays in the processing of property.

The following sections of this report describe conditions in each of the immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island. The report then discusses issues relating to staff treatment and to the provision of health and mental health care; access to communication facilities; and the provision of education and recreational activities.

11.1 Conditions of detention in the Christmas Island IDC

The Christmas Island IDC is a high security, purpose-built facility that was completed in 2008. The IDC is located in a national park area at North-West Point, about 17 kilometres form the island's small town area. The IDC is used to detain adult males. When the Commission visited, there were 975 men in the IDC.

The Commission has also previously noted positively the freedom of movement for people within the facility. During this visit as well, the Commission was pleased to observe that the IDC was being operated in a relatively open way, with people detained there having freedom of movement between their accommodation compound and the shared open areas during the day (other than at meal times).

However, the Commission's overarching concerns about the prison-like nature of the IDC remain. Asylum seekers are detained under the Migration Act because they do not have a valid visa. They are not detained because they are under police arrest or because they have been charged with or convicted of a criminal offence. The treatment of people in immigration detention should therefore be as favourable as possible, and in no way less favourable than that of untried or convicted prisoners.

As with all other immigration detention facilities visited on Christmas Island, the Commission's overarching concern with the IDC regards overcrowding. Each of the accommodation compounds in the IDC was operating at surge capacity, with dormitory rooms containing approximately 20 beds, and some with activities rooms also converted to accommodation, containing approximately 14 beds. In addition, Education 3, a compound that was formerly used for educational and recreational activities, is currently being used as accommodation, with bunk beds having been placed in most of the rooms. The Commission is concerned that an education compound is being used for accommodation, given the significant pressure on the recreational facilities in the remainder of the IDC.

As discussed in section 6.3 above, the Commission also has concerns about the Support Unit located within the Christmas Island IDC. As described above, the Support Unit is a self-contained, high security unit, in which the bedrooms are essentially small cells, all furniture is hard, with CCTV cameras in the bedrooms, including the toilet and bathroom areas, which cannot be turned off. The Commission has serious concerns that the CCTV cameras could breach the right to privacy as well as the right of people deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

The Commission recognises that, prior to the commencement of transfers to third countries, the Support Unit has been infrequently used. During the visit the Commission was informed that during the previous six months it had not been used on any occasion for a period of more than 48 hours. The Commission also recognises that there may be occasions where it is necessary to separate one or more persons from the remainder of the population for either behavioural reasons or due to vulnerabilities. However, the Commission has serious concerns that people with vulnerabilities could be detained in such a restrictive facility for any period of time. In the Commission's view, prior to a decision being made to place a person in the Support Unit, consideration should be given to an assessment conducted by the health services provider of the potential impacts of that placement on the person's health and mental health.

Since the Commission's last visit to Christmas Island, two of the accommodation compounds, White One and White Two, have been modified to enable their use for clients with specific vulnerabilities or clients with behaviour management issues. The Commission was not able to observe the use of these compounds for these purposes, as at the time of the Commission's visit they were being used as general accommodation compounds due to the high numbers of people detained in the IDC. However, DIAC and Serco officers described the system of placement that had been employed. In White One, which was used for behaviour management, the Commission was told that people were placed on behaviour management plans which were reviewed daily, and the compound operated with a very high ratio of staff to people detained. The Commission was told that in White Two, used for people with vulnerabilities, there was also a very high ratio of staff to people detained, and an intensive program of activities, which the health services provider was involved in delivering. The Commission was also informed that there has been a 92 per cent reduction in incidents since the White compounds began to be used in this manner.

The Commission supports the provision of intensive support to vulnerable people in detention. However, the Commission has some concerns about the alteration to the infrastructure in White One and White Two. In both of these compounds, wire mesh has been installed along the balcony of the upper accommodation floor to prevent objects being thrown from the upper to lower floor and to prevent people jumping from the balcony. While the Commission recognises that there are safety reasons for having done so, this mesh contributes to the prison-like feel of the compounds.

11.2 Conditions of detention in Aqua Compound

Aqua Compound is located on the edge of the Christmas Island IDC. It has an operational capacity of 200 and a contingency capacity of 400. At the time of the Commission's visit there were 415 people detained in Aqua Compound, including 347 men, 33 women and 35 children.

Aqua Compound is described by DIAC as an alternative place of detention. In the Commission's view this is a misnomer. It is a secure facility, surrounded by a high wire fence. The Commission found the conditions in Aqua Compound to be particularly harsh. The compound consists of a series of demountable buildings, containing bedrooms, bathrooms and a dining area. The compound has extremely limited internal recreation areas, and no dedicated external recreation area. There is also no grass, and little shade. There is no play equipment provided for children.

The Commission recognises the logistical challenges faced by DIAC given the very large numbers of arrivals in recent months, and that Aqua Compound is currently generally used to accommodate people for short periods of time until they are moved to more appropriate accommodation. However, in the Commission's view Aqua Compound is unsuitable for accommodating families and children.

As discussed in section 9 above, the Commission also has serious concerns about the co-location of single adult men and families with children in Aqua Compound.

11.3 Conditions of detention in Lilac Compound

Lilac Compound is immediately adjacent to Aqua Compound. It has an operational capacity of 150 and a contingency capacity of 200. At the time of the Commission's visit there were 114 people detained in Lilac Compound, including 101 unaccompanied children and 13 adult men.

Lilac Compound is also described by DIAC as an alternative place of detention, which the Commission also believes is a misnomer. Lilac Compound is a secure facility surrounded by a high wire fence, with harsh conditions. The compound consists of a series of demountable buildings, including accommodation blocks, a dining area, and some limited indoor recreation areas. There are also three open cabanas offering some external shaded communal space. Although there is more open space in Lilac Compound than in Aqua Compound, the compound has no grass, little shade and the area dedicated to sport had a dirt surface.

In the Commission's view, Lilac Compound is unsuitable for accommodating unaccompanied minors.

11.4 Conditions of detention in the Construction Camp

The Construction Camp immigration detention facility is a low security facility, which was formerly a camp used to accommodate construction workers. It is located across the road from the Phosphate Hill facility, approximately 5 kilometres from the island's town area. It consists of demountable buildings, with accommodation blocks joined by covered wooden decking, as well as a large dining room, a large recreation room, several smaller classrooms or recreation rooms and a small medical clinic. The facility is primarily used to detain families with children.

The Construction Camp has an operational capacity of 200 and a contingency capacity of 310. When the Commission visited, there were 485 people detained in the Construction Camp - 144 men, 162 women and 179 children.

As with Lilac and Aqua Compounds, the Commission believes that it is misleading to describe the Construction Camp as an alternative place of detention. While it is a low security facility, people are not free to come and go.

The Commission recognises that there have been some improvements at the Construction Camp since the last Commission visit, including the installation of a children's play area, and the fact that the dining area and a large recreation room are no longer used to process new boat arrivals to Christmas Island, making more space available for meal times and for recreation activities.

However, the Commission continues to hold serious concerns about the suitability of the Construction Camp as an immigration detention facility, particularly given the very large number of people currently detained there. The Construction Camp is cramped, and has limited internal or external recreation spaces. There is no open grassy area within the facility and very limited access to the community oval next door to the facility. In the Commission's view, the Construction Camp is not an appropriate facility in which to detain families with children.

11.5 Conditions of detention in the Phosphate Hill Processing Centre

The Phosphate Hill Processing Centre is across the road from the Construction Camp. It consists of three compounds which are used to accommodate people when they first arrive on Christmas Island and while they are processed. The Commission was informed that people arriving on Christmas Island are usually only detained at the Phosphate Hill facility for one or two days while their processing is completed.

There was no-one detained at the Phosphate Hill facility during the Commission's visit.

As with Aqua and Lilac Compounds and the Construction Camp, the Phosphate Hill facility consists of demountable accommodation blocks, as well as several large demountable buildings which are used for processing. The Commission's primary concern with the Phosphate Hill facility was regarding three large tents that have been installed in the middle of the Bravo Compound. The tents are used for accommodation purposes, each containing bunk beds for approximately 40 people. In the Commission's view, this accommodation is suitable for only the shortest possible period of time. The installation of the tents has meant that there is now limited open grassy space in the Bravo Compound. The only external recreation space available in this compound is found in two cabanas which offer some shade and some outdoor seating areas.

12 Treatment by staff

Under international human rights standards, all people deprived of their liberty are to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. The manner in which people in immigration detention are treated by DIAC, Serco and other service provider staff can have significant impacts on their experience in detention and on their physical and mental wellbeing.

During the Commission's visit to immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island, the Commission observed positive interaction between staff and people in detention. In addition, almost all of the people detained in each of the facilities visited by Commission staff reported that they felt that they were treated with respect by DIAC, Serco and IHMS staff working in the detention facilities.

13 Access to physical and mental health care

The Commission has in the past expressed concerns regarding the availability of health and mental health care for people detained on Christmas Island. The Commission acknowledges that there have been positive developments since the Commission's visit to Christmas Island in 2010, including the introduction of visits by a psychiatrist for one week each month and the installation of a dental van.

However, the Commission remains concerned about the difficulty of providing adequate health and mental health care for a large detainee population in such a small and remote community. The Commission's most significant concern following the visit is the capacity of the mental health services provided on Christmas Island to cope with the apparently large number of people in detention requesting appointments regarding their mental health.

13.1 Health care

Health care services for people in detention on Christmas Island are primarily provided by IHMS, a private company contracted by DIAC. At the time of the Commission's visit, IHMS was operating the following services in immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island:

Christmas Island IDC: a general nursing and mental health clinic seven days a week and a GP clinic on week days

Lilac and Aqua compounds: a general nursing clinic on week days, a GP clinic three days a week and a mental health clinic once a week

Construction Camp: a general nursing clinic seven days a week, a GP clinic on week days and mental health services on week days.

The local hospital is run by the Indian Ocean Territories Health Service (IOTHS). IOTHS provide basic in-patient services as needed.

The IHMS service standard requires that no person in detention should have to wait more than three business days for a consultation with a general practitioner. IHMS reported that they were currently meeting this standard. However, the Commission met with some people in detention in both the Christmas Island IDC and in Lilac Compound who reported that they had to wait for a longer period of time for an appointment. At the time of the Commission's visit, the dedicated clinic had only recently been established in Aqua and Lilac compounds, which might be expected to reduce waiting times for people in those compounds.

There remains very limited access to specialist care on Christmas Island. IHMS staff informed the Commission that specialist referrals are made by IHMS doctors to the IHMS Health Services Manager. Cases are then discussed with DIAC regarding possible placement and then a referral is made to the appropriate facility on the mainland. The Commission has in the past held serious concerns about the capacity for people detained on Christmas Island to obtain specialist appointments, and has observed that the remoteness of Christmas Island means that people in detention who feel that they have not been provided with appropriate or prompt access to specialist care are not able to initiate that access independently, even if they are able to pay for it themselves. The Commission met with a few people in detention who felt that they may need specialist care that would not be available on Christmas Island. However, the Commission's concerns about access to specialist care are not as serious as they have been in past years as most people are currently being transferred off Christmas Island within a relatively short period of time. Should people be detained on Christmas Island for longer periods of time, this issue may once again become of more significant concern.

13.2 Mental health care

Mental health services for people in detention on Christmas Island are primarily provided by IHMS, which runs mental health clinics in each of the immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island at least once a week.

People in immigration detention who are considered to be at risk of self-harm or suicide are managed through the Psychological Support Program (PSP). Under the PSP, people in immigration detention who are identified to be at risk of self-harm or suicide are managed according to one of three levels of risk, with observation by IHMS, DIAC or Serco staff. The Commission was informed that at the time of this visit, there were only three or four people on PSP.

During the visit to Christmas Island, the Commission heard that there had recently been a significant increase in demand for mental health services. The Commission acknowledges that there has been an increase in health staff on Christmas Island recently, but is concerned that the increase may not be sufficient to meet the increased level of demand.

Many people in detention told the Commission that the possibility of being transferred to a third country for processing of their protection claims was causing them significant anxiety. People expressed concern about the length of time that they might be required to stay in a third country, and about the conditions in which they would live in a third country. Several people the Commission spoke to reported that this situation was causing them 'severe depression'. One person told the Commission: 'Every night we sleep for one or two hours and then we think of Nauru. We came here as asylum seekers, we have escaped from one death and will be taken to another.'

The Commission met with a few individuals who reported that they had requested a mental health appointment either some time previously, or on several occasions, and had yet to see a mental health practitioner. The Commission does not have any evidence to indicate that there are widespread delays in the provision of mental health appointments. However, if the increase in demand is as reported, it will be very difficult for IHMS to respond to all people in detention who request a mental health appointment, without a commensurate increase in the number of mental health staff on Christmas Island.

14 Access to communication facilities

For people deprived of their liberty, the capacity to communicate with the outside world is critical to allow regular contact with family members, friends and support networks. Under international human rights standards, people in detention should be able to enjoy regular contact with family, friends and community members, facilitated through visits, correspondence and access to telephones. They should also be provided with facilities to communicate and consult in private with legal representatives.

Following this visit, the Commission holds concerns about the level of access to communication facilities, especially given the very high number of people in detention on Christmas Island. A number of people detained in the Christmas Island IDC reported to the Commission that at times they had great difficulty in finding a telephone that was free. Others reported that they were satisfied with the access to telephones.

The Commission heard a much greater level of dissatisfaction from people in detention regarding their access to the internet. At the time of the Commission's visit there were 18 internet terminals for the 975 people detained in the Christmas Island IDC; seven terminals in Aqua Compound for 415 people; four terminals in Lilac Compound for 114 people; and 13 internet terminals for the 485 people detained in the Construction Camp.

People detained in all facilities on Christmas Island complained about their level of access to the internet. The Commission was informed that in the Christmas Island IDC and the Construction Camp, people generally had a one hour session on the internet each week. People detained in Aqua and Lilac compounds reported that they have access to 30 minutes on the internet each day. The Commission also heard frustration about the very slow internet speed on Christmas Island.

During the visit, the Commission was informed by DIAC that if a person needs to use a telephone for a confidential matter, a DIAC Case Manager or a Serco officer can facilitate a phone call, and that immediate access to the internet can be arranged if a person needs to contact a lawyer or an advocate.

Nevertheless, the Commission holds serious concerns about the limited communications infrastructure on Christmas Island, given the very large numbers of people in detention in each of the detention facilities.

15 Education

During its visit to Christmas Island the Commission heard a significant number of complaints about access to education. The Commission recognises the serious logistical difficulties presented by the large number of school age children currently in detention on Christmas Island. However, it appears that the provision of education to children on Christmas Island is insufficient to meet the requirements of the CRC.

DIAC staff informed the Commission that there are 12 places at the Christmas Island public school for children in immigration detention on Christmas Island. However, at the time of the Commission's visit, there were 73 children between the ages of six and 12 in detention on Christmas Island. The Commission recognises that most of the children in detention on Christmas Island at the time of the Commission's visit had been in detention for a relatively short period of time. However, at the time of the Commission's visit there were 24 children in detention aged between six and 12, who had been taken into detention in August. At least half of these children are unlikely to have had access to education at the Christmas Island public school.

The Commission was also concerned about education for secondary school age children. There is capacity for secondary school age children detained at the Construction Camp to attend classes in classrooms within the Phosphate Hill complex that are staffed by Western Australian Department of Education teachers (it was school holidays at the time of the Commission's visit so the classes were not running). The Commission welcomes the provision of these classes. However, unaccompanied children of secondary school age detained in Lilac Compound are not transported to the Phosphate Hill classes, and are only provided with one hour of English class each day. The Commission does not believe that this amounts to sufficient provision of education for secondary school age children.

The Commission urges DIAC to take appropriate steps to ensure that all children are provided with access either to the local school, or to educational classes in the classrooms at Phosphate Hill. Consideration should be given to establishing some classes for primary school age children at the classrooms at Phosphate Hill. If this cannot be arranged due to capacity constraints on Christmas Island, children should be transferred to a location on the mainland where they can be provided with access to education, ideally in the general school system.

16 Recreation and activities

International human rights standards require that people in immigration detention should have access to materials and facilities for exercise, recreation, cultural expression and intellectual and educational pursuits to utilise their time in detention in a constructive manner, and for the benefit of their physical and mental health. In addition, each immigration detention facility should have a library stocked with recreational materials in the principal languages spoken by people in detention.

During this visit, the Commission observed that positive efforts were being made in most facilities on Christmas Island to provide recreational opportunities for people in detention. For example, the Commission observed a women's group at the Construction Camp, and a concert involving unaccompanied minors in Lilac Compound. The Commission also observed a significant number of people using the gymnasium facility in the Christmas Island IDC. In addition, the Commission observed that there were timetables for recreational activities displayed in most facilities. The Commission was also pleased that there are currently a greater number of programs and activities officers employed in immigration detention facilities than has been the case during previous Commission visits.

In addition, as noted above in section 11.4, the Commission welcomes the installation of play equipment in the Construction Camp, and is pleased that there is an operating toy library providing play materials for children.

However, the Commission holds a number of concerns about the adequacy of recreational facilities and activities on Christmas Island, including:

the lack of appropriate recreational facilities, particularly in Aqua and Lilac compounds and in the Construction Camp

the impact of overcrowding on people in immigration detentions' access to recreational and educational opportunities in all detention facilities

the very limited opportunities to leave the detention environment for people in all detention facilities.

Many people in detention who met with the Commission reported that they did not feel that they were provided with adequate recreational opportunities. In particular, people detained in Aqua Compound reported that there was very little for them to do apart from English classes. Unaccompanied minors detained in Lilac Compound also reported that they had very little access to recreational activities. They reported playing cricket, soccer and volleyball in the open area, but that people are frequently hurt because of the rough ground.

The vast majority of the people with whom the Commission spoke reported that they had not left the immigration detention facilities on an external excursion. The one exception to this was unaccompanied minors detained at Lilac Compound who reported having been taken to the community Recreation Centre to play soccer.

17 Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Australian Government should end the current system of mandatory and indefinite immigration detention. The need to detain should be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration individual circumstances. That assessment should be conducted when a person is taken into immigration detention or as soon as possible thereafter. A person should only be held in an immigration detention facility if they are individually assessed as posing an unacceptable risk to the Australian community and that risk cannot be met in a less restrictive way. Otherwise, they should be permitted to reside in the community while their immigration status is resolved.

Recommendation 2: The Australian Government should comply with its international human rights obligations by providing for a decision to detain a person, or a decision to continue a person's detention, to be subject to prompt review by a court. To comply with article 9(4) of the ICCPR, the court must have the power to order a person's release if their detention is not lawful. The lawfulness of their detention is not limited to domestic legality - it includes whether the detention is compatible with the requirements of article 9(1) of the ICCPR, which affirms the right to liberty and prohibits arbitrary detention.

Recommendation 3: The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and DIAC should make the greatest possible use of community-based alternatives to holding people in immigration detention facilities, including for people who have arrived in Australia on or after 13 August 2012 and who are liable to transfer to a third country for processing of their protection claims.

Recommendation 4: The Australian Government should stop using Christmas Island as a place in which to hold people in immigration detention other than for the shortest possible periods of time. If people must be held in immigration detention facilities, they should be located in metropolitan areas.

Recommendation 5: The Australian Government should implement the outstanding recommendations of the report of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, A last resort?. These include that Australia's immigration detention laws should be amended, as a matter of urgency, to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In particular, the new laws should incorporate the following minimum features:

There should be a presumption against the detention of children for immigration purposes.

A court or independent tribunal should assess whether there is a need to detain children for immigration purposes within 72 hours of any initial detention (for example, for the purposes of health, identity or security checks).

There should be prompt and periodic review by a court of the legality of continuing detention for immigration purposes.

All courts and independent tribunals should be guided by the following principles:

detention of children must be a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time

the best interests of children must be a primary consideration

the preservation of family unity

special protection and assistance for unaccompanied children.

Recommendation 6: The Australian Government should, as a matter of priority, implement the recommendations made by the Commission in A last resort? that:

Australia's law should be amended so that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is no longer the legal guardian of unaccompanied children.

An independent guardian should be appointed for unaccompanied children and they should receive appropriate support.

Recommendation 7: Immediate measures should be taken to reduce overcrowding in immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island. These should include:

ensuring that people in detention on Christmas Island are transferred to the mainland as quickly as possible

ceasing the practice of accommodating people in dormitory bedrooms in Education 3 Compound, and returning the compound to its original use as space for educational and recreational activities

refraining from using other areas as accommodation

ceasing the practice of accommodating people in tents in the Phosphate Hill immigration detention facility.

Recommendation 8: DIAC should ensure that all people in detention are provided with adequate access to mental health services. Immediate steps should be taken to review the capacity of mental health services to meet the apparently increased level of demand.

Recommendation 9: DIAC should ensure that all people in detention have adequate access to communication facilities. This should include:

ensuring that all people in detention are provided with adequate access to telephones and that they can make and receive calls in privacy

increasing the number of internet terminals in each of the detention facilities.

Recommendation 10: DIAC should ensure that all school aged children detained on Christmas Island have adequate access to education. This should include:

ensuring that all primary school age children have access to education equivalent to that provided to children in the Australian community

ensuring that all secondary school age children have access to appropriate education delivered by trained teachers.

Recommendation 11: DIAC should ensure that all people in immigration detention have access to appropriate educational facilities, including ESL classes.

Recommendation 12: DIAC should ensure that all people in immigration detention are provided with adequate access to a range of recreational facilities and activities.

Recommendation 13: DIAC should ensure that all people in detention have access to regular external excursions from immigration detention facilities.

The Commission's reports of complaints about alleged human rights breaches in immigration detention are available at http://humanrights.gov.au/legal/humanrightsreports/index.html. The Commission's national inquiry reports are A last resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (2004) (A last resort). At http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention_report/index.html (viewed 8 November 2012), and Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals (1998) (Those who've come across the seas). At http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/seas.html (viewed 8 November 2012).
See, for example A last resort, note 1; Those who've come across the seas, note 1.
Other activities have included developing minimum standards for the protection of human rights in immigration detention; submissions to parliamentary inquiries; investigating complaints from individuals in detention; examining proposed legislation and commenting on government policies; and raising public awareness. Further details are available at http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/detention_rights.html.
Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009 Immigration detention and offshore processing on Christmas Island (2009) (2009 Christmas Island report). At http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.html (viewed 8 November 2012). Australian Human Rights Commission, 2010 Immigration detention on Christmas Island (2010) (2010 Christmas Island report). At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2010_christmas_island.html (viewed 8 November 2012).
See 2010 Christmas Island report, p 6.
Migration Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth).
See Australian Human Rights Commission, 'Human rights issues raised by the transfer of asylum seekers to third countries', November 2012. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/transfer_third_countries.html (viewed 15 November 2012).
Statistics provided by DIAC for 10 October 2012.
Above.
Migration Act, s 198AD(2). On 18 August 2012, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth) commenced, amending the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (Cth). For more information about the Commission's concerns regarding the transfer of asylum seekers to third countries for the processing of their claims for protection, see Commission paper regarding third country processing, note 7.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 'Irregular maritime arrivals - arrivals on or after 13 August 2012, Group statement', 23 August. Provided to the Commission by DIAC during visit to Christmas Island.
DIAC, Departmental guidelines for assessment of persons prior to transfer pursuant to section 198AD(2) of the Migration Act 1958, (Section 198AD(2) guidelines), p 6.
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minister's determination power under section 198AE of the Migration Act 1958 to determine that section 198AD does not apply (Section 198 AE guidelines), p 6.
Section 198AD(2) guidelines, note 12, p 7.
Section 198 AE guidelines, note 13, p 6.
Section 198AD(2) guidelines, note 12, p 8.
Above.
Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 (Cth), Schedule 1, Item 36. Migration Act, s 198 AD(2).
Migration Act, s 189(3).
Under article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, any person arrested or otherwise detained is to be brought before a court without delay: 'Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.' The lawfulness of the person's detention is not limited to domestic legality - it includes whether the detention is compatible with the requirements of article 9(1) of the ICCPR. See, for example Human Rights Committee, A v Australia, Communication No. 560/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 (30 April 1997) [9.2].
Migration Act, s 4AA.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, CRC, 1989, art 37(b).
See further A last resort, note 1, section 4.3.2; UNHCR, Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in Dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum (1997), guidelines 7.6, 7.7. At http://www.unhcr.org/3d4f91cf4.html (viewed 22 November 2012); UNHCR, Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers, guideline 6. At http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3c2b3f844.html (viewed 22 November 2012).
See, for example Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the Migration Amendment (Immigration Detention Reform) Bill 2009, (31 July 2009), section 7. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/legal/submissions/2009/20090731_migration.... 2009 Christmas Island report, note 4, section 11; 2010 Christmas Island report, note 4, Part C. See also Australian Human Rights Commission, 2010 Immigration detention in Darwin, section 7. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2010_darwin.html (viewed 15 November 2012). Australian Human Rights Commission, 2011 Immigration detention in Leonora, section 7. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2011_leonora.html, viewed 15 November 2012. Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network, August 2011. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/legal/submissions/2011/201108_immigration.html (viewed 15 November 2012).
A last resort, note 1, p 7.
See C Evans, New Directions in Detention - Restoring Integrity to Australia's Immigration System (Speech delivered at the Centre for International and Public Law Seminar, Australian National University, Canberra, 29 July 2008) (New Directions). At http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/speeches/2008/ce080729.htm (viewed 19 November 2012).
CRC, note 22, art 37(c).
G Jones, 'Christmas Island riot fear, says Triggs', The Daily Telegraph, 12 October 2012.
CRC, note 22, art 37(b).
UNHCR, Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in Dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum, note 23, guidelines 7.6, 7.7. See also UNHCR, Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers, note 23, guideline 6.
CRC, note 22, art 20.
Above.
CRC, note 22, art 18(1).
See United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Standard Minimum Rules), Rule 60(1). At http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/treatmentprisoners.htm (viewed 15 November 2012). See also United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Rules for the Protection of Juveniles), Rule 86(f). At http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/res45_113.htm (viewed 15 November 2012).
2010 Christmas Island report, note 4, section 17.1; 2009 Christmas Island report, note 4, section 12.1.
See 2010 Christmas Island report, note 4, section 17.1; 2009 Christmas Island report, note 4, section 12.1.
See Standard Minimum Rules, note 34, rule 94.
See ICCPR, note 20, arts 10, 17; Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988) (Body of Principles), principle 1. At http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/bodyprinciples.htm (viewed 15 November 2012). See also Standard Minimum Rules, note 34, rules 13, 15 and 16; Rules for the Protection of Juveniles, note 34, rule 34,.
ICCPR, note 20, art 10; Body of Principles, note 38, principle 1.
See International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, art 12; CRC, note 22, art 24.
Body of Principles, note 38, principle 25.
2010 Christmas Island report, note 4, section 19.
Meeting with IHMS staff, Christmas Island, 9 October 2012.
DIAC, Mental health screening for people in immigration detention (April 2009).
Above.
DIAC, Psychological Support Program for the Prevention of Self-Harm in Immigration Detention (April 2009).
2010 Christmas Island report, note 4, section 19.2.
Interview with people in detention, Christmas Island IDC, 10 October 2012.
Above.
Standard Minimum Rules, note 34, rule 37; Rules for the Protection of Juveniles, note 34, rules 60 and 61; Body of Principles, note 38, principle 17(1).
See CRC, note 22, art 28.
Standard Minimum Rules, note 34, rule 77(2); Rules for the Protection of Juveniles, note 34, rule 38.
Standard Minimum Rules, note 34, rule 40; Rules for the Protection of Juveniles, note 34, rule 41.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Immigration detention on Christmas Island - Observations from visit to Immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This report contains a summary of observations arising from the Australian Human Rights Commission visit to immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island in October 2012. Commission President, Professor Gillian Triggs, visited Christmas Island from 9-12 October, assisted by two Commission staff members.

# data[].attributes.body
"How could it be that we could allow this to happen and at the same time not imagine how we would feel if it was done to us. What were we afraid of?"

# data[].attributes.body
07/12/07

Keep them out of sight, keep them out of mind, process them as quickly as possible, don't tell them their rights, lock them up and get rid of them as quickly as we can

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Well Founded Fear Of Persecution - Trailer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With Western governments increasingly reluctant to come to their help, who is left for refugees to turn to? "Keep them out of sight, keep them out of mind, process them as quickly as possible, don't tell them their rights, lock them up and get rid of them as quickly as we can," comments Chris Sidoti, Human Rights Commissioner, on Australia's asylum policy.

# data[].attributes.body
The Educational Rights of Asylum Seeking Children

# data[].attributes.body
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

# data[].attributes.body
“Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me” (Matthew 25:45).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thousands of people coming to this country to seek asylum are being treated as criminals, either locked up on Christmas Island while awaiting transportation to Australia's new penal colonies in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, or sent back to the countries which they had fled without their asylum claims being even considered.

Most recent public opinion polls show that a significant majority of Australians support the harsh policies of the present government towards asylum seekers who come on boats. I know of no recent survey of attitudes in the Australian Catholic population towards the same issue, but it cannot have escaped us that the current policies have been put in place by a government led by a Catholic (and former seminarian) who wears his faith on his sleeve, and that the Minister for Immigration lists "Church" as his favourite hobby in "Who's Who".

The reality is that the current policies have in effect criminalised anyone who comes to Australia by boat to seek asylum. The government consistently refers to these asylum seekers as "illegal", and cites this alleged "illegality" as the reason for refusing them the right to seek asylum in Australia. The government is fully aware that the UN Refugee Convention, to which Australia is a signatory, states clearly that asylum seekers should not be punished for the way they enter a country. Making an issue of a non-issue, that of illegal entry, is one of the big lies being told by this government, a lie that has contributed to the hardened attitudes of the public.

The consequences have been horrendous. Thousands of people coming to this country to seek asylum are being treated as criminals, either locked up on Christmas Island while awaiting transportation to Australia's new penal colonies in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, or sent back to the countries which they had fled without their asylum claims being even considered. Worse, the government has admitted that unaccompanied children have been sent back to Sri Lanka without any opportunity to put in a claim for protection in Australia.

Children have now been locked up for months on Christmas Island with no access to education. In recent weeks the government has begun transporting some of these children to Nauru, their future uncertain, and their physical and mental health at risk the longer they remain in detention. The government claims the moral high ground by saying that Australia is on the side of the millions of refugees who have been waiting patiently for years in refugee camps around the world for countries such as this one to resettle them, and that 11,000 visas a year are being granted to these people. Those who come by boat are jumping the queue and should instead stay where they are until it is their turn to be resettled.

This is another lie. The reality is that there is no queue of people waiting in line according to when they became refugees, and from which Australia takes the first 11,000. There is no process to identify which of the 11 million refugees around the world are most in need of being given a permanent visa for Australia. We do not help those most in need; rather we choose the ones we want. Frequently, in fact, Australia has refused to take unaccompanied children and people with severe disabilities, arguably the most needy of refugees, because it does not want the trouble and expense that these groups would present. Australia also deliberately refuses to take refugees from certain countries, regardless of need, because of concerns about security, for example.

In his Lenten message this year, Pope Francis asks us to reflect on what it means to be like Christ who became poor, so that by his poverty we might become rich (2 Corinthians 8:9). He calls on us to "confront the poverty of our brothers and sisters, to touch it, to make it our own, and to take practical steps to alleviate it." The asylum seekers who have come by boat to Australia claim to need our help and protection. At the very least, we should be assessing those claims, rather than assuming that they are all economic migrants, or out to rort the system, or are undeserving of Australia's protection simply because they got on a boat. Instead, we now have a policy of refusing even to listen to their stories; we send them away unheard and unseen.

While the countries bordering Syria have taken in 2.5 million refugees from that country's civil war, Australia has been unwilling to share its wealth and resources with the mere 17,000 boat arrivals in 2012, and the 20,000 in 2013. Pope Francis is surely right, and his words are most apt for Australians, when he says that our consciences need to be "converted to justice, equality, simplicity and sharing". God's special care for those in need - the poor, the stranger, the persecuted, the widow, the orphan, the prisoner - is one of the most constant themes in the Bible. From the story of the Exodus to the Sermon on the Mount, we are told that God is on the side of the stranger, the one in need of hospitality and care. In Matthew's account of the Last Judgement, Jesus identifies himself with the needy: "I was a stranger and you welcomed me" (Matthew 25:35).

An Australian MP, making his maiden speech in Parliament in 2008, said, "From my faith I derive the values of loving kindness, justice and righteousness, to act with compassion and kindness, acknowledging our common humanity and to consider the welfare of others... Desmond Tutu put it this way: 'We expect Christians ... to stand up for the truth, to stand up for justice, to stand on the side of the poor and the hungry, the homeless and the naked, and when that happens, then Christians will be trustworthy believable witnesses.'" That MP was Scott Morrison, the architect of Australia's present treatment of asylum seekers. His words were an accurate representation of Christian teaching; his actions betray that teaching, whatever he might claim.

And what of the rest of us who claim to bear the name of Christ, who made himself poor? Have we welcomed the stranger, even at great cost to ourselves? Or have we locked up our Lord on Christmas Island, and sent him to Nauru and Manus Island, out of sight and out of mind? "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me" (Matthew 25:45).
By Aloysious Mowe SJ
First published in the April edition of Aurora.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When the boats come in - Jesuit Refugee Service Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thousands of people coming to this country to seek asylum are being treated as criminals, either locked up on Christmas Island while awaiting transportation to Australia's new penal colonies in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, or sent back to the...

# data[].attributes.body
We ask to find a more humane solution to people seeking asylum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Statement by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference on Asylum Seekers 8 May 2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bishop of Darwin Eugene Hurley and Bishop of Broome Christopher Saunders are both available for interview on behalf of the Australian Catholic Bishops. For media queries please contact Aoife Connors on 0450 348 597 or media@catholic.org.au

# data[].attributes.body
12/05/14

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sadness and fear: what the drawings by children in detention showed us | Sarah Mares and Karen Zwi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sarah Mares and Karen Zwi: We spent a week on Christmas Island as medical consultants - we were shocked by the pervasive sadness, the despair in children and in adults, and the lack of dignity offered to detainees

# data[].attributes.headline
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention

# data[].attributes.subject
National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention

# data[].attributes.body
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Preface

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Martin Luther King Jnr

This is an important report. It deals with our treatment of children in the most recent wave of boat people seeking refuge and a better life on our shores. It does so in the knowledge that there is a tension created by the community expectation that the Government will defend Australia's security while simultaneously upholding individual rights - the notion of the 'fairgo' for all. The report also challenges the argument that family unity within immigration detention centres is the only way that children's 'best interests' can be protected.

The findings of the report are the result of carefully balancing large volumes of solid evidence collected, mainly during 2002, which was then interpreted in a cautious manner. The Inquiry paid special attention to the principles of natural justice in reaching its conclusions. The Inquiry greatly appreciates the time and effort put in by the large numbers of individuals and community organisations that made written and oral submissions to the Inquiry. The Inquiry also thanks the Department of Immigration and Australasian Correctional Management for their assistance throughout the Inquiry. However, I am especially grateful to those detainees, temporary protection visa holders and former staff members who generously shared their personal experiences with the Inquiry.

The primary focus of this report has been on the human rights that all children in Australia should enjoy.

The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be ... used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Few people would disagree with these words from the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In fact, most Australians would agree that all other options should be explored before a child is locked up. The words from the Convention form the basis for the title of the report of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention: A last resort?

A last resort? talks about children who arrived in Australia to seek protection from despotic regimes like those of Iraq and Afghanistan where breaches of human rights were the norm. Most of these children arrived with their

families, some were unaccompanied. More than 92 percent of all children arriving by boat since 1999 have been recognised by Australian authorities to be refugees. In the case of Iraqi children the figures are as high as 98 percent. This means they left their homelands because they had little real choice. Seeking asylum elsewhere was, for them, a last resort.

Yet, since 1992, we have welcomed these children by taking them to remote facilities, detaining them there to wait for a visa. Australia's immigration policy makes the detention of these children the first and only option and it puts no limit on the time that they are held there. Children wait in detention for months or years - one child spent almost five and a half years in detention before being released into the community as a refugee. In fact, as at the end of 2003, the majority of children in detention had been held there for more than two years. This policy seems a complete departure from the principle of detention as a measure of last resort.

Australians don't need a team of experts or dramatic media stories to convince them that detention centres are no place for children to grow up. However, this Inquiry analysed evidence from an enormous number of sources in order to objectively assess whether this gut reaction was right. The answer is conclusive even the best-run detention centre is no summer school or holiday resort. In fact, they are traumatising places which subject children to enormous mental distress. This confirms the need to ensure that children should only be locked up in this environment as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

The irony is that the long-term impact of this system on children is likely to be borne by Australian society as a whole, since almost all children in the detention centres eventually become members of the Australian community. They will carry the effects of their experience with them throughout their lives.

However, even if we were to ignore these human rights concerns, what is the rationale for, or logic of, the current immigration detention system? Does this rationale withstand vigorous examination?

Some have argued that mandatory detention is necessary to prevent floods of boat arrivals. We must take a reality check here. Even if we agree that between 1999 and 2002 the number of people arriving by boat was relatively significant, from a midrange time perspective the number of arrivals is small. Over the past 14 years approximately 13,500 people have arrived by boat - this number of people would fill approximately 15 percent of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Compare this to the approximately 1.4 million new settlers who arrived in Australia over the same period. In other words, 'boat people' constituted roughly one per cent of our total intake over that period.

But even if these numbers were greater, the detention of one group of children to deter another group from coming to Australia raises the issue of the proportionality of our policy response. Compare this with our treatment of children who commit a crime: such young offenders are only detained after prompt and careful consideration by a magistrate, the period of imprisonment is strictly limited and is reviewable at several levels. Yet under our immigration laws, children who have not been accused of any crime are detained automatically and for indefinite periods and there is also no real opportunity to argue their case before an independent tribunal or court. A comparison of the two regimes highlights the lack of proportionality of our immigration detention policy.

The international community must take into account the 'cause and effect' nature of migratory movements when developing policies; if one part of the globe is under pressure there is likely to be a corresponding increase in asylum seekers elsewhere. The Australian experience with boat people is testimony to this reality. People smugglers who risk children's lives by taking them on a perilous voyage in an unseaworthy boat, should be appropriately dealt with through international policing co-operation. However the answer to these issues lies more in international cooperation and planning than in the creation of 'fortress Australia'.

Others have argued that in the post 9/11-Bali world the terrorist threat requires a total embargo on unauthorised arrivals. I am fully conscious of the threat posed by terrorism which, when all is said and done, represents the utter negation of human rights. But in the case of boat people, these are the children who are the victims of the Saddam Hussein's of this world, not the perpetrators. That is why most of them left their homes in the first place. In any case, Dennis Richardson, the Director-General of ASIO, stated that not one person arriving by boat between 2001 and 2002 'had received an adverse security assessment in terms of posing a direct or indirect threat to Australia's security'.

Finally, some have warned that without detention, children and families will disappear into the community and will not be available for removal if they are found not to be refugees. This argument lacks supporting evidence and disregards the fact that, according to the Department's own statistics, around 90 per cent of boat arrivals whether adult or child - are found to be genuine refugees. While there is always some flight risk, since almost all children arriving by boat are given protection visas in the end, there seems little incentive for these refugees to go underground. In any event, our domestic justice system deals with hundreds of children charged with a crime, who may also present a flight risk, but are released on bail. We accept this system as a necessary hallmark of a 'civil society', yet fail to apply these principles to children seeking asylum in Australia.

Since the announcement of the Inquiry, there have been some positive measures to improve the environment in which children in detention live. I commend the Department for introducing these changes without awaiting the formal outcome of this Inquiry. The transfer of unaccompanied children to foster homes, increased access to education outside detention and the creation of residential housing projects are steps in the right direction - although the housing project still has the inherent weakness of restricting liberty and excluding fathers. However, these measures ultimately represent a 'blu-tack' approach to repairing a detention system that is fundamentally flawed.

While recognising the right of each country to protect its borders, I hope that A last resort? removes, once and for all, any doubts about the harmful effects of long term immigration detention on children. It warns governments, in Australia and around the world, that mandatory, indefinite and unreviewable detention of children is no answer to the global issue of refugee movements.

Even if there is no child in detention when this report is tabled in Parliament, it is now time for our elected parliamentary representatives to amend our immigration legislation to ensure that it complies with Australia's accepted human rights standards.

Let no child who arrives in Australia ever suffer under this system again.

Dr Sev Ozdowski OAM
Human Rights Commissioner

13 May 2004

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A last resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is an important report. It deals with our treatment of children in the most recent wave of boat people seeking refuge and a better life on our shores. It does so in the knowledge that there is a tension created by the community expectation that the Government will defend Australia's security while simultaneously upholding individual rights - the notion of the 'fairgo' for all.

# data[].attributes.body
04/04/14

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PM covers stories across Australia and the world, explaining and analysing the most important events and issues of the day.

# data[].attributes.body
Article 26

# data[].attributes.body
Children are human beings with a distinct set of rights instead of passive objects of care and charity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

In 1989 something incredible happened. Against the backdrop of a changing world order world leaders came together and made a historic commitment to the world's children. They made a promise to every child to protect and fulfil their rights, by adopting an international legal framework - the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Contained in this treaty is a profound idea: that children are not just objects who belong to their parents and for whom decisions are made, or adults in training. Rather, they are human beings and individuals with their own rights. The Convention says childhood is separate from adulthood, and lasts until 18; it is a special, protected time, in which children must be allowed to grow, learn, play, develop and flourish with dignity. The Convention went on to become the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history and has helped transform children's lives.

What has the Convention achieved?

The Convention is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history. It has inspired governments to change laws and policies and make investments so that more children finally get the health care and nutrition they need to survive and develop, and there are stronger safeguards in place to protect children from violence and exploitation. It has also enabled more children to have their voices heard and participate in their societies.

Childhood today: new threats, new opportunities

Despite this progress, the Convention is still not fully implemented or widely known and understood. Millions of children continue to suffer violations of their rights when they are denied adequate health care, nutrition, education and protection from violence. Childhoods continue to be cut short when children are forced to leave school, do hazardous work, get married, fight in wars or are locked up in adult prisons.

And global changes, like the rise of digital technology, environmental change, prolonged conflict and mass migration are completely changing childhood. Today's children face new threats to their rights, but they also have new opportunities to realize their rights.

What needs to happen

The hope, vision and commitment of world leaders in 1989 led to the Convention. It is up to today's generation to demand that world leaders from government, business and communities end child rights violations now, once and for all. They must commit to action to make sure every child, has every right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is the Convention on the Rights of the Child? In 1989 something incredible happened. Against the backdrop of a changing world order world leaders came together and made a historic commitment to the world's children.