HREOC Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention
Transcript of Hearing -
SYDNEY
WEDNESDAY, 17 JULY 2002
Please
note: This is an edited transcript
DR SEV OZDOWSKI,
Human Rights Commissioner
MRS ROBIN SULLIVAN,
Queensland Children's Commissioner
PROFESSOR TRANG
THOMAS, Professor of Psychology
Melbourne Institute of Technology
MS VANESSA LESNIE,
Secretary to the Inquiry
AVILLION HOTEL
DR OZDOWSKI:
My name is Dr Ozdowski and I am the Human Rights Commissioner and we
are conducting an Inquiry into Children in Detention. To my left is
Mrs Robin Sullivan who is Assistant Commissioner for the Inquiry and
in her other life, she is Queensland Children's Commissioner and to
my right is Professor Trang Thomas, Professor of Psychology at the Melbourne
Institute of Technology and she is also Assistant Commissioner. Also
to my left is Mrs Vanessa Lesnie and she is Secretary to the Inquiry.
The Commission
believes it is important to respect the privacy of the individuals and
to protect children in particular. So as a result there are a number
of orders made to protect privacy. In particular I would like to ask
you not to identify any asylum seekers and not to disclose names throughout
the hearings. I'm also asking you to not disclose the names of any other
person who either is involved in the detention centres or who requested
that their identity be protected. Maybe now I could ask you to take
an oath or affirmation. Could I ask you to give your names, qualifications
and the capacity you are appearing in for the record.
MS SYLVIA WINTON,
sworn [9.02am]
MS JENNIFER MARSH, sworn
Asylum Seekers Centre
MS WINTON: Co-ordinator
of the Asylum Seekers Centre. I am a graduate social worker.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you.
MS MARSH: I
am a qualified social worker and I am the case worker at the Asylum
Seeker Centre.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you. Now, could I ask you to make an opening statement please,
but maybe before it, I would like to say thank you for your submission.
We have read it and the purpose of the hearing is to test evidence and
to acquire new information which could be useful for the inquiry so
that is what we will be trying to do. Also, if there is any additional
information you would like to provide us, please be in touch at any
future date with the Secretary to this Inquiry. Also, if there are some
particular case names you would like to be mentioned, please mention
them after the hearing to the Secretary. So now, if I could ask you
to make your opening statement, please.
MS WINTON: Okay.
I think probably the opening thing is just to acknowledge the nerves
that are going on for the two of us who have not been involved in something
quite this formal before but what I would like to say in opening is
that most of the folk that we meet at the Asylum Seekers Centre and
in the course of a year we are seeing some 312 asylum seekers or 312
cases, applicants, and then of course the families are involved. Most
of the folk that we meet are not in detention.
We see some folk
who are from detention and largely it is parents who are reporting on
the children's behaviour. In the last year, we saw some 130 children
between the ages of 5 and 18, so school aged children, and pre school
children who were in the numbers of about 72.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Children who were on TPVs?
MS WINTON:
They were either on bridging visas or a handful have been on TPVs.
DR OZDOWSKI:
TPVs, okay.
MS WINTON: Okay
but I guess what I'm saying is that we do see a lot of children asylum
seekers. It is largely though the parents who are reporting on the behaviour
of those children so we will spend an hour or so with the family, the
children will be in the room. The stories that we hear from those released
from detention vary differently, quite markedly from the children that
are released from detention. So from your community asylum seekers we
are hearing issues about getting children into school, getting normalcy
within their life, from those from detention we are constantly hearing
stories of nightmares, of fear, of fear of authority, of fear of what
has happened to their parent, of fear of what they saw.
So the stories
are very different from otherwise a similar group of refugee applicants.
The other thing to mention in introduction is that there is another
scenario of folk who are affected by detention and those folk who have
not been mentioned in the submission are not mentioned because it is
not the children who are in detention but where a parent has worked
in breach of their visa and the parent has been taken to detention.
We have seen the effect on those children that are left in the community
with no way to survive, no parent to feed them or at least the father
taken to detention, no way to have that normal life that they would
otherwise have had with parents around them and the impact on that group.
The other thing
to say in introduction is that there are other cases, apart from the
three that were noted in the submission, there are certainly many other
cases that could have been mentioned in the submission.
DR OZDOWSKI:
If you could maybe concentrate on children released from detention and
on the impact of detention on them. You said that they do suffer some
psychological problems after the release. Could you be more specific
and also if you could perhaps relate it to different age groups? What
are the most common problems experienced by you.
MS WINTON: Okay,
sir, in that regard I'm going to let Jen do that because it has been
Jennifer who has largely been seen by the younger family.
MS MARSH:
I will talk in particular about the second family, the case study 2
who I interviewed. I interviewed the father of the family. He had four
children, the ages were - sorry I'll have to look them up - they were
in Woomera Detention Centre for 10 months. He reported that they had
seen several things, they had seen fires, they had seen a man mutilate
himself, stab himself, had seen people climbing up trees threatening
to jump off, that kind of thing. He did say that they had nightmares
in the detention centre and I saw him recently when they had recently
come out of detention and he said they were still suffering from those
nightmares at that time.
He was particularly
worried about their schooling. He was saying how were they expected
to concentrate at school when they were having nightmares during the
night because of what they have seen in the detention centres. Yes,
so basically what they had seen, he said that they had witnessed similar
violence in their country but not to that extent, not personal violence.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Do you see also kids from other detention centres or Woomera is mainly
the centre which is delivering your clients?
MS MARSH:
We see them from all detention centres. Woomera has been the main one
that I have seen.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Are there any differences between the kids coming from different detention
centres?
MS MARSH:
Woomera seemed to have been the worse from what parents have reported
to me but certainly I don't think, you know, they benefited from being
in either one. All of them seemed to be about the same.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Do you know if they had any schooling in Woomera during the 10 months
they were there?
MS MARSH:
The two families that I interviewed, the first one in case study 1 reported
that there was schooling available but the teacher was actually a detainee
and the second reported I think it was only a few hours. So it didn't
seem
DR OZDOWSKI:
So it didn't seem adequate?
MS MARSH: Yes,
they all commented that it wasn't a very good learning environment for
the kids to be able to concentrate in.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What happened when they went to a local school?
MS MARSH:
To a local school?
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes.
MS MARSH:
The first group that I interviewed said that, the mother who I interviewed,
said she thought her kids were adapting okay. It was difficult because
of the language and culture and things like that but they seemed okay
for the time being. The second group I interviewed, the father said
that they found it difficult that particularly a lot of things were
effecting them after detention as well, the fact that they weren't settled
properly, the children didn't have beds to sleep in at night, things
like that. The third man I interviewed was actually young, 18 years
old, and when he was released from detention, he went to high school
the next day and he commented that the school principal knew that he
was some kind of a refugee and had asked him about that in the playground
sort of jokingly and in front of other students and he had admitted
that he was in Villawood and he said the principal was embarrassed and
walked away from him. So there was stigma within the school as well.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What about his English, because usually people from detention centres
go to intensive English classes.
MS MARSH:
Okay.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So this 18 year old must have been speaking quite good English.
MS MARSH:
Yes, he does have good English.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay. So he didn't go to a normal channel so possibly he went to another
school?
MS MARSH:
Yes, that particular case, he was living in the community on a bridging
visa and then because of an application, the second appeal to the Minister,
the men were then placed in detention. So he had been living in the
Australian community before, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, what about the TPV visas? Do they have any impact on the families
settling in the Australian society?
MS MARSH: The
particular first family I can speak about, the father came out from
his country, was placed in Woomera, released on a TPV and then moved
to Sydney because of the problems with family reunion he had left the
mother and children behind in their home country. A year later the mother
and children actually came out by boat and were placed in Woomera. During
that time the father was in Sydney and there was no effort to perhaps
place the family in Villawood where he would be able to visit and support
them. So that is, to me, that is an obvious case where the family has
DR OZDOWSKI:
The Minister quite often says that he does not like to split families
and on this occasion I can see children were kept in Woomera and father
was in Sydney
MS MARSH:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
was an attempt made to release children to the father?
MS MARSH: No.
DR OZDOWSKI:
And how long did that situation last?
MS MARSH:
The father was in the Australian community and the mother and children
were in Woomera for 10 months.
DR OZDOWSKI:
10 months
MS MARSH:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
they were separated?
MS MARSH:
yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, could you comment about any possibility - lasting impact of detention
on children?
MS MARSH:
I believe that, from what I've been told by the parents, that there's
a lot of psychological damage done. The fact that children are still
having nightmares, things like that, things that we don't normally hear
from other asylum seeker children who haven't been through detention.
The separation of family
DR OZDOWSKI:
What are the symptoms?
MS MARSH:
Yes? Also education, not having adequate education at that age, health
issues as well. I've heard reports about long queues, the environment,
not very good - not adequate showering facilities, a lot of disease,
a lot of sickness in the detention centre and things like that.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes. What is
MS WINTON:
Can I pick up on one of those?
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes.
MS WINTON: Another
family that comes to mind is a family that were in Woomera for 12 months
where two teenage boys were with the parents for that 12 months and
I interviewed this family in their home. When the boys spoke to the
guards in detention and asked why the guards were so cruel to the people
in detention - and the particular cruelty that they were talking about
or reporting to me - was that they were woken for all of that 12 months
at 1 am with a torch in their eyes, saying: show me your identity paper
and that was one of their routine checks and when the guards were asked
why they were so cruel to them, the boys were taken in the wee hours
of the morning to isolation detention for 45 days and the parents weren't
told where they were taken and so
DR OZDOWSKI:
How old were they?
MS WINTON:
They were 16 and 17 when I met them and they had been in Woomera for
a year before that, and when I asked the boys would they come to a public
forum and speak out about the conditions, mother said: these boys must
never speak out. We've seen what happens to children in this country
if they ask questions or speak out.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What did she mean?
MS WINTON: That
they were taken to detention. They were taken to isolation and she didn't
know where they were held. So this family were punished for speaking
out, the mother believed and these boys must never speak out. This was
a family where both parents were engineers, where the young boys were
obviously very - they certainly had excellent English. They were a family
from Iraq. We got these children into school. Very soon the eldest one
dropped out of school. The ability to complete school, to see life as
a child, to kick footballs or to participate in a child's life had totally
been taken away from them. I don't think that was just the refugee experience
of fleeing their country. Prior to that they had been students who had
studied and who
DR OZDOWSKI:
If the family would wish I wouldn't mind having the names of the children
to check up this story about this 45 days of detention in isolation
compound. So if I could ask you to ask them if it would be possible
to check for us this
MS WINTON:
I will ask her. I will call her.
DR OZDOWSKI:
If yes, please let us know.
MS WINTON:
I know she is very frightened. The family are very frightened too.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Why are they frightened? They are already out of detention so what are
they afraid of now?
MS WINTON:
I - the belief that it is, within Australia, that this fear, this treatment
is sanctioned, that if you speak out in Australia, you will be punished.
They also - it is not an unusual - the story from TPV folk is: we are
not safe, we know we might yet be sent back, and so, speaking out is
a fear. A fear of settling, a fear of participating fully within this
society for what the recriminations might be.
DR OZDOWSKI:
We heard much evidence that in long-term detention the families detained
disintegrate.
MS WINTON:
Huge.
DR OZDOWSKI:
could you tell me from your experience whether the families regain their
composure after they are released from detention or what happens to
families after they are
MS WINTON: Sadly,
we haven't done any long-term study on that, Sev. I guess we are only
seeing 3 years as the time. I'm having folk who are just coming around
to that 3-year time now and our work has not been largely looking at
- following 2 or 3 years later, saying: tell us the impact. It wouldn't
be difficult to do but it would be something outside our normal call.
We are doing case work with 25 to 30 people coming in our door of a
day.
DR OZDOWSKI:
When you see them in their family groups do the family role, the
traditional family roles return to the family after being released from
detention centre or are they grieving?
MS WINTON:
I don't know that I can really comment on that. I mean, my inclination
is to say "no" the family traditional role does not return.
The pattern for the refugee applicants is that the family role does
not return. Father, who was the traditional carer of the family usually
does not pick up English as quickly as the children do, so there are
all sorts of ways that refugee roles are topsy-turvied when they get
to a new country. I don't know that I can say detention impacts, that
there is any different study.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What about the employment rate among people who get released on TPVs,
what would be your experience, how many of them do work?
MS WINTON:
What I hear of reports is that people ask if they have a temporary visa
- once they release they are of a refugee-like possibility, they are
less likely to be employed so TPV folk report because they have a 3-year
visa: "no one wants to employ me, I might be going back",
so while Australia has a high rate of casual employment or of part-time
employment and we accept that there might be a turnover, these folk
seem to be discriminated against even further.
DR OZDOWSKI:
The last thing before I will ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask you
questions, I would like to ask this. The Minister quite often says that
these people cannot be released to the community because they would
abscond. What is your experience with - because you are dealing also
with the other kind of refugees, asylum seekers in Australia - what
is your experience with families, especially families with children
absconding?
MS WINTON:
You get a smile on my face. The chance of a family with three or four
children going underground in this country and surviving, feeding, educating
- I mean the refugee applicants that we meet are desperate for their
children to have a normal life, to have education, to attend school.
The chance of them going underground, changing their name, picking up
a new identity, is so remote it is almost laughable. It is just a ridiculous
possible scenario. We don't hear of the general asylum seekers absconding.
They are hanging out for the possibility that they will one day get
their permanency here. They don't want to abscond - traditionally, the
folk we meet are so law abiding, they are just beyond our normal Australian
citizens' ability to say: this is what the government expects, this
is what I must do.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Do you know of cases when people disappear, absconded?
MS WINTON:
I do not know of TPVs. I know of people who have come to the end of
their refugee process and believe they are still unsafe to go home and
DR OZDOWSKI:
So they have had a negative decision and they disappeared afterwards?
MS WINTON:
And the only option will be that they are to be deported and I can think
of two single men in my time who have done that.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What about families?
MS WINTON: None.
DR OZDOWSKI:
None at the moment
MS WINTON:
Absolutely none
DR OZDOWSKI:
in your experience?
MS WINTON:
and I've been there for 5 years and seen hundreds of families.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Moving through. Do you know of families who reached the end of the process
which was negative and then availed themselves for deportation?
MS WINTON:
And then avail themselves of the protection?
DR OZDOWSKI:
No - deportation.
MS WINTON: Sorry.
MS MARSH:
Deportation.
MS WINTON:
Deportation. Sorry. No, because what I do at that last stage and it
is very painful stage in my work, is to explore other possibilities
and deportation is not one I would encourage a family to go through.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So you
will counsel them to depart voluntarily?
MS WINTON: Absolutely.
That might be to depart to their own country or explore where else in
the world might they go or what are the possibilities, but never would
I - unless they said: I'm safe to go back, never would I suggest that
they go through the process of deportation.
DR OZDOWSKI:
How many families did you counsel last year?
MS WINTON:
With this in mind? Probably about five families. I can certainly think
of two single people who have gone back. I was
DR OZDOWSKI:
Well, thank you very much. I will ask Professor Thomas to ask questions.
PROF THOMAS:
Your submission was one of the few that raised the difficulties of bridging
visa and just releasing people from detention centres on bridging visas
which creates a lot of problems. We have heard that they don't have
access to so many of the normal services. So what kind of suggestions
can you make? Say for example, we can get the government to close down
all the detention centres, people come by boat, people come here we
all release them on bridging visas then what kind of suggestions would
you make on the conditions that are sort of practical and acceptable
to most people.
MS WINTON:
Would you like to answer that?
MS MARSH:
Yes. I would say first of all, rights to health care, to Medicare, also
to permission to work and to Centrelink benefits.
PROF THOMAS:
At the moment they get, what do they get?
MS WINTON: If
they are on a bridging visa, if you are on a bridging visa
PROF THOMAS:
At the moment
MS WINTON:
you don't get
PROF THOMAS:
Anything?
MS WINTON:
No, you are not able to access Centrelink, you are - if you are in the
community and on a bridging visa, if you applied within 45 days and
without certain other conditions you might get permission to work. You
might not have enough English to find a job or you might have such trauma
or refugee experiences that make it difficult or impossible for you
to work, especially if there are children involved but work might be
your only means of survival. Now if they were to have no detention centres
and people were to be released into the community on bridging visas,
I think permission to work would be essential and, as Jen said, that
would attach to it, the right to have Medicare and therefore medical
assistance.
PROF THOMAS:
At the moment the people can always access public hospitals.
MS WINTON:
Can they?
MS MARSH:
They can but then they are billed towards - if they turn up in an emergency
room and it is an emergency they will be seen but then they are billed
for thousands and thousands of dollars afterwards.
MS WINTON:
So a large part of our work is then advocating to get some sort of health
care for a family that has no right to Medicare. And if you don't have
right to Medicare, when you go to the public hospital, if they don't
see your Medicare card, you have to sign a document and you will be
given a bill and the bill is quite sizeable. Like at the moment we have
certainly got a family that has got a bill for a child going to emergency
for $2500, a child taken to intensive care. The family has no way to
pay that, they don't have permission to work and they don't have access
to Medicare. As I said to the Commissioner a moment ago, these people
are fearful of not paying a bill. They are told within the hospital
that if you don't pay your bill we will report you to DIMIA and they
have no way to pay the bill because they have no permission to work.
PROF THOMAS:
How is housing and food, who do they rely on - to get that?
MS WINTON: Again,
at the moment, if for instance our folk were released from detention
and it was on a bridging visa, without the permission to work, this
would be extremely difficult. We manage sometimes to get folk into a
refuge and ask them to take them without payment.
PROF THOMAS:
In a way, do you think they are worse off?
MS WINTON:
It is a good question.
PROF THOMAS:
In detention centres they get health care, they get food
MS WINTON:
And then they also
PROF THOMAS:
.....
MS WINTON:
and also they get the nightmares and the trauma that we are seeing.
PROF THOMAS:
I'm trying to solve a difficult problem because if we are going to make
some sensible suggestions
MS WINTON:
Yes.
PROF THOMAS:
we have to find a solution.
MS WINTON: I
think there is a large community support. At the moment, people are
saying: we would like to help asylum seekers, we would like to put people
up.
PROF THOMAS:
Yes.
MS WINTON:
I'm sure you are aware of the housing project that is in Victoria with
the asylum seekers there where they have located houses within parishes
that care for people. We have got - the National Council of Churches
have provided two flats for asylum seekers, rent free. There is a sense
of community out there as well, I believe that. When children are involved
we will get behind - if the government can't get behind providing accommodation
for these people
PROF THOMAS:
In America - because my family are refugees and I was a refugee myself
- in America, there is a system where people in the community put their
name forward on a register, say: :we are willing to take a refugee into
our home".
MS WINTON:
Exactly.
PROF THOMAS:
Do you think that sort of thing wouldn't work in Australia?
MS WINTON:
I think it can work, I think it can work, especially if there is support
given to those people who are saying they will help - that is support
from perhaps the agencies that can provide some training or some knowledge
of torture/trauma/refugee issues to that family. So if the children
are having nightmares, it is not a case of, good heavens, this is just
too much, let's get them out of the family, but an awareness for that
family to know of some of the issues around the refugee process that
might affect the children. There are certainly a lot of families that
ring us and a lot of response that we get. Recently I was out of the
centre for 6 weeks and in that 6 weeks we had 150 volunteers ring and
say: I'd like to do something for asylum seekers. What can we do for
people out of detention?
PROF THOMAS:
Your organisation, do you get funding from somewhere?
MS WINTON:
Non-government, predominantly from two of the large Catholic organisations,
the Good Shepherd Sisters give us the house rent free, our accommodation
and a third of our funding, Mercy Foundation give us a third of our
funding and under-pin our health care program where we offer health
care to people that don't have Medicare and the other third is from
the private sector, from individuals that want to support refugees.
PROF THOMAS:
That is great, thank you.
MS WINTON: Thanks.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Mrs Sullivan.
MRS SULLIVAN:
How do people find out about your service?
MS WINTON:
I should have submitted to you a copy of our annual report. We ask that
at the time of the initial interview: How did you find out, so the statistics
are all gathered. Probably the largest number is family and friends,
then there are acquaintances and an interesting comment we hear is:
"I saw another black person at Central Station" or at so and
so and they will have told them how to find us. The next group probably
is Australian Red Cross that refer to us, the private lawyers, legal
aid, interestingly even Immigration refer because they have seen and
know what we do and what we can offer. Hospitals, social workers that
come in touch with asylum seekers. Our centre is the only one on the
Sydney area that offers a service to asylum seekers.
MRS SULLIVAN:
So for example, when people exit Villawood they wouldn't be provided
with information about your service?
MS WINTON:
They might be. I haven't been into Villawood recently to see if they
have got any information about us. There is now at Cabramatta, a House
of Welcome that has been set up for people being released from Villawood.
MRS SULLIVAN:
That is by your organisation?
MS WINTON: No,
by another. The New South Wales Ecumenical Council.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Right. The Government occasionally, sort of, raises the issue that this
is an impost in taxpayers having detention centres, and having this
whole set up is costly to Australian taxpayers. Do you see any cost
to the Australian taxpayer in the current system once people are released?
You mentioned all the volunteers
MS WINTON:
Yes.
MRS SULLIVAN:
and churches and so on
MS WINTON: Yes.
MRS SULLIVAN:
but do you see any evidence that the Government itself is paying any
money to support people once they leave the detention centres?
MS WINTON:
Under Jen's scenario, Jen is saying that, in answer to Professor Thomas,
that she thought there should be Centrelink available.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Mm.
MS WINTON:
I suppose, one could argue that there was going to be that possibility.
However, one of the comments that I hear from TPV folk is we are paying
our taxes. Why can't we participate in the education that is offered?
So if they do have permission to work, one would assume they are going
to be paying their taxes, and then the access to Centrelink is no different
than for you or I.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Which of them do have permission to work?
MS WINTON:
Anyone on TPV, anyone released on a temporary visa has permission to
work.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Have permission to work?
MS WINTON:
Yes. The folk on bridging visas
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, that is different.
MS WINTON:
some will, some won't and those just released from detention predominantly
won't.
MRS SULLIVAN:
So that is a future scenario you are describing, but the current
scenario, are you able to point at Government funds being used in any
way?
MS WINTON:
No, I don't believe - if I'm really trying to think about it from their
perspective, additional people accessing a health care system
MRS SULLIVAN:
But they get a bill from what you have said.
MS WINTON:
They do get a bill, yes. I think there has been enough study done on
the costs of "in detention" versus "out of detention".
Out of detention costs are minimal. I haven't done the study, but I've
certainly read about the study. I don't see it being an impost on the
Government. I see it as a community response, and I think in your opening
remarks about the cost of detention centres on the Government raises
the issue about what is the cost of detention centres when they are
not within Australia. And they are being paid for by Aid money.
MRS SULLIVAN:
This is a difficult question to ask but I will ask it. In the hierarchy
of needs of people, and you have mentioned health, education and housing,
is there one that they ask for first? I'm trying to get a sense of where
the greatest pressure point is?
MS WINTON: My
response to that is that the issue of insecurity, the fear of perhaps
being sent back is the worst thing for most of the TPV folk.
MRS SULLIVAN:
So does that mean the priority is on counselling services?
MS WINTON:
No, no. The priority is on making that visa a visa that doesn't leave
them with the fear that we have said you are a refugee but, hey, we
might be sending you back. Give it a longer term, or make it some other
shape that lets them think that when conditions in their country change
they might be sent back, the insecurity of being able to engage with
their life, that is, I can't get my family to me, my fear of what is
happening to them, that sort of insecurity.
The folk that have
been released on TPVs and their families are not safe. These guys will
sit and cry with me, big Muslim men, sit and cry about the children
they have left and the fear, that they couldn't say goodbye to their
children. That is, you know - they talk of suicide. They talk of the
fear. Would you add anything different to
MS MARSH:
I think that oppression of family and just the insecurity that manifests
itself while they are waiting still.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Finally, you mentioned one of the case studies involved some adolescent
boys who withdrew from school. In general terms, adolescence appears
to be a period of childhood that is particularly affected by the detention
experience. Can you make any general comments about the adolescent children,
young people, that you have come across and, I guess, make any suggestions
of how to deal with them in relation to their detention experience and
the post detention experience they have got?
MS WINTON:
My comment would be that the adolescents that I've seen have been greatly
affected by how our system has treated their parents so instead of these
young people being able to see their parents in that traditional, responsible,
being respected, role, they are seeing all of that taken away. That
has, I think, been most unsettling so I'm seeing angry adolescents.
Now, we see angry adolescents in our normal society but they are not
angry about being rebellious teenagers. These are people with a just
cause of disgust of how their parents have been treated, very unsettled
from that experience.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Do they tend to stay with the family or do they tend to move on, on
and out?
MS WINTON:
The teenagers, and I'm thinking of that same family from Colombia, stay
with the family very much. They become the breadwinner for the family
and they support that family.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Thanks.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Perhaps, I would like to return to the issues which were mentioned
by you. The first one is you mentioned suicide, that they are talking
about it. Are you aware of any attempted suicides or successful suicides
among this group of people?
MS WINTON:
Post detention?
DR OZDOWSKI:
Post detention.
MS WINTON:
I'm not, no.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Or any self harm or anything?
MS WINTON:
I'm trying to think.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Post detention.
MS WINTON:
I can't think of anything on the top of my head. If I look back through
files and think, oh yes, but no, I can't, sir.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you. The second issue is that you said that quite a number of
people rang you offering various kinds of support. On the other hand,
we are reading different public opinion polls saying that the policy
of mandatory detention is fully, well, 70 per cent supported by the
Australian population. How would you reconcile these two different types
of information?
MS WINTON: Commercial
radio versus other sorts of radio. I think within any section of the
community, we have got, you know, people that want to support one aspect
of life or want to support another aspect. I really don't think there's
ever going to be 100 per cent support of removing all families from
detention. That won't come. I meet those people in my daily life, you
know, when you go to a meeting of some sort.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Did you see any changes in attitudes towards refugees, and especially
children, during the riot up here?
MS WINTON:
I see huge, huge changes at our place. Less than 12 months ago, we did
a pilot study to change the name of our organisation because no one
knew who an asylum seeker was. We have now a greater number, a much
greater number, of people who daily make contact and say, "What
can I do?" Our funding has become more secure. The decision was
don't change the name of your organisation. People know, since September
last year, who asylum seekers are and not only know, but care.
Yes, I know there's
a very large negative response out there. I had a refugee, she is a
permanent resident now, who said to me that the other night she was
awake with her nightmares that she has, and she listened to whatever
the talkback show was on the radio, and she said, "I was frightened.
I lay there in my bed frightened." There's a negative element.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, are the people who are released on TPVs attempting to form links
with the broader community, and explain how they came, why they came,
what were the issues and so on assisting in that public affairs area?
MS WINTON:
Yes, yes. One of the things that we do at that first time of interview
is to offer them the address of their own country support, the Iranian
community or the Afghan Association. On the whole, they say, "thank
you" and they don't make that link in the beginning. They explain
to me that the reason being that they don't know who it is. They still
don't know
DR OZDOWSKI:
They don't trust.
MS WINTON:
don't trust at this point. Further down the track, they are certainly
participating as well as is possible when they know they are secure.
They are certainly joining work. They are participating within their
schools for their children. They are participating but not back within
their own country on the whole.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So whom do they trust in the broader Australian community?
MS WINTON:
They often make links with people who were in detention at the same
time as them so that is where they will have formed
DR OZDOWSKI:
They come together, they will .....
MS WINTON:
As one guy said, you know, "We have watched 25 people die on the
boat that we came out on. We have experienced a lot together" so
they form a friendship there. I guess, over time they start to know.
They are as wise as anyone else as to know who they can trust and they
come back to us every time there's a crisis, either within their own
country or within their own family, or they lose employment, they need
some more help getting through another stage, another hurdle. There's
certainly been a lot of the TPVs coming back at the moment who were
of that first group that were released. They know their 30 months is
up and they are fearful of what is going to happen to them.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Ms Winton, Ms Marsh, that is possibly all of the questions I have. I
don't know whether you have got any other - would you like to make a
concluding statement or have we covered all the other
MS WINTON:
From my point of view, we have covered all the areas. I guess, you know,
as the submission states, the impact on children is very different than
the impact of the refugee experience where children have not been in
detention, from what we are observing, and, I guess, I will be just
looking forward to the report coming forward and hopefully, one day
detention not being a way to punish people who have made a refugee application.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Well, thank you very much for your evidence, thank you.
MS WINTON: Thanks
for your time.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, I would like to come to our next witness, and I would like to invite
the representatives of UNHCR to come forward. Thank you very much. My
name is Sev Ozdowski and I'm conducting this inquiry with my Assistant
Commissioners. To my right is Dr Trang Thomas, who is Professor of Psychology
at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and to my left is Mrs
Robin Sullivan who is also Queensland Children's Commissioner, and I've
also have got Ms Vanessa Lesnie, who is Secretary to the Inquiry over
here.
I made a number
of rulings relating to the confidentiality of evidence in order to protect
the privacy of people, and especially, the privacy of asylum seekers.
I would like to ask you not to identify by name or any other feature
any asylum seekers in this hearing. I also would like to ask you not
to identify other people who may be involved with the termination process.
If you would like to provide us with case names, you can do it later
to the Secretary of the Inquiry. Also, if there is some material we
didn't cover during our cross examination of the evidence, we can do
it later through either written submission or some other form. At the
moment, I would like to ask you to take an oath or affirmation.
MR MICHEL GABAUDAN
[9.42am]
MR ALVIN GONZAGA
United Nations High Commission for Refugees
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, I would like to ask you to state your names, addresses, qualifications,
and the capacity in which you are appearing for the record of the hearings.
MR GABAUDAN:
Certainly. My name is Michel Gabaudan. I am the Regional Representative
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. My office is based
in [address removed], and my office covers the whole continent - Australia,
New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific. I am accompanied
here by Mr Alvin Gonzaga who is the Legal Officer in the Regional Office
in Canberra.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Well, thank you very much, Mr Gabaudan. It is good to see you here,
and thank you also for your submission. We will, perhaps, concentrate
more on international issues and on issues which are of direct relevance
to your mandate and where you could help us a bit. So would you like
to make an opening statement or should we come straight to asking questions?
MR GABAUDAN:
I will, perhaps, make a very quick opening statement if you will allow
me. The mandate of the High Commissioner for Refugees is to ensure international
protection and durable solutions for refugees. We exert this mandate
through cooperation with States. We cannot ourselves deliver international
protection or durable solutions. Our role is, in some countries, operational
but it is everywhere: we have a function to supervise the application
of international instruments, including advising States on their performance
in applying these instruments.
We base ourselves
in our function on international human rights instruments. Of course,
the Refugee Convention is the most important one for us because we are
the guardians of the Convention, but the Convention only provides for
rights that are specific to refugees. We also consider that refugees
should benefit from human rights that are embodied in other international
instruments, and we use these instruments in our assessment of how Governments
are treating refugees. The most relevant of these instruments are, of
course, the ICCPR, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We also base ourselves
and this is, I think, quite important on the body of soft law that has
been developed over the years. The High Commissioner for Refugees reports
to the General Assembly through the Economical and Social Council, and
the ECOSOC has appointed an Executive Committee to oversee the functioning
of UNHCR. This Executive Committee is composed of States - Australia
is one of these States and was actually one of the first ones appointed
to the Executive Committee. Every year, the Executive Committee reviewing
both our activities and our budget on the one hand, and our protection
function on the other, issues some conclusions.
Now, these conclusions
do not have a binding effect on States, but as they have been adopted
by our Executive Committee members, by consensus, we do estimate that
they have a persuasive force and should be, as much as possible, applied
by States who have contributed to their definition. Out of these conclusions,
two processes take place. Many of these conclusions are summarised in
recommendations of the United National General Assembly, so they do
have life of their own, if I may say, and we also use these conclusions
to draft guidelines that give application and effective implementation
to international instruments that tend to be pretty general in their
definition.
So a lot of our
work with States is to try to use these conclusions that have been produced
over the years as an additional body of law regarding refugees. I must
confess that we have not been able to visit immigration detention facilities
in a little more than a year, basically because of staffing constraints
in my office, not because there is an opposition to do so. We are welcome
to do so by the Government. We are preparing a new protocol to do so
in the coming months, but we do not have recent experience in visiting
detention centres, and we would not be able to comment, therefore, on
the conditions in detention.
We have raised
our concerns on the policy of mandatory detention with the Government
on various occasions. As you know, we consider that detention is, inherently,
undesirable and we do believe that the legitimate concerns of States
with the sorts of movements of asylum seekers that we do see now, can
be accommodated under the application of our guidelines. To finish,
I would just like to mention that historically, we see perhaps two constraints
to the application of these guidelines.
One is that the
Immigration Act of '58 does not distinguish between asylum seekers and
other aliens, while the first conclusion on detention which was, of
course, passed much later, in '86 - this is conclusion 44, does ask
Governments in their legislation and administrative disposition, to
make a difference between asylum seekers and other aliens. The second
historical concern that we have is that when the mandatory detention
policy was adopted in '92, we understand practically in the second reading,
that it was introduced with a clear deterrent effect against irregular
movements. Now, if these reasons for the policy are still true, of course
that limits the compulsion to look at alternatives. Thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you. In your submission and now, you have expressed serious
concerns about Australia's mandatory detention policy. Could you mention
what exactly are these concerns, and could I ask you also to say a few
words on how other countries are regulating the inflow of asylum seekers?
MR GABAUDAN:
Yes, certainly. Detention is not only applied in Australia. Many States
do detain asylum seekers at some point of time or, at least, some groups
of asylum seekers. I would say our concerns with the Australian policy
that it is probably the toughest one because it associates a series
of elements that make it almost, an uncontrollable element of their
treatment. First, it is mandatory which means there is no - you don't
look at alternatives first. You look at everybody in detention.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Is there any other country which has mandatory policies around the world?
MR GABAUDAN:
No, and those who have it, do not have it on an indefinite basis which
means people can be detained only for short periods of time.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Could you name some other countries with mandatory policies?
MR GABAUDAN:
I think Greece, and Denmark now is looking at it pretty soon.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Sweden?
MR GABAUDAN:
Sweden has alternative detention, and has very clear regulations on
the amount of time people can be detained. In Australia it is a combination
of mandatory, indefinite - which is people are detained until such a
time as they have been determined to be refugees
DR OZDOWSKI:
Or returned.
MR GABAUDAN:
or returned, and the fact that it is not reviewable, so that makes it
the toughest policy of all. Many countries would detain, but only for
admissibility purposes, for a short time and, certainly, in most countries,
this would be reviewable, either by the judiciary or by an independent
administrative body, not by the body who had decided initially on the
detention. My colleague is mentioning to me that when it comes to children,
we are not aware of States that detain, systematically, children. They
do so on a very exceptional basis.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, it was my next question. I would just like to ask you to outline
any factors which may justify the detention.
MR GABAUDAN:
Yes, our guidelines do recognise that the sort of movements that
are taking place now do create some legitimate concern for States. We
have, in our guidelines, provided for some specific conditions in which,
we believe, detention could be justified - it is to establish identity,
in a case which is a very common one like smuggling, in a case where
asylum seekers have thrown their documents away and there are worries
that they might be trying to cheat the Government and, therefore, to
establish the truth.
Certainly, for
admissibility purposes, this is something that has developed recently.
I mean, because of the nature of these movements, which mix asylum seekers
with people trying to seek asylum as a way to bypass restrictions to
immigration, we do accept that an admissibility test is carried out
by States to see who really deserves to go through fully fledged refugee
status determination procedures, and who does not.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Are there situations where it is okay to detain children?
MR GABAUDAN:
We think that this should be argued very strongly, reviewed judicially,
that in general it should not apply, that alternatives should be sought
for children to start with. What is happening, I understand, in Australia
is that as detention is mandatory, first you are detained and then eventually
alternatives are looked at. We would rather see the opposite work.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Let us deal for a moment with children who are travelling with families.
It would mean the release of whole families, wouldn't it? The Minister
would say that, possibly, it would encourage people who are using the
services of people smugglers to bring their whole families at once and
expose them to danger.
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, the best interests of the child are to be with his family
in general. I think that is internationally accepted.
DR OZDOWSKI:
You see, the debate in public policies was with families in detention
or outside, and the Minister is putting it on the level that if outside,
only the children should be outside and not the family.
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, this is why I believe that we should look at detention in general.
The detention of children is a consequence of the general policy on
mandatory detention. If you are not making detention mandatory and were
only detaining people on the reasons we have exposed, you would already
have a number of children that would not have to go into detention.
So let us start by the detention of asylum seekers before we just address
the issue of detention of children because most children - I think we
have statistics that have shown that by May, out of 184 children in
detention, only 21 were unaccompanied minors. All the others were there
with their families.
MS LESNIE: Sorry,
Mr Gabaudan, the reasons that you outline that might justify detention
are similar to the reasons that the Minister gives as the reasons for
detention. So what is the distinction between what you are saying and
what the Minister is saying?
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, I am going to put this in the most appropriate form. I do not
know that there is a systematic review of all the people in detention
to see whether they fit within these categories, for example, after
3 months or after 6 months. I mean, it may be at that the beginning
quite a few people would have to be detained, particularly when they
have arrived through smugglers and thrown their documents, but I believe
that in most cases, you can run the security checks pretty quickly and
I doubt that after a certain period of time the reasons which were valid
initially for the detention remain valid, and as the procedure is not
reviewable, we have no evidence that they increase .....
DR OZDOWSKI:
I would like to change the issue for the moment. I would like to ask
you about your experience with Nauru and Manus. I'm doing this because
I have written to the Department of Immigration, asking the Department
to facilitate visits of this Inquiry to both Nauru and PNG to see what
is happening with children over there. Do you have any experience with
Nauru or PNG?
MR GABAUDAN:
We do have an experience in Nauru because we are processing some of
the asylum seekers in Nauru, essentially those who were brought to Nauru
on the Manoora. These include the Tampa people and those who arrived
subsequently on the Aceng and who are mostly Iraqis, so we have been
processing these cases - the Tampa people - because they were rescued
at sea and we did accept that there was an issue of international responsibility
in cases of rescue at sea. The Aceng was an exception we did, because
they had been brought to Nauru in the same boat as the Tampa people.
We said: we are going to make an exception for these. We are not processing
subsequent groups.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Did you personally visit Nauru?
MR GABAUDAN:
I personally have visited it.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Can I ask you, who is really running the show over there? Who has
the ultimate responsibility for processing people there and for the
running of the detention facility, what would be your judgment?
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, the processing is done through a group of people by UNHCR, and
these are the Manoora those who were brought by the Manoora.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes.
MR GABAUDAN:
And for all the others it is done by the Immigration Department, by
DIMIA?
DR OZDOWSKI:
DIMIA. So you both are involved with processing?
MR GABAUDAN:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Who is really responsible for the conditions in the detention centre
over there?
MR GABAUDAN:
The IOM is overseeing the facilities and is subcontracting, as I understand,
with some
DR OZDOWSKI:
Chubb.
MR GABAUDAN:
Yes, some agency in Australia.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Do you have DIMIA officers in a way with watching brief over IOM and
so on, who are resident in Nauru?
MR GABAUDAN:
There are DIMIA officers there at any time. They have sent people for
the processing. The relationship they have with IOM is something I would
not like to comment on, it is not my prerogative.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay, but at least they are there?
MR GABAUDAN:
They are there.
DR OZDOWSKI:
They are there and possibly they are having some roles controlling the
roster?
MR GABAUDAN:
I think this should be put to the next witness.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, the last issue before I will ask my Assistant Commissioners
to ask questions, is the issue of terminology. In Australia we are calling
people "unaccompanied minors". In Europe and quite often they
are called "separated minors".
MR GABAUDAN:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Or "separated children". What is the difference between these
two words being used to describe the situation?
MR GABAUDAN:
That is for my colleague.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you, Mr Gonzaga.
MR GONZAGA:
The term "detached" or "separated" children so far
in the present context is to distinguish one without a - for detached
children, or unattached children, they have no family members with their
parents, or siblings, or family link, relations to the minor. Before
the concept of "unaccompanied minor", they referred to "children
without parents", but part of the context now "children without
parents" could still be separated from the family, or the parents.
So a person who is "unattached minor" is a person, a child,
or a minor below 18 years old who has no adult accompanying family members,
regardless if it is parents, or not. Or, "unaccompanied minor"
before it was just context that there is no parent, but if he or she
DR OZDOWSKI:
So it is no parent alive, or one parent?
MR GONZAGA:
No parent is accompanying the child in the asylum country, for example.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Country. But they could be living in a different country?
MR GONZAGA:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So basically there is no difference in the meaning, is there?
MR GONZAGA:
Basically, there is no difference, except that for "unaccompanied
minor" before what we are using is that: minor is not accompanied
by the parents, but he or she could be accompanied by an adult relative.
DR OZDOWSKI:
But "separated" it sounds to me a softer term, because "separated"
it appears to me that maybe they got accidentally separated, maybe because
of war, maybe of other circumstances a child got separated from the
parent. "Unaccompanied" I think to my mind it is having at
least a degree of free will, that there was a choice that in a way a
child was sent "unaccompanied". Would you agree with that
distinction?
MR GONZAGA:
I do not think that the distinction was made on that context.
DR OZDOWSKI:
The second thing, I understand you to be involved with the Separated
Children Europe Program. Could you give me some information about how
global is that problem of separated children? I understand that there
are over 40,000 of them presenting themselves. What I'm really interested
is, how many of those children are presenting themselves in especially
Western countries, and how do different countries handle that issue?
Are there in a way "good practice measures" developed by some
of the Western nations in this area?
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, there aren't any, Commissioner, but we haven't prepared ourselves
to answer that. I would have to go to the special reports and I will
make myself heard, thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Could you take it on this question?
MR GABAUDAN:
I will take it on that, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
That is possibly all questions I had to you. Could I ask perhaps Mrs
Sullivan to ask additional questions?
MRS SULLIVAN:
Is there an increase in the child component of the refugee problem?
MR GABAUDAN:
Yes, we have initiated the small study, and I will try to find my statistics
which, of course, you might want to corroborate with the Government,
because this is a sort of second-hand exercise we have carried out,
but we found that in the reporting period, 1 January '99 to 31 October
'99, children represented 6.3 per cent of boat arrivals. From 1 November
'99 to December '99, went up to 16.4. For 1 January 2000 to December
2000, 17.2. And from 1 January 2001 to mid-June 2001 to 34 per cent.
So I know the reporting periods are not quite the same but it does indicate
basically a trend in an increase of the proportion of children among
boat arrivals.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Could we ask you later to provide the statistics for those as well?
MR GABAUDAN:
Yes.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Yes, thank you, that is helpful. In global terms, is your feeling
that that pattern is the same, if you look beyond Australia?
MR GABAUDAN:
I would have to check that. I only have statistics on the global number
of asylum seekers that I have brought with me and so I would have to
check that and then return to you.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Thanks very much. The UNHCR guidelines on unaccompanied minors say that:
They should be
represented by an adult who is familiar with the child's background
and who would protect his or her interests.
The unaccompanied
minors in detention actually have the DIMIA manager as their guardian.
The Minister is on record as saying:
There is no conflict
of interest on the basis that the DIMIA manager is not involved in the
decision to grant a visa.
In your view, does
that establish the independence that is necessary under your guidelines?
MR GABAUDAN:
No we think the issue should be in our eyes reviewed. We have called
for independence of the guardians of the children and we feel that there
is a conflict of interest when the person who is the guardian is also
the person who is responsible for the detention and the person who is
responsible for the determination of refugee status.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Do you have any examples of alternative models that would establish
that independence?
MR GABAUDAN:
There are in Sweden and Canada, certain examples where guardians are
totally independent from executive bodies.
MRS SULLIVAN:
In broad terms, what is the origin of the guardian in Canada?
MR GABAUDAN:
I believe it is from the Social Welfare Department. It would of course
have specific expertise in children and were not involved in the decision
that affects the refugee condition of the child.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Thank you. Perhaps if we could have that information as well.
MR GABAUDAN:
We could give you that, yes.
MR GONZAGA:
Yes.
MRS SULLIVAN:
That would be helpful. In the other models that you have referred
to, is there State provision of services, or is there a reliance on
volunteer and non-Government organisation support?
MR GABAUDAN:
There is a variety of set ups and it would - I have here - there
are a few models here and I could share that with you.
MRS SULLIVAN:
I guess
I'm just looking for trends.
MR GABAUDAN:
In general, see you have a mixture of systems where you have NGOs heavily
involved, but certainly Government having a supervisory role, in national
standards, very often the NGO who is working with these schemes is funded
either totally or in great part by the Government.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Because it appears to be in the current set-up in Australia, it is either
voluntary organisations or there's very little Government funding that
goes into supporting people once they are out of detention centres.
I was just trying to get a feel if that was the norm or not. You are
suggesting it is not?
MR GABAUDAN:
No, in countries that have made specific legislation to protect children
asylum seekers, there are mechanisms which involve close civil society,
I would say, and economic support from government.
MRS SULLIVAN:
My final question is again a reflection on your guidelines. We've been
informed that the initial interview that occurs at the start of the
process that asylum seekers are not given access to a record of that
interview, even when they apply for it under "Freedom of Information".
If in fact that is accurate, is that supported by your guidelines?
MR GABAUDAN:
Sorry, would you like to just repeat it?
MRS SULLIVAN:
We've taken evidence which suggests that the initial interview on arrival,
there is a tape as I understand it made of that interview but at least
at the present moment, that interview is not available to the asylum
seeker, nor are they able to access it under the Freedom of Information
Act. My question is, how does that fit in terms of the guidelines you
mentioned in your opening statement?
MR GABAUDAN:
In terms of that tape being requested by asylum seekers to get a
copy of that tape, so far in our experience in every country there are
different systems of conducting refugee status determination. Not all
countries require that the interview should be taped. There's no requirement
in our guidelines on the taping of interview. Now, whether the asylum
seekers are intending to get a copy of the tape or not, I could not
comment on that because the guidelines with regards to this particular
issue are silent.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Do the guidelines make a more general statement about people being provided
with relevant documentation?
MR GABAUDAN:
They do request that people be informed on why they are detained.
So it is more on, in that aspect, the reasons.
MRS SULLIVAN:
The reasons?
MR GABAUDAN:
Yes. That has not been done.
MR GONZAGA:
Let me just clarify this because we have to distinguish between the
administrative and judicial review of detention with the requirement
on the judicial review of the refugee status determination application.
In our guideline, it requires on detention, it is mentioned about the
judicial or administrative review of the detention per se. It is I think
separate from the requirement of refugee status determination application.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Yes, thank you for that.
MS LESNIE:
If I could just quickly follow up on that. What we have heard on this
issue, I think we are talking about the screening interviews here, what
we've heard and we haven't verified it but what we've heard is that
some of the lawyers representing asylum seekers, are unable to gain
access to the transcript of the screening interviews. We've also heard
from the RRT, the Refugee Review Tribunal, that it is their belief that
they can get access to those interviews. What I'm curious about is whether
the UNHCR guidelines might have something to say about different participants
in the process having access to different documentation of the interview
and information gathering process.
MR GONZAGA:
No.
MS LESNIE:
We are talking about refugee status examination, not detention in this
instance.
MR GABAUDAN:
We are currently in the process of dealing with reviewing the whole
standards that should be applied in Refugee Status Determination. So
I will
MS LESNIE:
Come back to us when you are done?
MR GABAUDAN:
Come back. It is a pretty thick documentation but I will come back
to you and try to find the reference to that. It is not yet sort of
classed as and Excom conclusion, it might be discussed in the forthcoming
Excom.
MS LESNIE:
Okay.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Professor Thomas.
PROF THOMAS:
Yes, I'm also concerned about the integrity of that interview of screening
in and screening out because for the asylum seekers, that is the very
very important interview. There is a kind of rumour out there that it
is some kind of lottery as to who interviews you, you may be in or you
may be in out. That is what I'm concerned about. Since you have the
jurisdiction over New Zealand and other countries in the region, I would
like to know why we have some claims that some people who are being
interviewed here get rejected and they abscond, jump ship over to New
Zealand and get admitted as refugees. Why is there that discrepancy,
if both countries follow the United Nation's guidelines?
MR GABAUDAN:
I will try to answer your question in general terms because of course
it would be useful to look at individual cases, really where is the
discrepancy. Let me start first by saying that within our monitoring
capacity whenever we have looked at the way DIMIA is processing cases,
we have in the very large majority of cases been very satisfied with
the professionalism of the Department. Now, we have not reviewed all
the cases but we have reviewed some on an ad hoc basis. We have an open
invitation to do so by the Government. We have also been addressed documentation
by lawyers or by individuals who were worried about certain cases and
again, in most instances when we've reviewed this documentation, we
haven't found faults.
So we would say
in general terms we are not overly concerned and will not of course
swear that no irregularity ever happens but in general terms we think
a professional job is done. Now, of the discrepancies you mentioned,
what is happening with secondary movements. Most people who arrive in
Australia do not arrive straight from the country of persecution. They
are secondary movers. In most countries of first asylum, people are
recognised as refugees on a prima facie basis and that is done essentially
on the broader definition of refugees as it is ensconced for example
in the OAU definition which is people fleeing general violence, gross
violation of human rights, etcetera.
Take the case of
refugees in Pakistan, they would be in camps in Pakistan accepted as
refugees under this broad definition because they haven't gone through
individual screening. When they move to Convention countries of course,
the criteria which is applied in their recognition is a Convention criteria
which is a much narrower one. Now, Governments are always asked in the
executive committee to be as generous as possible but that is really
their discretion. Some Governments can decide to apply strict reading
of the Convention definitions.
Some might want
to be a bit more elastic, a bit more flexible. This is the discretion
of Governments but we want to make sure that people know that at least
the strict definition is applied: if possible then Governments can be
more generous. Now, that could explain in some cases discrepancies between
countries. Now, the decision to apply a tougher or more flexible reading
will depend on the sort of pressure a Government is submitted to but
it is difficult for me to answer more specifically without having a
case to analyse.
PROF THOMAS:
At the moment according to the poll, 75 per cent of Australians
support the Government policy which has bipartisan support, mainly because
it linked with border control. Now, how do other countries manage the
border control issue if they don't have detention centres, you know,
like in Europe, what is your view about this?
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, I'm certainly no expert on border control and I would not
like to make any comments that is the prerogative of States on that
issue.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Yes, okay.
MR GABAUDAN:
What I would say is that most countries who have alternative procedures,
whether it is a guardian, open hotels, reporting requirements, etcetera,
do manage to control most of the people they put in these conditions
and it does not seem to affect in a large manner their national security.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Mr Gabaudan - yes.
MS LESNIE:
Just a couple of questions. I just wanted to follow up quickly on some
of your experiences in Nauru. We have heard that most of the people
on Nauru have been processed and there are some people who have been
found to be refugees in Nauru. Could you comment on whether those people
have been released from detention on Nauru?
MR GABAUDAN:
No, they haven't. They have been I understand - I have not witnessed
that - it has been reported - some attempts at organising trips to the
beach, etcetera, and sort of slight release from the facility for short
times by IOM. Where they have not been released, then we have directed
our concerns to Government on various instances.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Which government.
MS LESNIE:
To which Government?
MR GABAUDAN:
To the Australian Government and to the Nauru Government.
MS LESNIE:
So whose decision is it to keep the refugees inside those detention
facilities?
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, the Australian Government tells us that it is the Nauru Government
who is sovereign and should decide and the Nauru Government tells us
they have leased the facilities to the Australian Government so we are
on this .....
MS LESNIE:
Okay. Could you comment on whether there are in Nauru any families,
or parts of families that also have members of a family in Australia?
MR GABAUDAN:
Yes, among the Iraqi refugees - those we have recognised under our mandate
- I think it is a little - just below 50 per cent of them had an immediate
relative. I'm talking about a father, or children in Australia. We have
presented these cases for re-settlement to the Australian Government
and that is being processed right now.
MS LESNIE: So
when you say: you have presented, are these the refugees that you have
processed?
MR GABAUDAN:
Yes, indeed.
MS LESNIE:
So in the group of refugees that you have processed, you have presented
to the Australian Government the separated family?
MR GABAUDAN:
Those who have immediate family relationship in Australia for two reasons,
one, it is the right thing to bring them to their family, but also no
other country would consider them for re-settlement because their immediate
relatives are in Australia. It is both a question of principle and of
practicality.
MRS SULLIVAN:
What numbers are we talking about here?
MR GABAUDAN:
160 - that would be about something like 70 - I can give you the exact
numbers that we have submitted. 70-something.
MRS SULLIVAN:
That would be helpful.
MR GABAUDAN:
I will give you the exact figures we have.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Children are in it as well?
MR GABAUDAN:
There are children. There are entire families who are mothers with her
children, with the husband in Australia, there is a mixed
MS LESNIE:
Sorry, could I just pick up on something you said there. Did I hear
you correctly that if Australia denied a visa to the separated families,
no other country would take them?
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, I think so because when we present cases, we have to explain why
we go through a certain country, so we look at association with this
country first, family is the first one and previous involvement of the
person with the country, whether as a student, etcetera, would be the
second reason. So countries will always give priorities in their re-settlement
intake to people who have had this association, then they would look
at other cases, but I would see it very difficult for any other country
to say: why shouldn't I take a woman with children to another place,
for example, when the husband is in Australia? They would not see this
as a logical investment of their resources. They would rathe direct
it to people without any association and, therefore, who are still in
demand and we do not as a principle push families in one country when
they have the immediate relatives in another one, that would be contrary
to the whole concept of family unity.
MS LESNIE:
So if Australia said, no, it is possible that these families could sit
on Nauru forever?
MR GABAUDAN:
Yes, but they have not said, no, so far.
MS LESNIE: Okay.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Are you finished?
MS LESNIE:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Just one more question relating to Nauru. Earlier, when I asked
you about the relationship and IOM and Immigration, you said that you
prefer not to comment on the issue. Could I ask you for reasons, why
do you prefer not to comment on the issue?
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, because IOM is an international organisation which has its
own mandate and its own right to relate to Governments and I'm not privy
to the arrangements they have and, therefore, I cannot comment.
DR OZDOWSKI:
I see. So you don't know the relationship which exists between IOM
and the Australian Government?
MR GABAUDAN:
We know there are contacts, but just like we have tried ..... meeting
to coordinate as much as possible our activities, so that the international
community at large looks coherent, vis-a-vis the asylum seekers, so
we have been involved in intense coordination on the counselling of
refugees that we are both processing and, therefore, as DIMIA, IOM and
ourselves are involved, IOM is running the facility and DIMIA and ourselves
as the agencies responsible for processing, we have decided how to surrender
results, how to counsel after the results, how to present the appeal,
so that there is a sense of coherency for the asylum seekers. We believe
this is the minimum they are entitled to and that sort of coordination
has worked quite well I think.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay.
MR GABAUDAN:
I would not like to go from that to comments on what is a bilateral
relationship.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, we will ask DIMIA in this case and IOM directly about the nature
of the relationships over there. The final question from me is, you
said that the number of unaccompanied minors are availing themselves
of asylum, or travelling across the world is much larger, it has substantially
increased over the last few years. Could you perhaps speculate on the
reasons, or give me the reasons, if you know why this trend is happening?
MR GABAUDAN:
I think what I have said is that the number of children represents
the higher proportion in later arrivals than 2 years ago in boat arrivals
in Australia, the children in general. Unaccompanied minors in the world
is something I don't have exact figures on. I mean, it has become an
issue in Europe, so I would gather that the numbers have gone up, but
to speculate on, I would like to go back to the studies that have been
written because I fear that speculation might be extremely dangerous
if I launch myself on wild speculation.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What is a balanced proportion - increased proportion of children coming
to Australia, how would you explain this?
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, I would like to look into - and I would say I would like to
look into because I'm not making an assertion there. Given the experience
we have in Nauru with the Iraqis, whether the prohibition of family
reunification under the TPVs does explain this increase in children
arriving.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What, there is a possible potential increase?
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, we were struck by the very high proportion of people with immediate
relatives in Australia among the people we have assessed ourselves in
Nauru, and when I say at the same time that over the last 2 years there
is an increase in children as a proportion of arrivals - of illegal
arrivals through boats in Australia, I think one would like to establish
whether indeed there is a relationship with the prohibition of family
reunification. I say I would like to look into it. I think there are
suggestions from our experience that it might be, it is not yet a conclusive
statement.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Statement, but you say at least there is a possibility that Australian
Government's Mandatory Detention Policy and the conditions of the TPVs
has contributed to the increase in the number, or the proportion of
children arriving here?
MR GABAUDAN:
It is a concern that we should look into in more detail, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes. Are you intending to look at the issue in more detail in the foreseeable
future?
MR GABAUDAN:
We will try to do so as we begin our visits of the detention facilities.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Could you give me a time frame, or it is too difficult?
MR GABAUDAN:
It is a bit difficult. I don't know the time frame.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Well, I would like to welcome you that if this information became available
before this Inquiry is finished that perhaps if you could provide us
with that information. That is possibly all from us. Would you like
to make a concluding statement?
MR GABAUDAN:
Well, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for having invited us
to make a submission to the Human Rights
DR OZDOWSKI:
It is a pleasure and also thank you very much for all the work you put
into the preparation of your submission and I'm looking also towards
the questions on this.
MR GABAUDAN:
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you very much.
MR GONZAGA:
Thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So now we will adjourn and we will resume at 11 o'clock.
MORNING TEA [10.28am]
RESUMED [10.58am]
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, we will commence and I would like to ask people from Chilout to
come forward. Thank you very much, my name is Dr Sev Ozdowski. Please
take a seat, I am the Human Rights Commissioner and with me are two
Assistant Commissioners, on my right is Professor Trang Thomas and to
my left is Mrs Robin Sullivan. Also with me is Ms Vanessa Lesnie who
is Secretary to the Inquiry. Now, you possibly know that I made a number
of orders to respect privacy of people so I won't be repeating it. Now,
could I ask you to take an oath or affirmation?
MRS JOHANNE
GOW, sworn [11.00am]
MS HEATHER TYLER, sworn
Chilout
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you. Now, could I ask you to give your names, addresses, qualifications
and the capacity in which you are appearing, for the record?
MRS GOW: My
name is Joanne Gow. My address is [address removed]. I'm appearing here
as the representative for Chilout, a community organisation. I'm a parent.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you.
MS TYLER:
My name is Heather Tyler. I live at [address removed]. I'm a journalist.
I'm appearing for Chilout as a concerned parent and frequent visitor
to Villawood.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you very much. Could I ask you to make an opening statement
and in particular could you mention in the opening statement your expertise
and your knowledge of children who are either in detention or have come
out of detention?
MRS GOW: Chilout
is a community based advocacy organisation and part of its work is it
facilitates a visitors program to Villawood Detention Centre. Unlike
many of the other organisations that will have appeared before the Inquiry,
although many of us are professionals, we don't go in our professional
capacity. We go as friends, we go as parents, we go as visitors, many
of the Chilout supporters visit every week, sometimes two or three times
a week and over a period of time have therefore built up quite strong
relationships with some of the parents at Villawood Detention Centre
and their children.
So really our evidence
to the Inquiry is based on those sorts of relationships, not professional
relationships but through this we have I think a unique perspective
on the quality of life and the sort of environment that children and
their parents are living with in immigration detention centres. We believe
uncategorically, just for the record, that detention that is longer
than is necessary to undertake basic health checks and administrative
details becomes very quickly punitive in nature and the policy that
can indefinitely incarcerate in children goes well beyond inappropriate.
It is in essence over a long period of time immoral and that is the
position we take very strongly.
DR OZDOWSKI:
You mentioned the length. Do you have any period of time in your
mind it could be so justified to keep people in detention?
MRS GOW:
Only the shortest possible period of time.
DR OZDOWSKI:
But you don't know whether the shortest is a week or a month?
MRS GOW:
No. I think in Sweden it is about 6 days in terms of their immigration
detention policy. So as soon as possible, as long as is needed for health
checks to be undertaken and we identify who the child is and their relationship
to the people around them and those sorts of details. I don't think
there's any reason why those children should remain in detention longer
than that period.
DR OZDOWSKI:
I understand you visit Villawood quite regularly. How often do you go
there?
MRS GOW:
I personally go every couple of weeks. Heather Tyler here would probably
go to the detention centre twice a week.
MS TYLER: Twice
a week.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Twice a week. Could you describe the process of access to Villawood,
do you need to get Ministerial permission or ACM permission? How does
it work?
MRS GOW: To
access Villawood is relatively easy in essence. We go along to the detention
centre. You need to have some identification, a driver's licence is
sufficient, obviously with your name, a photograph, address, signature.
You then line up outside the - we proceed through the first layer of
razor wire which is the outside perimeter and then line up and we are
processed which is simply a single sheet of paper with your name, address
and details, the person who you would like to visit.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So you need to know the person inside there?
MRS GOW:
Yes, you need to know the name of a person and its to be correct.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So if you misspell?
MRS GOW: It
depends how far it is, it depends which guard is on, it depends whether
they are happy for you to go through or not, it depends on a lot of
things but generally you can identify who it is and as long as they
know who it is, they will let you through. They tag you, then at
DR OZDOWSKI:
What do you mean, "tag you"?
MRS GOW:
You have a plastic tag put around your arm.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay.
MRS GOW: You
then go through metal detector. One of the difficulties is that the
rules about what you can and can't take in sometimes change. Lots of
things change, sometimes we're allowed to wait on the porch outside
the office but I've been out a couple of times where we've had to wait
outside the perimeter fence and those periods might be up to 2½
hours.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Are there any restrictions put on you when you are attending to the
detention centre?
MRS GOW: There
are restrictions in terms of what we are able to take in. I think at
the moment they are restricting it to one bag of food per visitor for
detainees, no mobile phones, no identification.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What kind of food, any kind of food?
MRS GOW:
Any kind of food, it needs to be in plastic containers. It can't be
in any metal containers, it can't be in glass and pretty much any kind
of food is okay, yes. We can take reading material in, generally speaking
and less than $10 and no car keys.
MS LESNIE:
Just with the food, when you bring a bag of food, do you have to eat
it in the visiting area or can the detainees take it back?
MRS GOW:
No, the detainees can take it back.
MS TYLER: As
long as it is not cooked.
MS LESNIE:
Why the distinction, do you know?
MRS GOW: They
say that there are too many cockroaches and that and that taking cooked
food inside will encourage, I've heard this from ACM several times.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So basically what can you take in? You can take in apples or some fruit,
maybe some
MRS GOW:
Dried biscuits.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Dried biscuits.
MRS GOW:
Snack sort of things but not meat products, cooked meat products because
they I suppose have access to this from the dining room.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So you entered, what is next? Can you go wherever you want to go?
MRS GOW:
No, once you are past the desk with your tag, you then go through another
room and then you are allowed into a fourth area and then into a visiting,
for want of a better word, pen which is an area which is cordoned off
from the rest of the detention centre and the detainees are called from
the information you have provided and they can enter the visitors area
from where they are living and they eventually come through.
DR OZDOWSKI:
How long does it take, the people first to attend?
MRS GOW: It
depends when you go. It depends if there is a muster on at the time.
It depends - at dinner time obviously it takes people a little while
to come through because they're eating, not very long, a few minutes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
How do you communicate, is that in English or do you have an interpreter
with you or there's a telephone which you could use?
MRS GOW: Most
of the detainees I know speak quite good English and if they don't,
there are other detainees who are able to translate for me. I mean,
on a number of occasions particularly when I was putting this submission
together, I took people with me who were able to translate for me.
DR OZDOWSKI:
The meeting is one on one or the meeting could be also with a group
of detainees?
MRS GOW: Often
for me with a group and probably with Heather too, family groups together,
friends together.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What about children, do you have any contact with children when
you go there?
MRS GOW: Yes,
the children will often come out with their friends or they can come
through into the visiting area.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Quite often I am told that Villawood is the best of the detention centres.
Do you have any experience of any other detention centres?
MRS GOW:
No, personally I don't. That comment was made in our submission and
it was based on discussions we had had with a number of the detainees
that we have developed friendships with. They often will comment that
Villawood is definitely the preferable detention centre.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So they had some possible experience of some other detention centre?
MRS GOW:
Many of them have been through other detention centres, either Port
Hedland and/or Woomera or Curtin.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So why do you think Villawood is better than the other ones
MRS GOW:
My understanding of the main reasons seem to be that it is less isolated
than many of the others so it's much easier for visitors to go in to
see them, to take them things that they needs, extra food, extra clothing.
Geographically it's not as isolated so I imagine - only trying to imagine
what it might be to be a detainee that you are not simply in the middle
of the desert, also I imagine in terms of climate it would be much less
severe than say Woomera or Curtin.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, what are their major complaints the detainees are making to
you?
MS TYLER:
Boredom, monotony of environment, or severe depression.
MS LESNIE:
The children are saying that?
MS TYLER:
The children are saying that.
MS LESNIE:
Do they not go to school?
MS TYLER:
If you were behind razor wire and you had virtually no children to play
with, would you have any desire to learn when you are surrounded by
depressive adults all day? There are approximately 500 detainees in
Villawood at this present time. Only 16 are children. The children have
such severe social isolation from their peers that this causes them
great anxiety.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What about the treatment of children by guards?
MS TYLER:
I would like to ask the question in return? Do ACM have any training
in child welfare? There seems to be quite a variation. Some guards are
friendly, openly friendly, some empathetic, others are not.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Did you hear any complaints about bad treatment of children by guards?
MS TYLER: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What kind of bad treatment?
MS TYLER: Swearing
at the children, just surly, abrupt, non empathetic behaviour towards
the children. Some of the children are taken out on excursions, they
have no social interaction with the community although they are outside
the detention centre they are accompanied by guards. The role of the
guards is to keep the children
DR OZDOWSKI:
In uniforms?
MS TYLER:
Not in uniforms. The guards are in uniforms.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay.
MS TYLER:
So the children are actually out in the community in a limited capacity
but they have no opportunity to socially interact with anybody out there.
The guards' job is to keep them in line, keep them together and so they
take on a kind of punitive role for the children who are just trying
to have a good time and they are severe. I've heard this from children
and two people who observed an excursion that the guards did not smile,
did not encourage the children to have a good time. They just acted
as
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, could you give me an example where excursions are taking place,
where do they go to?
MS TYLER:
They go to McDonalds, the zoo.
DR OZDOWSKI:
How often do they go there?
MS TYLER:
I think the excursions are about once a month.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Once a month and all children can participate in them?
MS TYLER:
No, no.
DR OZDOWSKI:
How are children selected for such excursions.
MS TYLER:
The children who mainly go out are aged under 12, the teenagers are
not included.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What is the reason for not including teenagers?
MS TYLER:
I don't know.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So how many children would we have there under 12, six, eight?
MS TYLER:
May be six to eight, currently 16 children under the age of 18 in Villawood.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, and how many officers would accompany them for excursion?
MS TYLER:
I'm not sure, at least two, at least.
DR OZDOWSKI:
In uniforms?
MS TYLER:
In uniforms.
DR OZDOWSKI:
They travel by ACM car or a little small bus or how do they
MS TYLER:
A little bus.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What do children think about such excursions?
MS TYLER: The
last one they went on to a children's museum, they came back and said
they didn't enjoy it because they didn't - they were expected to walk
into a place and have a good time. Nobody explained to them what this
outing was about. They had no spontaneous interaction with anybody and
the children's museum.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Did a teacher or some kind of social worker going with children as well
for this excursion?
MS TYLER:
Not that I'm aware of.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Did you hear any complaints about children being hit by guards?
MS TYLER: No.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Did you hear any complaints about food or about access to religious
facilities or any other issues?
MS TYLER:
I don't think that access to religious facilities is an issue that comes
up with children. That's more a parental concern.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Parental. What about food?
MS TYLER:
The children - some of the children I know would rather go without food
than go without social contact. Meal time is between 4.30 and 4.30 pm
at a time when there are visitors in the visiting area. The children
would rather stay out in the visiting area and not eat than miss out
on social contact.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Are you aware of special food being prepared for children or do they
eat whatever is prepared for everyone?
MRS GOW: As
far as I'm aware, the children eat the same food as their parents.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Exactly the same, regardless of age?
MRS GOW:
I don't know about very small children, whether they have access to
DR OZDOWSKI:
So after they have bottles they go straight to adult food?
MRS GOW:
I don't know. Toddler food, we are not aware of. The children do complain
if you talk to them, particularly the young adults. I think one of the
hard things to understand and perhaps one of the areas where we have
some insight simply because we go so often and we build relationships
is the perception that people see of detention centres, the razor wire
or the unusual admissions statements at the front desk about service
delivery or the bad food or the fact that education exists but is so
incredibly basic, it's not so much those aspects that make it so horrible
for children. It's the fact that that happens for months and months
and months and months and months.
I mean, a roast
dinner is fine but it's not fine when you are still having it 6 months
later. Education for kids, if you ask DIMIA they will say, "Yes,
children at Villawood get access to basic maths, basic English",
and they do which is fine for 2 weeks and it might even be fine for
3 months but when you have been in detention for 3 years and all you
have received over that period of time is basic maths and English, it's
not okay any more. I think it is with lots of aspects in detention,
it's the period of time, the length of time that the children are exposed
to those experiences that creates the long term damage.
DR OZDOWSKI:
How basic is the education, how many hours per day of education is provided?
MRS GOW:
As far as I know, they receive I think 4 hours, 3 or 4 hours each day
at Villawood of maths and English and art and I think there might be
some physical education but that's only for children who are at primary
school age. For older children, there's just English and some art classes.
The older kids are really reluctant. I think it's harder, all of the
children suffer but in some sense for the young teenagers and adolescents,
it's a really difficult situation because they actually have to try
to fit it into a framework and it's very difficult for them.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Would you know anything about participation rates, how many of kids
do go to the classes, both under 12 and above 12?
MRS GOW:
Below the age of 12 as I understand it, it is compulsory for the children
to attend and they do, above 12 it's not compulsory as far as I know
and the children, some do, some don't. One of the young men I was talking
to about this when I was putting the submission together, and he didn't
go and he refused to go and it was almost like an act of resistance.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What is the compulsory attendance schooling in New South Wales?
MRS GOW:
Sorry?
DR OZDOWSKI:
How old can you be to leave school in New South Wales?
MRS GOW:
I think the age of 15 or 16, to year 10.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Why the difference between 12 and 16 or 15?
MRS GOW:
I have no idea. I imagine it's because they simply don't have to. I
mean, really according to our international obligations as far as I
understand it, the children should be receiving an education that is
comparable with the children living in New South Wales at Villawood.
That's certainly not the case.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What would happen to a child, say 13, 14, in broader community in
New South Wales who is not attending school?
MRS GOW:
I imagine that the school attendance officer would visit their parents,
that they would be forced - whatever issues were keeping them from school
would be addressed and they would be forced to go to school. Children
have to attend school at 13 or 14 in New South Wales as far as I understand.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Are you aware of State officers from the Department of Education going
to detention centres and looking into the issue of education?
MRS GOW:
No, I'm not aware at all.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Do you know why the State Government is doing nothing?
MRS GOW: No,
we don't and one of the areas that Chilout is currently doing some work
in is speaking with the State Government about its role and responsibility
in relation to children in detention and also children once they are
released from detention. Certainly, it seems an area that the State
Government is very reluctant to become involved in.
MS TYLER:
Three children from one detainee family have received permission to
attend school, primary and high school outside Villawood Detention Centre,
just three. Children from another family have been told they will have
to wait 11 weeks and then there will be a review.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Do you know what arrangements were made for these three children? Who
initiated, who is paying for it, how does it work?
MS TYLER:
No, I'm sorry, I don't.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Perhaps one more issue I would like to focus on before I will ask my
Assistant Commissioners to ask further questions, it is the issue of
the impact of detention on the family unit. We have got, so far, much
evidence that family units appear to be disintegrating in detention.
Do you have any knowledge of it happening? Do you have any stories from
children and parents about what is happening to families in detention?
MRS GOW:
I think we outlined this quite extensively in our submission, and it
is certainly an area of deep concern for us. There's a quote here from
the Prime Minister, who spoke at the Joint Meeting of the US Congress,
and he makes a very specific reference to the importance of families
in Australian and maintaining family units, that these are the core
units of social welfare in our community. In detention, it is almost
impossible for them to operate in that way in terms of parents being
entirely disempowered in their ability to be proactive on their children's
behalf and also for children to relate to their parents.
The children are
constantly seeing their parents either depressed or unable to act on
their behalf, or in a position of servitude in terms of their relationship
with the guards and the system. That, I imagine, is very difficult for
children to watch. As a parent, one of the things I can do for my children
is when they need me to act, I can act on their behalf. That is, whether
or not I can achieve it, I can do it, and those parents can't. It is
very difficult for them. It is embarrassing for them, for the fathers
and very few people talk about fathers, I think, because it is a difficult
issue. We talk about children not living in detention.
Some people can
imagine mothers not living in detention, but very few people talk about
fathers being allowed to live in the community with their children because
it is a difficult issue for a number of reasons. Fathers are put in
a particularly difficult position because normally, they would be the
breadwinners. They would be the source of strength for their family,
and they have none of those opportunities and it is devastating for
both parents and children. In terms of building trust, it is difficult
in terms of children looking up to their parents as providers. It is
difficult.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Possibly, they would be also blamed for the situation the family found
itself in.
MRS GOW:
Very much so, and that is an issue that constantly comes up, that the
parents made this decision to come and as a result, their entire unit
is suffering but a lot of those problems - one of the - we told a young
woman, in our submission, who gave birth to a child in Australia when
she arrived, and watching her
DR OZDOWSKI:
In detention?
MRS GOW:
In detention. Watching her has been a really painful experience for
those of us who have come to know her in terms of watching how her baby
and she, their relationship, has not progressed the way you would imagine
a normal relationship between a mother and child might progress.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Could you describe it?
MRS GOW: This
is based on discussions with the psychologists who have met with her
- parents from Chilout who also practice as psychologists - who have
- the bonds of attachment are not normal at all. The child will go to
anyone. The child - the relationship with the mother is positive but
it is not a deep bond. The mother suffered a number of conditions, including
postnatal depression that was not treated until long after it should
have been. Issues like breast feeding, the mother actually persisted
but with enormous trouble.
When this mother
- I suppose you guys have so many issues to deal with but this is another
area that was of incredible concern to us - women who end up giving
birth while in detention, when she went along to have that baby in a
New South Wales hospital, her husband wasn't allowed to attend with
her. She had had almost no history of antenatal care. She turned up
at the hospital with two guards. She gave birth in a room by herself.
There was no interpreter at all. This was a woman, a young woman, in
her 20s giving birth to her first child.
Now, as a parent,
I know how frightening giving birth is. That is with my husband and
my support person and my obstetrician and with a system I know. This
situation has been repeated over and over again, and husbands are not
allowed - they are certainly not allowed to attend any antenatal care
and they don't attend the birth. That is the beginning of this child's
life, and this mother's life with the child. It is pretty much downhill
from there.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Did the woman require some kind of psychiatric care at a later stage?
MRS GOW:
She is actually currently receiving psychiatric care and has been for
many months now. She is really just keeping her life together.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Would you know about what was made available to her and her child on
her return from hospital to detention?
MRS GOW:
As far as I know, when they returned from the hospital - and the other
thing that might be of interest in terms of culture and the cultural
experience of giving birth, for many women outside Western culture,
they would normally stay at home. They would probably stay at home for
about 40 days, and they would have the support of their mothers and
their sisters and their grandmothers, all their family around them.
This is a woman who, as far as I know after the normal period of time,
of maybe a week, was returned to the detention centre with her child.
There was minimal
follow-up. There was minimal support. She went back to her husband who
had not shared the experience with her, and he really - he, in many
ways, became the primary carer of that child over the next few weeks,
but all sorts of - mastitis developed, postnatal depression, as I said,
other complications, and it was days and days after they should have
been identified that they were. This was
DR OZDOWSKI:
What about access to nappies, to cotton wool, to formula and so on and
how easy it is?
MRS GOW:
As far as I know, and this is only based on our discussions with detainees,
I haven't personally experienced - they haven't raised those issues
of being able to access the very basic things. That does not seem to
be an issue. It is more the environment.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Could I ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask questions? Professor
Thomas?
PROF THOMAS:
In your relationship with the teenagers, what do you think about the
long term impact of detention centres?
MS TYLER:
I know three teenagers very well. All have a history of self harm. I
believe that they are profoundly damaged. I have asked for independent
psychological assessments of all three which have concluded the same
thing. They are bitter, angry, deeply disillusioned. They have no hope.
They are at a stage in their lives when they should be building hopes
for their futures. They have no hope whatsoever.
PROF THOMAS:
How long have they been in there?
MS TYLER:
Over 2½ years.
PROF THOMAS:
Why are they there for so long?
MS TYLER:
Because Minister Ruddock deemed their parents not to be refugees.
PROF THOMAS:
So they, in a way, have been rejected and are waiting to be removed?
MS TYLER:
Waiting to be removed or appealing the process.
PROF THOMAS:
Okay, yes. Now, if these children eventually - if they are, sort of,
accepted and settle in Australia, what kind of expectations do you think
they will have?
MS TYLER:
All they want to do is go to school, to be normal, to have normal peer
contact, be accepted, to be loved. That is all they want. They fear
that they are living in such a freakish situation now that they will
never be accepted. They fear being angry young men when they get out
and not being able to move on with it. They fear that the damage is
so profound that they will never recover, and they do not want to be
like this. They simply want to be normal teenagers, to make a peaceful,
intelligent contribution to Australia.
MRS GOW: Sorry,
if I could add to that too. The young men - we talked about education
with primary school children. These young men, certainly if they do
eventually live in the Australian community, will have received no high
school - basically, no high school education. They have no access to
TAFE. They have no access to vocational training so when they are released
from detention - if, in fact, they are released - they will be 17, 18
with no training, no prospects of a job and be, you know, 3 years behind
their peers.
It would be incredibly
difficult for them, and that is in addition to coming to terms with
their incarceration over a long period of time, coming to terms with
what has happened to them, and coming to terms with what happened to
them in their home country. So it is difficult to see - they are incredibly
strong, they are incredibly generous, they are fantastic, and given
the situation, I find it is incredible they are not more bitter but
it will be incredibly difficult for these children who, if they are
released into the Australian community, they are young people who we
say: yes, you had a genuine case. Yes, you should be here. Yes, you
were a genuine refugee. Yet we have put them so far behind the eight
ball in terms of being able to resettle and recreate their lives.
MS TYLER: They
are so far behind in education and social skills.
PROF THOMAS:
I have heard of little children who are, you know, attending school.
Do you think they are - there is, therefore, more hope for them in the
long term sense?
MS TYLER:
I can think of one child who is aged 11 who exhibits the same behavioural
symptoms as his teenaged brothers. His lives without hope. He is often
too depressed to come out to the visiting area, even when we ask for
him. He has only one child visitor his own age. There is nobody in Villawood
Detention Centre his own age to play with. He is profoundly introverted
and he is - if I compare him to my own 11 year old, this is a child
who lives without hope. He is just not interested in so many aspects
that a normal 11 year old would be interested in.
PROF THOMAS:
Thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Mrs Sullivan?
MRS SULLIVAN:
Are there any excursions where the whole family is allowed out?
MS TYLER:
None whatsoever.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Is your organisation allowed to sponsor excursions?
MS TYLER: No.
I have written letters in the past asking for this type of thing and
been told, no, because it is a security issue and the excuse was there
was a lack of time but no families are ever allowed out all together.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Does your organisation have any children involved with it who visit
children.
MS TYLER:
Yes.
MRS SULLIVAN:
I thought I heard you say there was one.
MS TYLER:
Yes.
MRS GOW:
Heather's children both go out, and I take my two children when I go.
MS TYLER:
We encourage people to take their children.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Earlier this morning, we heard the comment that the current policy has
bipartisan support and that the polls are showing a large number of
Australians are supporting it. In your submission, you indicate that
you have got a large number of people who have joined together. What
do you think is the common thread that has brought your group together
in comparison to those other figures that have been quoted?
MRS GOW: I
think the thing that draws us together, the great bulk of Chilout -
people involved with Chilout are parents themselves, and I didn't join
the group reluctantly. I felt very strongly about this issue pretty
much from Tampa onwards. Many of us did, sort of, come together at that
time because I think - in terms of what happens to adults who come without
appropriate documentation, I think that is a very difficult issue. I
don't think it is nearly as difficult as the Government is making out
but I do think it is difficult.
In relation to
children, children are not a risk. They are not terrorists. They haven't
come of their own - they have come with their parents or they were sent.
They are of absolutely no risk to the community whatsoever. The only
thing that I can personally think of as to why those children remain
in detention over long periods of time rather than being settled in
the community, the main reason seems to be it is part of a policy of
deterrence. That is an enormous concern, that we are using young people
as part of a policy of deterrence.
When you go out
to Villawood and you meet with them - the first time, it was okay. The
second time, it was a little bit harder to leave and each time I've
gone, it is more and more difficult to leave the Villawood Detention
Centre simply because as you get to know - with any relationship in
your life, as you get to know someone, you understand the history. You
understand their background. You understand their motivations. You understand
them as a human being, and it is difficult to understand why my kids
get to walk out, small innocent children who are lovely, get to walk
out and beautiful innocent children I have to leave behind for no reason
other than their parents sought a better life for them.
Whether they are
economic refugees or whether they are refugees genuinely in fear for
their lives and afraid of persecution if they return to their homeland,
it is still not justification enough to keep children behind barbed
wire and in detention for long periods of time. Whether they come into
the Australian community eventually or whether they are returned to
their homeland, those children are so far behind the eight ball either
way, and ultimately, we are going to have to take responsibility, I
believe as a community, for the damage that we do.
I'm not prepared
to be part of that, and I think that is probably what draws us together
as a group. We are simply not prepared to be part of the system that
does that. It is amazing. You send out a call to action to Chilout supporters.
There's a family who have just come out of detention, and you receive
hundreds of E-mails back of families saying: yes, for sure, they can
come and live in our back room. They can come and live with us. People,
I think, are frightened in the community.
People are frightened
for lots of different reasons, and I think, particularly in New South
Wales with the Tampa, with south western Sydney, with September 11,
with riots at detention centres, people became very scared very quickly.
We can understand that as a group, but I think we need to be very rational
about what the true fears are, what the real risks are and it is certainly
not children. I think that is what we feel very strongly about.
PROF THOMAS:
One more question.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, but the last one, please.
PROF THOMAS:
Yes. Do you think there is a kind of a racial element in it because
there has been the suggestion that if these people were not Muslim Iraqis,
Afghanistan, but they were white from some other countries, they would
have been more accepted?
MRS GOW:
Yes, quite definitely.
MS TYLER: I
think there is a racial issue. I also think that the public, in general,
sees the extreme behaviours, the self harm, the riots and so on and
does not see the other side. They are people just like us. If we were
behind razor wire, I would burn and maim and stitch my lips. I would
do anything to stop being silenced at the injustice and I think this
is what people really have to realise. They are people just like us
and that they are believing a racist propaganda, and I have no boundaries
to cross. I have no barriers. People are putting up barriers. I think
it is a tremendously racist policy.
DR OZDOWSKI:
I think we will have to finish here. We are out of time
MS TYLER: Okay.
DR OZDOWSKI:
but allow me to say thank you very much for preparing this solid submission,
and thank you for your evidence.
MRS GOW:
Thank you so much for your time.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, I would ask our next witness, Jim Carty, from the Marist Refugee
Office. Good morning, Father.
FATHER CARTY:
Good morning, Commissioner.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, I would like to ask you to take an oath.
FATHER JIM CARTY
[11.39am]
Marist Refugee Centre
DR OZDOWSKI:
Could I ask you to make an opening statement, and to focus especially
on the area of your expertise and direct knowledge of the issues impacting
on the refugees in Australia?
FATHER CARTY:
Thank you very much. My name is Jim Carty. I'm a Marist priest, and
I represent the Marist Refugee Centre and also the Jesuit Refugee Service
and Caritas Australia. I am grateful for the opportunity to make this
submission. As to my expertise, I bring only my years of experience
working with refugees. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a doctor or psychiatrist.
Perhaps it would be helpful to mention I built and directed a refugee
camp in Japan, a Vietnamese refugee camp, and I ran that for 6 years.
It was an open camp. I was a volunteer in Hong Kong working in the camps
between 1987 and 1988, and during that time I visited almost all the
camps in South East Asia and Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and
Malaysia.
Since October of
last year, I have visited every detention camp in Australia, except
Maribyrnong and that includes Christmas Island, and more recently the
two camps that make up the Pacific solution, Nauru and Manus. The isolation
and desolation of Nauru is overwhelming, as described in my report.
Imposing on this bankrupt and indigent nation is breathlessly cynical
and condescendingly reprehensible.
The people of Nauru
deserve help without this imposition. The normal socialisation that
occurs in the family in these camps is destroyed, as mentioned earlier.
Roles of parents are in many ways negated. The father cannot work and
carry out the normal things that he does in the family. The mother cannot
care for her children, cooking, those sorts of things. Everything is
handed out. This places great stress on both the parents as well as
the children.
In the camps of
South East Asia it was quite different. There were huge camps where
they were given food to cook for themselves in their own small houses,
but in Hong Kong and here in Australia, those kinds of things are not
provided for them, so the family unit is in many ways broken down. I
would like to talk about three camps, if I may.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, please do so, yes.
FATHER CARTY:
The first one would be Curtin. To get there you go to Broome and then
drive 220 kilometres north, you turn right - okay - I spoke with one
family on three successive days, a family of a mother and father and
their two children, a 13½ year old girl and a 17½ year
old boy who had been in the camp for 2½ years at the time of
my visit. Because the boy was 15 at the time of his incarceration, he
did not get access to any formal education. The girl being 13½
was allowed to attend the local school in Derby. However, the boy's
depression became so severe after 18 months, he was so concerned about
his own well being, but particularly about his parents, he went on to
a hunger strike and as we know with so many cases, sewed his lips. The
girl also went on a hunger strike and from an affidavit that they made,
they went on that hunger strike for 25 days. The girl didn't sew her
lips up.
Eventually, as
they became weaker - and they were able to take some liquid - but they
were separated from their family, their mother and father, and put into
isolation and threatened with nasal feeding, unless they began to eat.
The boy cut the stitches out of his own lips and then began to eat.
It took him 10 days before they could take
DR OZDOWSKI:
And the boy wasn't attending school?
FATHER CARTY:
He was not attending school. He was physically fit because he obviously
did exercise, but it was interesting to note that when I went every
day for about 2½ hours to see the family, the boy came out for
the first time, sat very quietly, hardly said a thing. The two other
days he didn't come out at all. I was told that he was asleep and going
through the various stages of depression.
DR OZDOWSKI:
We possibly would like to track this case and to see DIMIA records
of it, so could I ask you perhaps to talk to the family and to see whether
they would agree for us to request the documentation to be presented
and, if so, could you please notify the secretary to the inquiry with
the name and with the agreement.
FATHER CARTY:
I would be very happy to do that and, in fact, they did make a statutory
declaration at some stage, but I can get a copy of that for you with
their permission.
DR OZDOWSKI:
That would be good, with their permission.
FATHER CARTY:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you.
FATHER CARTY:
Right, moving then to Manus because I will spend a little bit more time,
if there is time, on Nauru, but Manus is totally shut down to any outsiders.
I only know of one person representing an NGO who had access to the
camp, was taken around by the camp commander. The only connection he
had with the people in the camp was a video of the smiling people in
the camp, he was not allowed to talk to them. My attempt to get into
the camp was blocked about 500 metres short of the camp itself which
is as you would probably know, it is on the Island of Mannus on the
place called Lombrum, where the Naval Base is. The only access to that
is one road, or by sea. The road access since the visitation by Evan
Williams, I think - anyhow, he was with that TV program - he got into
the Base, but not into the camp. After that the PNG Defence Force set
up a road block, I was turned away by the road block.
DR OZDOWSKI:
You in a way managed to get remarkable access to all other detention
centres. You are possibly one of the very few Australians who got such
good access. Could you explain how it has happened? Could you explain
what your nature of special relationship with ACM and DIMIA?
FATHER CARTY:
I don't have a relationship with either of them directly. I was
asked by my provincial to write up a report on detention centres, asylum
seekers and see if there was some way we could respond more specifically
to the issue, so I took that mandate broadly and just, on my own initiative,
went and visited the camps - usually through the local parish priests.
DR OZDOWSKI:
I see.
FATHER CARTY:
With regard to Woomera, I was able to get in through him.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So you didn't seek permission from the Department, or from the Minister,
you just arrived with the local priest and that is the way how you accessed
it?
FATHER CARTY:
In the case of Woomera and Port Hedland, yes. In the case of Curtin,
no, I got the name of the family that I spoke to, to seek permission
for me to be there and then I wrote and asked permission.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So in this case your knowledge would be limited rather to the visiting
early as possible.
FATHER CARTY:
Very much so, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay, thank you.
FATHER CARTY:
With Christmas Island, I went there on behalf of the Catholic Immigration
Office in Perth and was denied access to the camp, but I did speak to
the manager. So coming back then to Manus, of great concern to me, apart
from the incarceration of these people, they are denied access it seemed
to anybody - any NGO - access is denied. The local parish priest, a
place at Papitalai, which is just down the road from the camp, he actually
goes on to the Naval Base for services, but is not allowed into the
camp itself, which is a separate entity. He knows that there are Christians
because there was a time when he was permitted, but that has been denied.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Do you know who made that decision to deny access for him?
FATHER CARTY:
Well, he told me that it was the new camp commander, but I don't
know the relationship between the IOM, the Australian Government and
the PNG Defence Force.
DR OZDOWSKI:
And "camp commander", as you are calling it, he is IOM person?
FATHER CARTY:
No, I would call him the Head of Mission. The commander of the Naval
Base.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Of the Naval Base, okay.
FATHER CARTY:
Yes, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay.
FATHER CARTY:
He has overall say it would seem about who comes on and who does not.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay, because it is on the territories.
FATHER CARTY:
That is correct, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you, please continue.
FATHER CARTY:
So during the Second World War, even during the time of the POWs on
the Thai-Burma Railway, there was a Marist priest who was a chaplain
and he spent his time up and down the line access to care for the dying
and burying the dead, but even here in this day and age, spiritual counselling
and help is not allowed in this camp. So coming then to Nauru, well,
as I mentioned in the report about the isolation and desolation, it
is isolating them on what I found was the most ugly Pacific island I've
ever been to in terms of the conditions. I feel very sorry for the people
of Nauru, but we have devastated, it is a lunar landscape.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, could you give us a bit more detail how you came and establish,
so we know how much you have seen and how you access it and so on, what
was the process?
FATHER CARTY:
Because JRS and Caritas, all their requests to go there officially were
denied, we decided that since I had this sort of open mandate, that
I would try and just go as a visitor, which I did, and a transit visa
was granted to me at the point of entry on Nauru Island for 3 days.
Prior to my going I did receive a request from an international NGO
in Washington to see if we could help in the medical area, medical team,
and that organisation in Washington had been approached by IOM in Geneva
to see if they could get a back-up team, because you can never guarantee
that you will have sufficient medical people on the island to care for
the people in the camps.
I had all attempts
to contact - the person in Canberra had been knocked back - so nevertheless
when I got on to the island I was taken actually into the camp. Access
to the camp on Nauru is very simple in the sense of, if you have permission,
you simply tell the guard and walk in, there is only a boom gate. In
fact, the detainees in the topside camp and I think also in State house,
can in fact walk out, but they would be arrested by the Naruan police
I'm told. I didn't see that happen. Once I got on to the island I was
taken down to the IOM office and met the deputy IOM man and when I told
him that I was sort of representing this Counterpart International,
which is the organisation in Washington, he said: I know it, come and
meet the IOM Head of Mission. When I told him that I was also - I was
possibly going to help with the medical care he said: well, go into
the camps and have a look at it, and then he appointed an Australian
Afghan man as my interpreter and guide, so then I had free access to
both camps.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So really be an accident of history so to speak?
FATHER CARTY:
Exactly.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What did you see there?
FATHER CARTY:
In Topside camp, I saw a camp that was still under construction. I was
told by the people that there were pools of sewerage up until the previous
month or so. A huge problem both for the people in the camps but especially
the people of Nauru is water, potable water. At one stage they were
actually bringing water from the Solomon Islands to the Island. So what
you have is an ongoing building program. At the time I got there two
state of the art sewerage systems had been put in place in the two camps
but, again, insufficient water and they took me around - they insisted
on me looking at every toilet block and the mess that they were in.
So that was their main physical concern was lack of water, lack of water
to wash in this hot, humid conditions and to of course to wash clothing.
DR OZDOWSKI:
And the toilets were?
FATHER CARTY:
The toilets were in a terrible mess because they didn't have enough
water to flush them and of course we introduced the western style toilet
which was quite unsuitable, the pedestal style.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What about the children?
FATHER CARTY:
The children? Well, the ones that I saw and spoke to in Topside Camp
were actually lining up for an educational program which they had established
together with a number of the interpreters. At that stage they had English
classes with - 22 of the teachers were in fact detainees who spoke very
good English. I didn't really need the interpreter. They were able to
talk to me quite well. So there was that English program was under way
together with program for computer learning, no access to the internet
but at least they were training them in the computer. So my sense was
that the IOM people there on Nauru were concerned to make it as comfortable
as possible and to avoid any outbreak of violence.
DR OZDOWSKI:
I asked that question before of another witness. Were you able to observe
the relationship between DIMIA people and IOM people over there?
FATHER CARTY:
No. I know they were there, I saw the office, I didn't have any direct
engagement with them but I had a closer engagement with just the two
IOM people and I fact was invited to attend the block leaders' meeting
for about 30 of them, in the Dining Room and I was asked to talk about
what I was doing there.
DR OZDOWSKI:
And who was at the meeting in terms of IOM and DIMIA?
FATHER CARTY:
There was an Australian woman representative and I think she works for
DIMIA. I don't know who she was, she didn't speak at the meeting and
it was just a cursory greeting to me.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So you can't assess who was in control of the place? Was it DIMIA
or IOM?
FATHER CARTY:
No. When I went to see the Head of Mission in Nauru, he mentioned, he
said: yes, I will let you go into the camps but I will check with, and
he mentioned the name of I think, the head of IOM in Canberra.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay.
FATHER CARTY:
So I was making
DR OZDOWSKI:
So you were checking with IOM in Canberra?
FATHER CARTY:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Perhaps I will ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask questions. Maybe
let us start this time with Mrs Sullivan.
MRS SULLIVAN:
You paused, talking about the education provision for children, was
there any other provision of services for children that you saw, such
as recreation, health provisions?
FATHER CARTY:
The health provisions on the island at the time that I was there, it
had five doctors, seven nurses, one psychiatrist from Norway, I think
and one Arabic speaking psychologist who commuted between the two camps.
I should mention that, if I may
MRS SULLIVAN:
Yes.
FATHER CARTY:
the Topside camp and the Stateside had just been divided at the time
of my arrival and it was 2 weeks before the first determinations were
made and there were 800 Afghanis in the Topside camp and the 350 or
so Iraqi, Iranians and Palestinians and I think that division was made
in preparation for what they all - what they already knew in terms of
determination and I just put to you, they have satellite television,
they have - so they know what is going on in the camps in Australia,
they know what has been going on in Woomera and one man asked me, he
said: how many detainees left in Woomera?
I gave a figure,
I've forgotten what it was, and he said: well, the demonstrations are
working are they? And I said: well, you draw your own conclusions. So
when you have, of those 800 Afghanis, 400 are young, very strong, very
resourceful according to the psychiatrist because they are survivors,
men and who are increasingly becoming angry and that is what came out
at the meeting. Water and the uncertainty of their future and that was
back in March that I was there, so
MRS SULLIVAN:
So your judgment in terms of your other experience is that the health
services were adequate?
FATHER CARTY:
Adequate, yes.
MRS SULLIVAN:
What about recreation? You have mentioned computers and satellite television.
FATHER CARTY:
They were constructing a children's playground in one section and as
was mentioned earlier this morning, they are in fact taking about 30
from at least one camp every afternoon, or most afternoons for a swim
in the local harbour, and it is a protected harbour, and they do, I
think, have volleyball competitions which the detainees always win.
MRS SULLIVAN:
So is there any contact with the local people in terms of visitation?
FATHER CARTY:
I sat and watched on two occasions the swimming there but - the locals
would come and watch. I didn't see any interaction as such apart from
- the volleyball games I didn't see, so obviously there would be that
interaction.
MRS SULLIVAN:
What about links with family members or community members back in Australia
including in the detention centres? Was that an issue that was raised
with you?
FATHER CARTY:
No, they do have access to satellite phones on an irregular basis. I'm
not sure how frequent that is, so they are able to make a call. I also
know that there are people in Australia - I'm not sure about families
who are in contact with some of the members, some of the detainees.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So these two phones were exclusively reserved for the use of detainees
of .....
FATHER CARTY:
Whether it is exclusive, I'm not sure but certainly that was available
to them.
DR OZDOWSKI:
To them?
FATHER CARTY:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So in a way, IOM people had their own phones there?
FATHER CARTY:
Yes, yes. The IOM head of office walked around permanently with the
head set on.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay. Thanks.
PROF THOMAS:
From your observation what do you think about the atmosphere of the
place? You know, the mental health, mental state of the people?
FATHER CARTY:
Well, my observation was, as I mentioned earlier, growing anger and
distress among those with whom I spoke. I didn't have much chance to
speak with the women or children but I did talk to the psychiatrist
who said she didn't find any, what she would describe as cases as post
traumatic stress syndrome as such but a lot of depression and a lot
of anger which could become, she said, post traumatic stress syndrome
for the longer they stay there. So it is - I was overwhelmed by the
sense of isolation and desolation. You look through this chain link
fence at a moonscape that - it is not the Pacific Island that we, you
know, like to think of, with the swaying palms and coral water.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So when you attended the block leaders' meeting, what do they talk about?
FATHER CARTY:
Well, they talked about the two things, the lack of water which caused
them great discomfiture and the uncertainty about their future and they
felt that they had been lied to by the Australian government - that
is what they said. They thought they would be off the island much sooner
and so what they are saying now would be even more out of anger that
they are still there.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So do they - do they say that they wish to be transferred to detention
centres in Australia?
FATHER CARTY:
They just want to get off the island.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay, so they do want to get off the island, even just to come to a
detention centre
FATHER CARTY:
Anywhere. Well, one man said: I have never in - a man from Afghanistan,
he said: I had never believed that such a place existed.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So you mean that they are willing even to got to Woomera?
FATHER CARTY:
I didn't ask that question. No, I - probably it would, meaning Villawood?
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes.
FATHER CARTY:
If detention was still the mandatory, because at least they get access
to
DR OZDOWSKI:
Water
FATHER CARTY:
some of the care that the groups ..... are doing, are giving.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Father Carty, any of the people in Nauru, do they have any contacts,
family contacts in Sydney or anywhere in Australia?
FATHER CARTY:
They do, but I can't give you just who - but I could provide that through
another contact that I have if that would be helpful.
DR OZDOWSKI:
If you could take notice, please and provide us with that information.
FATHER CARTY:
I just need to note also that I met the son of one of the women that
disappeared on Ashmore Reef. He was in Nauru.
PROF THOMAS:
So in your observation did you see the children playing around?
FATHER CARTY:
No. I have a photo of them here. I took a photo and they were sitting
there like children around the world with not much to do and they had
just finished lunch and their parents were - their mothers were washing
so they were playing in the sand, and they have got plenty of that.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Thank you.
FATHER CARTY:
Thank you.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Dr Ozdowski?
DR OZDOWSKI:
Father Carty, any concluding statement?
FATHER CARTY:
Yes, if I may. I believe mandatory detention is a punitive policy and
it is, for it's using innocent people, or at least until proved otherwise,
as a deterrent which I think is unacceptable and I came here not only
on behalf of the children but also on behalf of the Australian conscience.
It seems to me that - I have this little quote here:
Whatever is opposed to life itself...
and there's a whole
list of things:
...and particularly
sub-human living conditions.
Which is not necessarily
the case, but:
Arbitrary imprisonment
and deportation or slavery, all these things and many others, are infamies
indeed and they poison human society but they do more harm to those
who practise them than those who suffer the injury.
If this is true,
what are we doing to Australia by allowing such injustices to occur?
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you, Father Carty for your evidence.
FATHER CARTY:
Thank you very much.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now I would like to ask our next witness, Dr Newman, to come forward.
Please take a seat. My name is Sev Ozdowski. I am the Human Rights Commissioner.
To my right and left I have two Assistant Commissioners. To my left
is Mrs Robin Sullivan who is also Queensland Children's Commissioner
and to my right is Professor Trang Thomas who is Professor of Psychology
at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. I also have our Secretary
to the Inquiry, Ms Vanessa Lesnie, sitting on the left. I would like
to perhaps start by asking you to take an oath or affirmation.
DR LOUISE NEWMAN,
affirmed [12.03pm]
New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry, North Parramatta
DR OZDOWSKI:
I would like also for you to give your name, address, qualification
and the capacity in which you are appearing here, for the record.
DR NEWMAN: Yes,
it is Dr Louise Newman, New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry, North
Parramatta. I am the representative of Royal Australian New Zealand
College of Psychiatrists, I am the chair of the faculty of Child Adolescent
Psychiatry for Australia and New Zealand. I am also the chair of New
South Wales Branch of College of Psychiatrists. I am a director of New
South Wales Institute of Psychiatry. I am representing the College and
we are part of the Alliance of Health Professionals representing 45,000
medical specialists across the country and we have made a submission
obviously relating to this issue.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, thank you very much and I also saw you speaking publicly on
the issue on a number of occasions.
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, I have.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Dr Newman, before I come to evidence I would like to remind you that
I have made a number of orders dealing with privacy of people so I will
ask you not to mention names. If it is important to mention a particular
case we can do it after the official hearing and you could provide the
name to the Secretary.
DR NEWMAN:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
If there are any outstanding issues which you would like to clarify
later please be in touch with us. Now, could I ask you to make an opening
statement and in particular to address the issue about your direct knowledge
of detention centres and your direct contact with children, either in
detention or after they left detention?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, certainly. Our college has been conducting a series of visits to
the detention centres. Several colleagues as well have been involved
in this activity. We have been trying, as best as possible, to document
the actual mental health effects of mandatory detention. We have also
been looking at children released into the community and are involved
in treating these children and their families on a pro bono basis given
that many of them have no rights to mental health treatment and care
which they need. We have documented very severe emotional psychological
and emotional disturbances in children. My main direct involvement has
been with children and their families in Villawood and also treating
several children who are now in the community.
These children's
problems are severe and are likely to be ongoing. We are looking at
quite significant effects on children's development which of course
means there are long term implications in terms of service provision
and there is currently of course, a lack of clarity about who has any
responsibility for the long term treatment of these children if we do
let them in to our communities. We have raised particular concerns about
very young children and specifically those children who are born in
detention which is a particular interest of mine and my area of clinical
expertise.
These very young
children are showing signs of developmental delay and very severe attachment
problems and as highlighted in our submission there is quite a significant
body of research and scientific evidence which points out the very severe
and complex developmental problems that can result from these sorts
of early disturbances. There is also a body of literature which we have
made reference to which points out how vulnerable children are to these
sorts of very distressing experiences and the trauma they are experiencing
particularly in terms of their neuro-biological development, their brain
development and then again I think both these bodies of evidence point
to the fact that we are going to have long term problems, potentially,
for these children.
These are children
who even if they are very young, are witnessing extremes of disturbed
behaviour in adults. They frequently have parents who themselves are
traumatised, distressed and despairing who are unable to parent effectively
in the detention context. The developmental effects, I think, are added
to by the depriving and harsh nature of the environments with very clearly
inadequate opportunities for play, for exploration for learning and
other crucial experiences that children need if they are to develop
normally.
So we are seeing
children who currently have very clear features of stress and trauma
which psychiatrists and psychologists would diagnose as post traumatic
disorder and we are now starting to see the longer term implications
because those children have not been appropriately treated and indeed
it is not possible to treat children in a detention context such as
they are at the moment. We have been documenting the rates of very disturbed
behaviour in children such as self harm and suicide attempts. We have
seen suicidal behaviour in children who are pre-pubertal. This is virtually
unheard of, in the general communities, exceptionally rare, and suicidal
ideation in children as young as 3 and 4.
Now many of these
children of course are witnessing such behaviours in the adults around
them. Children are traumatised by seeing adults' self harm
DR OZDOWSKI:
Children 3 and 4, you said. Is it documented in the way you said that
the suicidal behaviour could be a
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, yes we are documenting that. These are - and there have also been
one or two cases of children who have been treated in hospital context,
young children, for suicidal behaviour.
DR OZDOWSKI:
For suicidal?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, how can we check this evidence? How can we get access to more information
about it? Would it be possible for you to check with the parents of
children whether we could get access to names and check the departmental
records?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, I think ideally you would have access to medical records.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes.
DR NEWMAN:
Parents and carers, of course, can request that information under Freedom
of Information.
DR OZDOWSKI:
We can also request
DR NEWMAN:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
but we would prefer to have agreement of parents because we have heard
of a number of reasons why people on occasions do not wish to draw attention
to the cases.
DR NEWMAN: Yes.
We would certainly be very happy to discuss with the parents we have
contact with, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
If you could, yes, take it on notice.
DR NEWMAN:
So those are behaviours of course that are very, you know, very severe,
not usually seen in children that age in the general community and only
occur when children have been extremely traumatised and are significantly
disturbed. We have also raised issues about the actual conditions and
treatment of women who are delivering and highlighted the fact that
many of these women are at risk of suffering from post natal depression
and anxiety.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Is it much higher than in the normal population?
DR NEWMAN:
It seems to be, yes. The difficulty is actually documenting rates. We
are in the process at the moment of undertaking a more systematic survey.
Access remains an issue but I think it is important that we actually
document the rates. We have collected, as much as possible, rates of
self-harm and suicide and highlighted the fact that even completed suicides
- many of these cases are still before the
DR OZDOWSKI:
Coroner, yes.
DR NEWMAN:
coroner but it would appear that the rates of suicide are significantly
higher than again, than in the general community in the order of
DR OZDOWSKI:
The Minister would disagree with you on this one, I think.
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, I'm sure the Minister would disagree with us.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So you are working on documenting it and
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, we will actually be publishing that data in the Medical Journal
of Australia that is in press at the moment. That is myself, Michael
Dudley and Sarah Mares.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay, well, they would like to ask you that if there is any additional
evidence coming to your hand before this Inquiry is finished that you
won't forget us, that you will provide us with
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, we would like to. We have several, again, further examples of quite
serious mental health conditions in detainees which we would like to
highlight and I think they raise some of the systemic issues about the
actual lack of adequate interventions and support and the difficulties
of actually providing appropriate health care in the detention context.
Our submission I think makes that point that many clinicians, doctors
and other clinicians, are facing a tremendous ethical dilemma working
within the detention context. This is certainly a matter of some debate
at the moment as to what extent we should be involved in actual service
provision, or whether we risk
DR OZDOWSKI:
Why, are you involved in it?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, we are because in many ways we believe that it is the detention
context per se and the current policies and practices of mandatory detention
that produce directly mental health problems and other health problems
in the detainee population. To work within that system and thereby lend
tacit support down to the policy of mandatory detention are for many
of us, seems to put us in an very unenviable position of collusion with
a system which we believe to be toxic to the health and mental health
of detainees.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Could you heal psychological, or psychiatric problems in the context
of detention?
DR NEWMAN:
No, I don't believe that is possible. We certainly have documented many
cases where even raising with a detainee who we have had in hospital
the likelihood of them returning to detention has prompted a relapse
of their condition, we have seen that on many occasions.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Dr Newman, just going back to your direct experience, I understand you
visited Villawood?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, I have.
DR OZDOWSKI:
How often did you visit Villawood?
DR NEWMAN:
I've probably been in there about 15 to 20 occasions.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Right, so a substantial number, but you restricted your visits only
to the visiting areas, or you had an opportunity
DR NEWMAN: No,
we have been working with the lawyers acting on behalf of some of the
detainees and have obtained permission to conduct clinical assessments
in the clinic section of Villawood. We, initially, went as visitors
and I think doing comprehensive assessments is very difficult in those
circumstances given the environment, lack of privacy, many people milling
around and so on. We actually wanted to be sure that the assessments
we were doing were valid and of good quality so we have gone in officially,
so to speak.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes. But you didn't have unrestricted movement in Villawood Detention?
DR NEWMAN:
No, we don't have unrestricted movement. We're only allowed into the
health clinic.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Medical area, health clinic?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, you also deal personally with a number of clients, or patients,
yes, who came out of the detention centre?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
How many children are involved?
DR NEWMAN:
I've seen probably about five.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Five children you know directly and you deal with?
DR NEWMAN: Yes,
yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
In addition, because of your function you would possibly be consulting
with a whole range of professionals in the field and your evidence is
also based on the direct knowledge of other professionals?
DR NEWMAN: Yes,
that is right.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you very much. Perhaps the last question from me - and I will
ask Professor Trang Thomas, who is an expert in this area to put further
questions to you - but could you explain to me how does being in detention
impact on the development of the brain of a child, or a young child?
How it is possible that a small child born in detention develops differently
to children in the broader community?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, I will try. Essentially, what we know about what children need
for healthy early brain development is this, children require secure
attachment relationships, or at least relationships where they have
adult carers who are emotionally available to them and consistent in
their care. They also require appropriate levels of stimulation, so
opportunities for learning and play, and in general environments that
are conducive to learning and development. We would argue that the Detention
Centre context directly impacts adversely on children's development
for multiple reasons.
Firstly, because
their main attachment figures, parents and carers are themselves usually
depressed, distressed, internally pre-occupied - many of the adult carers
are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - and they are not
emotionally available for children. In fact, what you observe in the
care of children is that the children are cared for, as well as possible,
by very traumatised adults in a collective sort of fashion, so many
of the children show signs of being somewhat disorganised in their attachment
behaviour, so they don't form the sort of close emotional bonds that
children need for ongoing healthy development.
The other groups
of experiences that have direct impact on brain development are the
traumatic experiences, the things that these children witness. Quite
young children are seeing adults losing control, becoming despairing,
screaming, they are witnessing riots, they have been exposed to self-harm
in adults. One of the most severely distressed children I have been
involved with was a little boy who witnessed someone self-immolate and
also had witnessed a significant suicide attempt, so these children
are terrorised in essence by the things that they are witnessing.
Their whole sense
of safety and security in the world is shattered by the things they
are exposed to and no-one in that situation is there for them, so it
is unmediated experiences of terror and fear. That would cause, as would
be expected, very high levels of stress hormones, which is a natural
response in a terrifying environment and there is clear evidence that
stress hormones at very high levels when the brain is developing so
rapidly, which is what is occurring in the first 3 years of life in
particular, will actually cause severe disturbance in the way the brain
grows and organises itself.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Will it have a long term impact?
DR NEWMAN: Yes,
it does. The evidence that we have in terms of people who have actually
studied this in laboratory settings, in a scientific way, would show
that children who have been traumatised in the first 3 years of life
still show signs, even though they are in safe environments, into their
early to mid-adolescence. That work we have referenced in the submission.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So they can recover but it will take a substantial period of time?
DR NEWMAN:
It is going to take a lot of quite significant intervention over a long,
long period of time and none of the children who are in detention in
Australia who are traumatised in this way have access to that sort of
treatment.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, did you advise either the Department or the Minister about this?
DR NEWMAN: Yes,
we certainly have on numerous occasions advised the Minister and his
Department that this is likely to be the case. We have presented a synopsis
of the available evidence. We have also notified all the children that
we have seen in New South Wales to the Department of Community Services.
We have advised that these children are at risk of long term and ongoing
developmental harm if they remain in detention.
DR OZDOWSKI:
And what was the response?
DR NEWMAN:
We have had no response.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Did you advise the New South Wales Child Protection Authorities about
this?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, on numerous occasions.
DR OZDOWSKI:
And what action did they take?
DR NEWMAN:
It varied. We have had no clear response and I think that is because
of the jurisdictional issues and the lack of
DR OZDOWSKI:
What kind of jurisdictional issues are we talking about?
DR NEWMAN:
In that these children are allegedly under Commonwealth jurisdiction.
DR OZDOWSKI:
But the Commonwealth does not have a Child Protection legislation.
DR NEWMAN: No,
no, so they do not have rights to child protection, so we have raised
that issue at a very high level with the Department of Community Services
and asked for some clarification as to whether they see themselves as
having any responsible to protect children who are to all intents and
purposes in New South Wales, but their verbal response was that it was
seen that: Child protection for children in immigration detention is
a Commonwealth matter and that they had no legal authority to do so.
However, that being
said they did actually send in with one case that we have raised, child
psychiatrists to conduct further assessments on the situation which
were done, reports were submitted by those psychiatrists to the Department
and no action was taken. We can provide these later, if necessary, but
these were multiple recommendations that these children needed to be
remove and have appropriate mental health treatment.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, we would be interested in seeing that documentation, so if you
would take it on notice as well. If you would have a child in the broader
New South Wales community being in similar conditions as the children
in detention, would DOCS do something about it?
DR NEWMAN:
We would hope so. At least they would agree that they have the
DR OZDOWSKI:
The responsibility.
DR NEWMAN:
the responsibility to do that.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you, I will ask now Professor Thomas to ask further questions.
PROF THOMAS:
In your assessment and treatment of these children, do you use you
know sort of more culturally appropriate, non-verbal psychometric tools,
or do you use interpreters?
DR NEWMAN:
To date we have used interpreters, largely because of the lack of suitably
translated instruments with the groups that we have actually been dealing
with, so the majority of the work has been done with interpreters. Although
I must say, some of the even quite young children have reasonable English.
PROF THOMAS:
Yes. So in your college you look at the development of culturally appropriate
tools, because it looks like we are going to have large communities
of non-English speaking migrants?
DR NEWMAN:
Absolutely, no, I think we would be very interested in working on developing
those and what we of course need would be culturally appropriate child
and adolescent mental health services and staff, particularly with experience
in working with trauma and dislocated communities, which is lacking
at the moment in New South Wales.
PROF THOMAS:
Yes. The Minister would argue that some of those children/adolescents,
have experienced trauma in the country of origin before they came to
Australia.
DR NEWMAN: Yes.
PROF THOMAS:
Do you think it is possible to differentiate the impact of detention
centres and their previous experiences?
DR NEWMAN: Certainly,
many of these children and families have of course come from traumatic
events. In addition, they have experienced often cultural breakdown
community trauma and cultural dislocation. Those factors, if anything,
mean that we need to provide more support and help for those people,
not less. What we in effect provide is no support and help for those
people and then we add to their burden of trauma by partly the refugee
determination process itself, the conditions in which we house people
and the experiences, particularly for children that they are exposed
to, so I think these things are additive. I mean, ultimately, it is
impossible to give say percentage figures as to what the cause of the
disturbance is.
PROF THOMAS:
Yes.
DR NEWMAN:
But the irony I think is that we should in fact recognise that we have
vulnerable children and families who need care and support and in fact
come here searching for that and what we offer them is re traumatisation
and long term health problems.
PROF THOMAS:
What do you think are the protective factors for these children in detention
centres in terms of mental health?
DR NEWMAN: Yes,
and for the others, it is an interesting question. There's some evidence
that many people who have organised themselves to the extent that they
have been able to leave traumatic circumstances of course are quite
resilient and have shown high levels of adaptive behaviours and resourcefulness
and certainly have come with the intention, many of the parents we have
spoken to, of wanting to protect their children and have a highly developed
sense of themselves as good parents and trying the best they can. When
they come here of course, the terrible irony is that they are in effect
disempowered as parents and parenting in the detention context is virtually
impossible and the scene is a nightmare for many of these people who
then experience a tremendous sense of guilt, particularly for the fathers.
What they often
are is despairing and saying: look what I've brought my family to when
what I wanted to do was something totally different. So we start off
I think in many cases with quite resilient resourceful well motivated
individuals who gradually become disempowered and despairing. Children
of course are quite resilient creatures overall. The children in effect
try and obtain support from many of the adults around them. I think
sadly we are seeing, particularly in the young children, almost a situation
where the children try developmentally, inappropriately to parent the
parents. The children are sometimes dealing with immigration officials
and guards in a direct way, making requests because sometimes the children
have better English.
They take on emotionally
an undue burden of responsibility and care. So we've seen that on numerous
occasions with quite young children exhibiting what we would call a
role reversal in their relationship with their parents where the child
parents, parents of the parents. Ultimately that's very harmful for
children because they're sacrificing their own needs. So some pseudo
mature behaviour in a lot of these children is quite common, children
5, 6, 7 looking after younger siblings and other little children as
best they can because sometimes parents are not able to do that themselves.
PROF THOMAS:
Do you think age can be a vulnerable factor for these children?
DR NEWMAN:
We overall would think that the youngest children, particularly those
born into these environments, are the most vulnerable and I must say
we've seen quite severe disturbance across the age range, the adolescents
in particular are quite despairing, very angry, and I think find the
situation particularly traumatising. The youngest children are more
likely to show attachment disturbances, slightly older children then
become depressed. That's when we start to see self harming behaviours
and suicidal thoughts.
These are in primary
school age children, adolescents are more likely to become very angry
and enraged about their circumstances and do more of the protesting
sort of behaviours which are common in other stressed groups of adolescence.
I think what we see in the detention context is the contagion effect
of this. It's a hot house atmosphere so you very rapidly get the spread
of those sorts of behaviours which are a mixture of protest, of feelings
of despair and helplessness and contagion.
PROF THOMAS:
Now, many of these children will eventually be released into the community.
So what do you envisage is the psychiatric and the long term treatment
that they will require - the services that they will require in the
long run?
DR NEWMAN: Yes,
I mean, we've been trying to actually do some rough calculations. These
children and adolescents are likely to need, given the severity of the
problems that they already have, long term mental health treatment.
Ideally you would have a multi-disciplinary approach to managing these
children and their families. On average children with post traumatic
stress disorder of this magnitude need treatment for at least 6 to 12
months. Some will need longer, particularly some of the very young children
who have developmental problems.
They will also
need things like remedial education and preferably group activities
to look at improving their peer relationships and socialisation. Their
parents will also need support. We're roughly talking about in terms
of just the one to one treatment component on average across the disciplines
about $100 an hour. More when we add the extra components that are needed
and I think we can do the calculations. It's a very significant health
bill that we're looking at that the Australian community will need to
fund.
PROF THOMAS:
Do you think it is possible in a way that we are having generation,
a large group of adolescents who eventually when they go out into the
community can become quite a problem for the society?
DR NEWMAN: Absolutely.
We're looking at a generation potentially of bitter, angry, alienated
young people. That's talking to the adolescents currently who already
say they do not like this community because they feel that we've treated
them in this way. They're angry and embittered.
PROF THOMAS:
So do you think it is possible for a potential delinquent to
DR NEWMAN:
It wouldn't be surprising, adolescents who are at risk of becoming angry
and anti-social and delinquent are usually those who've had adverse
experiences essentially where they've been maltreated and they come
to feel, they lose faith in the sense of community and they feel that
the community has nothing to offer them and they remain very angry and
they are likely to act out. So potentially, yes, the other big burden
will be depression, an ongoing vulnerability to depressive illness which
is already a major public health problem.
We know that these
sorts of experiences, particularly if they're ongoing in this way, are
risk factors for depression across the life span. So we have the added
burden of treatment for depression, medication costs, and so on.
PROF THOMAS:
So you think it is possible to reverse all of those effects if they
receive really, you know, I mean, intensive treatment?
DR NEWMAN:
Look unfortunately, some of these children are already damaged. That's
the tragedy of it. Certainly we can intervene and hopefully minimise
the long term disturbances. I think what's concerning is that on a daily
basis, children are being traumatised in this way. We need to be able
to remove, in our opinion, children and their primary carers as a matter
or urgency and institute urgent mental health interventions if we are
going to have a hope of preventing this sort of burden of disease that
we're talking about.
PROF THOMAS:
Thank you.
MRS SULLIVAN:
What is your comment on the initial screening processes, the mental
health screening processes when people come into the detention centres?
DR NEWMAN:
Look unfortunately on the whole, they are somewhat superficial and in
fact it's not clear that they're actually in all cases conducted by
people with the necessary skills to interpret disorder if it's there
and disturbance in people. So I think on the whole it's inadequate.
It wouldn't be surprising to find high levels of symptoms of distress
amongst such a group of vulnerable people given their circumstances.
That wouldn't be surprising at all. I think what the system doesn't
have is any capacity to manage or understand when people are severely
at risk. So in terms of a risk assessment, from our point of view it
would be inadequate.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Do you receive copies of that screening material when you're treating
some of these individual cases?
DR NEWMAN:
Within the detention context where we've gone in to assess people we've
not been given access to any medical records.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Have you asked?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes.
MRS SULLIVAN:
What was the reason given?
DR NEWMAN: They're
confidential. They're not even released to the lawyers in many cases,
the lawyers acting on behalf of the trainees haven't been given them.
MRS SULLIVAN:
So are they given to your patients on exit, the ones that you are treating
who have now left detention centres?
DR NEWMAN:
No, I've not seen any.
MRS SULLIVAN:
You have asked to see them?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes.
MRS SULLIVAN:
What was the answer the former detainees gave - sorry, what was the
answer that the former detainees gave when you asked for those records?
DR NEWMAN:
They hadn't had them themselves.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Right. Have you seen the evidence of the use of prescription drugs
with children for mental health reasons?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes. We've had at least a couple of examples where children - adolescents
as opposed to younger children - have been prescribed SSRIs, antidepressants.
I think one of the issues that I'm speaking about, Villawood particularly,
that there are no consulting psychiatrists at Villawood. The medical
treatment and prescription of medication is carried out by the visiting
general practitioners. We've had cases that we've been involved with
where as a specialist, our opinion has been the use of antidepressants
and other tranquillising medication, as one of the cases in our submission,
has been extremely concerning and inappropriate.
We've had a woman
with a very severe depression who had been prescribed valium which is
a benzol diazepam which is not the treatment for agitated major depression.
In fact this woman needed treatment in a psychiatric facility with antidepressants
and anti-psychotics. So we are concerned about the quality and standards
of clinical care within the detention context and I think part of the
difficulty for those practitioners working within that context, we did
directly try to discuss with the general practitioner involved the treatment
of the person we were seeing. They wouldn't speak to us and the reason
given is that they signed confidentiality clauses with ACM.
I think this gets
back to the point I made earlier about the ethical dilemma facing doctors.
I would feel that the doctors in that situation are not able to treat
people appropriately. The constraints of the system are such that they
are compromising their own clinical standards.
DR OZDOWSKI:
For me it was quite surprising when visiting all the centres, I saw
psychologists wearing ACM uniforms. Is it possible to treat people wearing
these uniforms?
DR NEWMAN: I
don't think so. I personally don't think so. I think opinion is obviously
divided because some individuals are doing that. I mean, we have raised
this as a major ethical concern. I don't think it is possible from all
the evidence that we have got, from multiple sources now for quality
of care that is given and numerous examples where the doctors might
have well have wanted to get a specialist opinion, or do certain sorts
of treatment and ACM have said, no. Doctors in that situation and other
clinicians have very little autonomy.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So what you are saying is that on occasion ACM was second-guessing the
medical or psychological opinions of the professionals?
DR NEWMAN: Absolutely,
and the Minister's Department. I mean, I think it needs to be said that
the Minister for Immigration and the Department of Immigration is not
a Department of Health and have actually no expertise, or jurisdiction
in my opinion, to be making decisions about people's health care and
treatment and, in effect, because of the system that is what happens.
MRS SULLIVAN:
My final question is about whole of family treatment. Have you seen
any evidence of that occurring in detention centres - that is the first
part - and the second part is: do you see that as a possible way of
dealing with some of these issues, given the fragmentation of family
ties that we just talked about?
DR NEWMAN:
Yes, I mean, in principle it is essential to treat family and social
groups together in these sorts of situations. The evidence is very clear
in the trauma research that traumatised people need to maintain bonds,
a sense of community and cohesion. They need to be treated together
as much as possible, which is why we have on several occasions, argued
with the Department about the removal of children and the fragmentation
of families that occurs, sometimes as a form of pseudo punishment within
the detention context.
In terms of that
sort of treatment being offered, I mean, I think it needs to be said
that treatment is not currently given to people in detention. These
are people in need of treatment in our opinion, but they are not receiving
it. There are no organised mental health services, let alone child and
adolescent mental health services in the detention context. There is
very much, you know, the very limited capacity in some of the centres,
maybe to offer one or two sessions which is very much just the beginning
of trying to understand the problem. I would not think that we had caught
any of that treatment.
MS LESNIE:
The Department states in its submission that there are parenting skill
seminars offered. Are you aware of any of those happening?
DR NEWMAN:
There have been one or two sessions that I'm aware of in Villawood,
largely for some of the mothers with younger children around feeding.
Feeding and care of children has been a constant issue in, not only
Villawood, but the other detention centres as well because of the regime,
but in no way are they equivalent to what we would offer in the community
for high risk vulnerable people in need of parenting -education or parenting
classes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
There were accusations, if I could say, some made at some of the behaviour
of detainees in detention centres is cultural. Could you comment how
other cultural groups would behave in similar kind of conditions?
DR NEWMAN:
We have argued that, essentially, any group of people stressed to the
utmost and to this degree would show disorganised behaviours, behaviours
motivated by protest and despair, that that is a universal human reaction
to these extremes of treatment and trauma. Within that of course there
is going to be cultural variation in terms of how people express distress.
It is well known that different cultural groups express psychological
distress and depression differently, so we have in some cultural groups
in the detention context, people who would focus more on the physical,
or sematic presentations of distress, so experience a lot of physical
symptoms as a result of stress, things like headaches, stomach pain
and so on and we know that that occurs in other cultural groups in our
community as well.
The allegation
has been made that self-harm and self-mutilation, particularly the mouth
sewing episodes, have been purely cultural manifestations and shouldn't
be seen as reflecting on the detention context. Somehow it has said
that: this is normal for those people and does not mean that detention
is bad. From my understanding and speaking to people that behaviour,
yes, is motivated out of a sense of protest and despair, but the particular
form of self-harm, as in the sewing of the mouth, had a particular symbolic
significance for people who felt themselves to have no voice.
But it was still,
by all those people themselves, seen as extreme behaviour and I think
that is the bottom line that, all right, there might be some cultural
variation in how it is expressed, but they all recognise that as an
extreme form of behaviour and as a form of protest, so in no way in
my opinion from talking to these people was that seen as somehow culturally
normative. It still means that these are people stressed to the absolute
maximum who felt that they had nothing else to do as a form of protest.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Dr Newman, there were also allegations made that parents were either
assisting, or encouraging children to sew their lips and to commit other
acts of self-harm. Are you aware of it, or did any member of your association
report to you that the parents were either encouraging, or participating
in these kinds of acts?
DR NEWMAN:
No. We don't believe that there was any direct sewing up in any sense
of children, or adolescence by parents, or encouragement in an active
way in doing that. We certainly saw some adolescence who decided against
their parents' expressed wishes that they would join in that behaviour
as a form of protest. Children, of course, are very vulnerable and likely
to be influenced by the behaviour of those around them. All the parents
we have spoken to and the adolescence - and I personally have met several
adolescents who had sewn up their mouths previously - denied that that
had occurred. I have no evidence of that at all.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Dr Newman, any final comments?
DR NEWMAN:
No, I think that has covered most of my points, thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Well, thank you very much for your submission and for your evidence.
DR NEWMAN:
Thank you very much.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, I would like to ask representatives from the Sabean Mandaean
Association, our last witnesses, to come forward to give evidence. Thank
you. Now, could I ask you to take an oath or affirmation, please?
MR HATTOM:
Yes.
MR ESSELLE JOHN
HATTOM [12.42pm]
Sabean Mandaean Association
DR OZDOWSKI:
Could I ask you to give your name, address, qualifications, and the
capacity in which you are appearing for the record.
MR HATTOM:
My name is Esselle John Hattom. My address is [address removed] and
the capacity I'm appearing in is that I am the Association spokesperson
for the Sabean Mandaean Association of Australia.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you. Before we ask you further questions could you let us know
about your background in terms of dealing directly with asylum seekers
or people in detention or people who have been released from detention?
MR HATTOM: Certainly,
sure. I am Sabean Mandaean by birth. I have been engaged in probably
the vast majority of Sabean Mandaean asylum applications to Australia
and some to New Zealand. I have very close, intimate links with the
Mandaean community here which, of course, is about 80 per cent asylum
seekers. My ongoing links put me in the position where I'm able to ascertain
quite accurately any ongoing effects that manifest themselves on these
people after they have been released from detention.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Did you visit any of the detention centres?
MR HATTOM:
Yes, I have.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Which ones?
MR HATTOM:
Villawood.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Villawood only?
MR HATTOM:
Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
But you went there to meet with some Sabean Mandaeans who were there?
MR HATTOM:
Yes, that is correct.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So you, possibly, didn't inspect all the facilities around you. You
were in the visitors area only?
MR HATTOM: No,
I was not permitted to go anywhere but the visitors area.
DR OZDOWSKI:
You would be an actual point of contact for Sabean Mandaeans who are
released from detention? If they arrive, they would possibly be contacting
you?
MR HATTOM:
Well, yes, they would be contacting the Association. We do look after
a lot of their needs, their social needs, their spiritual needs, settlement
needs as well as administrative needs. We are basically in contact with
almost all of the Mandaeans who are currently in detention.
DR OZDOWSKI:
I see, so you are in contact with all who are in detention. What about
people who are released? Are you personally in contact with people who
are released?
MR HATTOM: I'm
personally in contact with some of them. However, I mean, the capacity
in which I appear here is as spokesperson so the experiences which I
wish to avail you of are really experienced by the Association as a
leadership for the community.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, I will come to that. I am trying to establish your contacts first,
so how many families would we have here in Sydney who are released from
detention?
MR HATTOM:
In terms of families, it would probably be around 60 or 70 who have
been released. That figure might not be accurate. I would have to go
back and verify that.
DR OZDOWSKI:
How many of them did you meet personally?
MR HATTOM:
I would say more than half.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Half. Now, could I ask you to start with telling us something about
Sabean Mandaeans?
MR HATTOM:
Certainly.
DR OZDOWSKI:
We met them in a number of detention centres and if you, maybe, start
with that question.
MR HATTOM:
Sure. Because of the lateness of the notice, we didn't have time to
prepare a proper submission. We have prepared one for today. I've abridged
it somewhat. I would like to read it to you because a lot of the problems
are very specific to Mandaeans, particularly problems of persecution,
of children within the detention centres.
DR OZDOWSKI:
We will take the submission in evidence and we will read that. I
would prefer, perhaps, to talk with you about the issues rather than
to allow you to spend the whole time reading it.
MR HATTOM:
Sure.
DR OZDOWSKI:
If you would like to make a short statement or use part of the evidence
time, but we will take it as evidence as it is and we will read it.
MR HATTOM:
Okay.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So, maybe, let us start with why you are different or why you are
perceived differently from other religious groups. What is happening
to Sabean Mandaeans, that they are leaving Iran? I understand some of
them are leaving Iraq as well.
MR HATTOM:
Right. The majority live in Iraq, an estimate of between 30 and 35,000
live in Iraq and about 5000 live in Iran so the minority live in Iran.
Mandaeans are the last remaining gnostic religion. They are monotheistic.
They pre date Christianity and Judaism. They have been persecuted for,
basically, hundreds of years - say 1300 years - by Muslims in the region,
particularly because they steadfastly refuse to convert to Islam. The
remaining Mandaeans in Iran and Iraq suffer persecution.
We believe that
the persecution suffered by the children, it is paramount for the Inquiry
to be aware of this because a background to the kind of trauma that
they suffer on the way here as well as the trauma that they suffer because
of ongoing persecution within the detention centres themselves. I can
give you a brief idea of what kind of persecution they suffer in Iran
and Iraq from the statement, or you may wish to ask me questions?
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes, please. Please do.
MR HATTOM:
In Iran, the children are forced to study the Islamic religion knowing
full well that it is not the faith of their parents. They are bullied
incessantly by Muslim children. Muslim children pick on them for being
Mandaean, calling them Negis, which means defiled. They are not allowed
to play with Muslim children and are ostracised in school playgrounds.
Disputes and disagreements between children are almost always resolved
in favour of the Muslim child. They are not allowed to drink from the
water fountains utilised by Muslim children as they are told they would
contaminate the water due to their Mandaeanism.
A number of Mandaean
children have been abducted by Islamists and forcibly converted to Islam.
A larger number have been threatened with abduction and forced conversion.
This is often, but not exclusively, used as a tool by corrupt authorities
and criminals to extort money from well to do Mandaean jewellers. An
even more serious occurrence is the sexual assault of Mandaean children.
Even in these instances, Mandaeans have no recourse under Iran's Islamic
laws and complaining only serves to exacerbate the situation for the
Mandaean child and her parents.
There's at least
one Mandaean child currently in detention who we know has been sexually
assaulted, as verified by the Department's own child psychologist. In
Iraq, children live under what is arguably the most diabolical political
regime in the history of human civilisation. The entire population survives
in a state of constant alert, always fearing and preparing for an impending
war. There is not a single Iraqi child alive today who has not seen
war or the devastating effects of the combination of Saddam Hussein's
despotic rule and the UNs crippling sanctions.
Being a tiny minority,
Mandaean children in Iraq are extremely vulnerable to the excesses of
the regime, and particularly to the effects of witnessing the oppression
and persecution to which their parents are subjected. Similarly to their
peers in Iran, Iraqi children are also bullied on the basis of their
Mandaeanism and are constantly subjected to ostracism and degrading
comments that have a long lasting detrimental psychological effect.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, could we come to the situation in Australian detention centres?
Could you, perhaps, describe what are the special difficulties which
are faced in the detention centres?
MR HATTOM: Sure.
I will read you a list of the abuses that Mandaeans have suffered often.
Some of these are towards the children and sometimes towards the parents
in view of the children: verbal abuse of Mandaeans by Islamists. Physical
abuse of Mandaeans by Islamists. Islamists defecating on Mandaeans.
Islamists defecating at the doors of rooms occupied by Mandaeans only.
Islamists prohibiting Mandaean children from playing with their children.
Islamists prohibiting Mandaeans from eating with them. Mandaeans prohibited
by Islamists from being involved in food preparation. Islamists prohibiting
Mandaeans from playing sports with them.
Islamists prohibiting
Mandaeans from washing their clothes in the same washing machines that
they use. Islamists ignoring the verbal and physical abuse by their
children of Mandaean children. Islamist clergymen in detention issuing
fatwas stating that killing Mandaeans is sanctioned in Islam. Islamists
threatening Mandaeans against complaining to authorities about them.
Islamists setting fire to the residences of Mandaeans and Christians.
Islamists turning the water off for Mandaeans and Christian ablution
blocks. Islamists preventing Mandaeans and Christians from using certain
toilets.
Islamists forcing
the Mandaean women to observe the strict Islamic dress code, including
abusing a young Mandaean woman for wearing shorts. Islamists abusing
Mandaean children and adults while standing in meal queues. Islamists
conducting a concerted campaign of vilification against Mandaeans. These
are not the only abuses but they are, pretty much, the most common ones.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Are you aware of ACM or DIMIA taking any action to stamp out these acts
of discrimination?
MR HATTOM: Well,
the only solution that ACM and the Department has offered was isolating
the Mandaeans themselves which means
DR OZDOWSKI:
Yes. Why didn't you accept it?
MR HATTOM:
Well, you are incarcerated and you are being asked to be incarcerated
in an even more confined area without facilities. That means your kids
are, basically, not going to enjoy any of the facilities in detention.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So your worry was that, basically, you were denied even further access
to services which are available?
MR HATTOM:
Well, I mean
DR OZDOWSKI:
It was a balancing act is what you are saying.
MR HATTOM: I
mean, what we were told by these people, by the Mandaeans, is that it
is bad enough as it is, the situation is bad enough as it is. If you
were to take away the few privileges that they have or the rights that
they have, it would just be unbearable for the children, and the children
themselves have made it clear to their parents that they don't understand
why they have to be isolated. I mean, there was one instance in Port
Hedland where Mandaeans accepted being isolated because things got very
serious.
They were threatened
with death, basically, and they couldn't really bear being there for
very long because they already felt they were being punished, and now
they were punished even further for being persecuted on top of that.
Although they are being persecuted in detention, they are getting statements
by the Government saying: well, no, we don't accept that you are persecuted
back home, even though you are being persecuted here in detention, and
we are refusing to acknowledge that. So their situation, as you can
imagine, is dismal in the extreme.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Anyway, my next question is why, in a way, are you particularly unsuccessful
in terms of applying for protection visas? Would you be able to explain
it?
MR HATTOM:
Well, Iraqi Mandaeans have absolutely no problem.
DR OZDOWSKI:
They are getting them?
MR HATTOM:
Yes, they are. Iranian Mandaeans are not. We believe that it is due
to an agreement, trade agreement or some level of bilateral relations
between the two countries, that is discouraging Australia from acknowledging
that in Iran, there is severe persecution of religious minorities. The
US State Department as well as Amnesty International and Human Rights
Watch have all said that all religious minorities in Iran are extremely
persecuted but when Mandaean refugees arrive here, they are supposed
to present this amazing evidence that they are being persecuted. As
any refugee would tell you, the most difficult thing to actually avail
to authorities is evidence or hard evidence.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Now, are you aware of any Iranian Sabean Mandaeans being returned to
Iran?
MR HATTOM:
No, not yet
DR OZDOWSKI:
Okay.
MR HATTOM:
but we know there is a group of 100 that are about to be.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What would need to be done in detention centres in terms of facilities
to ensure that you are not suffering discrimination and that your religious
and cultural needs are appropriately catered for in the detention facilities?
MR HATTOM:
Well, I don't think it is a matter of facilities because, I mean, if
you were to approach it that way, you would have to build two separate
facilities, one for Islamists and one for everybody else. I don't think
that is really very economically feasible. I think what ought to happen
is people who come here seeking asylum and show such a high degree of
intolerance of other faiths should be made aware of what kind of behaviour
is acceptable and that is not being done.
If those Islamists
were told: look, you are not allowed to do this to Mandaean's, you are
not allowed to do this to Christians, this is the way you ought to behave
and if you are not going to behave this way, this is going to have dire
ramifications for you, not necessarily for the application but for the
person as a criminal offence. Then I think people would at least be
able to tolerate each other and as far as children are concerned, we
steadfastly maintain that children should never even be subjected to
the risk of having to ensure such behaviour.
They come from
very traumatised backgrounds. If you are putting them in a place where
they could, you know, even on a weekly basis suffer such persecution
by Islamists, you are basically saying: here, you've travelled this
very perilous journey, you have come here to a civilised country and
we can't even protect you from the same kind of behaviour that you are
suffering back home.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What kind of support can we offer to people who are released on TPV
out of detention?
MR HATTOM:
All that is necessary?
DR OZDOWSKI:
So you are saying that your community is relatively well organised
and relatively wealthy, you could look after people in the initial stages
when they are released?
MR HATTOM: Well,
I wouldn't describe them as particularly affluent, they are getting
there but, you know, when you are faced with these kinds of situations,
I'm sure people would go well out of their way to accommodate the needs
of Mandaean children and their families rather than to let them go through
what they're going through in detention.
DR OZDOWSKI:
I will now ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask any questions if they
wish. Professor Thomas?
PROF THOMAS:
What is the size of the Mandaean community in Australia?
MR HATTOM:
About 2000.
PROF THOMAS:
In the whole of Australia?
MR HATTOM:
2000 mainly in the Fairfield and Liverpool areas of Sydney, that's where
I would say about 95 per cent of Mandaeans, there might be a little
more than 2000 there. There are a couple of families in Melbourne, a
couple of families in Tasmania but the vast majority are in Sydney.
PROF THOMAS:
So the settlement of the community as a whole, it has had no problems,
you have settled well in Australia?
MR HATTOM: Well,
we actually met with a representative of the Department last week and
he said that the most impressive thing about the Mandaean community
was how well it has settled in Australia, how well it's adjusted to
the Australian way of life. So, yes, in terms of settlement we are extremely
successful.
PROF THOMAS:
So what your concern now really is only about people who are still inside
the detention centres?
MR HATTOM:
Our concerns are firstly that Mandaean children are being persecuted,
that nothing effective is being done to allay that and that taking that
away, that Mandaean children are being incarcerated in the first place.
PROF THOMAS:
So have you made an official complaint to ACM and the Department?
MR HATTOM:
Mandaeans within the detention centres have complained, yes, on many
occasions. Despite threats by Islamists against them not to complain,
there was one instance in October last year where Mandaeans complained.
Their complaints were reported in the media and a group of Islamists
approached them and under duress forced them to sign a retraction of
their claims but then later on when the Department met with them, basically
in confidence they reasserted their claims that they were being persecuted
on a daily basis and almost everything.
DR OZDOWSKI:
I heard also evidence or we had evidence some time ago that some of
Mandaeans are reacting quite - how to describe it - violently possibly
towards the other Mandaeans which are going and taking part in the Christian
services. Do you know anything about it?
MR HATTOM:
No, we are not informed of that.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Do you see the same reaction from Islamists within the broader community
to your community or is it restricted to detention centres?
MR HATTOM:
It's mainly restricted to detention centres. There is not a great deal
of friction between the Mandaean community outside the detention centre
and the Islamic community. However, it is pretty much the self same
persecution that goes on back in Iran and Iraq towards Mandaeans. Here
once the Mandaeans are out of detention, they do tend to avoid having
any business dealings, personal dealings, social dealings with Islamists,
not Muslims in general because not the best.
DR OZDOWSKI:
What is the difference?
MR HATTOM: Well,
I mean Islamists are fundamentalists, Muslims, they're extremists. They
will approach any one who is not a Muslim as someone either to be seen
as an infidel or someone who you can potentially convert to Islam. So
I mean, the term Islamists has really been around since September 11
in particular and the Islamists who have been released from detention
centre usually are concentrated in Auburn and Lidcombe and they are
not the areas that Mandaeans reside in.
MRS SULLIVAN:
Why do men then choose to come to Australia given the long distance?
MR HATTOM:
Well, I would probably say, the Mandaean religion is a very passive
religion, you are not permitted to kill not even in self defence. Even
if you have to slaughter an animal to eat it, you have to ask forgiveness,
it's a very humane religion. The values that are seen to be Australian
I think are very similar in terms of tolerance, acceptance, and a very
peaceful approach to life. So I think that is very attractive to Mandaeans
and the first Mandaean arrived here in 1981 and many of the Mandaean's
back in Iran or Iraq were told that Australia is a great place, far
better than Europe and North America. So it is not surprising to us
that they would choose to journey perilously to get here.
MS LESNIE:
Thank you. Are there any special food requirements that should be provided
in detention centres for Sabean Mandaean detainees?
MR HATTOM:
Detainees who wish to eat meat or food that is prepared the Mandaean
way will have to have a special type of food. We are currently discussing
with the Department ways of going about that. So we're quite happy with
the Department's approach with respect to food.
MS LESNIE:
What about religious education in the detention centre, is that an issue
that you have addressed as well or is it a need that needs to be filled?
MR HATTOM:
Well, it is a need particularly because a lot of the detainees are suffering
and generally tend to become more religious. That is very difficult.
It is very difficult because there is a lot of pressure on Mandaean's
not to practice their religion within the detention centres. There is
pressure on them not to be Mandaean. So we only have two priests here
and we've been able to fly them to different centres around the country
every now and well but it's very difficult to have one visit at detention
centre on a weekly or fortnightly basis.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Did they have access to your people in detention centres?
MR HATTOM: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Did they have difficulty in access or was it relatively easy?
MR HATTOM: I
don't know. I think it was relatively easy, yes.
MS LESNIE:
Would it make a difference if the Sabean Mandaean detainees who are
currently in Port Hedland, Curtin, Woomera, if they were in Villawood
instead, would that make a difference to their ability to access religious
education and leadership?
MR HATTOM:
It would be an enormous difference. However, the Minister has refused
to grant that request which we've made on several occasions because
of what he terms as "operational difficulties".
MS LESNIE:
Has he explained what that term means?
MR HATTOM:
No. No, he wouldn't elaborate nor has anyone from the Department been
willing to elaborate.
MS LESNIE: Okay.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Mr Hattom, is there any concluding statement you would wish to make?
MR HATTOM: No.
I will give you a copy of the submission which in more detail addresses
the problems that the children are facing.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So if you could provide us with the submission for the records?
MR HATTOM:
Yes, I will.
DR OZDOWSKI:
I would like to have it on official record.
MR HATTOM:
There is just one thing also that I would like to attach to that. I
actually addressed that, a drawing by a Mandaean child into submissions.
DR OZDOWSKI:
Thank you.
MR HATTOM: Thank
you.
DR OZDOWSKI:
So thank you, Mr Hattom, for providing your submission. If would like
to collate any further documents, please feel free and this officially
closes our meeting for today. Thank you.
END OF SESSION
[1.10pm]
Last
Updated 9 January 2003.