Click here to return to the Submission Index
Submission to the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from
Department Infrastructure Manager at Woomera in 2000
- Background
- Establishment of the WIRPC
- Development of the WIRPC
- Facilities for Education and Recreation
- Conclusion
STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, [the Department Infrastructure Manager at Woomera in 2000], of [address removed], do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
Background
1. I make this statement for the purposes of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention.
2. I have asked for my evidence to the Inquiry to be confidential.
3. I was employed by what is now the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) for 37 years. I started with the Department after leaving school and was employed with them until January 2002 when I resigned.
4. I worked for DIMIA at the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (WIRPC) from about November 1999 to the December 2000. I was the Infrastructure Manager during that time, as well as the Operations Manager for the period November 1999 to approximately March 2000.
5. Prior to my appointment to the position at the WIRPC I was Acting Assistant Director in Adelaide, working in the business migration portfolio. I was sent to Woomera to set up the WIRPC and arrived there approximately 6 weeks before the centre opened.
6. I was awarded an Immigration Medal from the Department in March 2000 for my work at Woomera. This was the second time I had received this award for my work with DIMIA.
7. Working at the WIRPC was very stressful, especially when there were riots and tension in the camp. I was threatened on a number of occasions by detainees and felt that my life was in danger. As a result of the stress of the environment under which we were working, I went on sick leave in January 2001 and was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). I have no history of depression and have not been diagnosed with PTSD before.
8. I remained on sick leave for approximately twelve months and ultimately resigned from DIMIA in January 2002.
Establishment of the WIRPC
9. Woomera was chosen as a site for an IRPC largely because of the availability of land for the centre and facilities in the town to service it. The idea had been previously suggested when safe havens were being established for Kosovars who came to Australia on safe-haven visas.
10. It was considered a suitable place for an IRPC because there was a large area of Commonwealth land on which a centre could be built and the town had significant infrastructure by way of schools, a hospital, shops, recreation and accommodation that were not being fully utilised because of the significant reduction of the population in the town that had occurred. It was understood that the township were supportive of having an IRPC there as it would bring more people to the town by way of staff working at the centre.
11. A significant advantage of the site was also that it could be ready quickly to meet the need for an IRPC facility following the large increase in arrivals of asylum seekers in late 1999.
12. The WIRPC was set up, as the name suggests, as a reception and processing centre rather than a detention centre. In broad terms, the centre was initially designed as a “soft camp” to house primarily single men for short periods of time while their applications for protection visas were being assessed. The WIRPC was not designed for families or children and was not designed for long-term detention and very little was done to make the camp appropriate for children before it commenced operation.
13. The intended use of the WIRPC for processing (predominantly) single men was based on the demographics of the asylum-seeker population who had arrived as unlawful non-citizens in the period prior to the establishment of the WIRPC. However, because of the removal of the ability to seek family reunion for those holding temporary protection visas in 1999, these demographics changed and increasingly women and children arrived in Australia unlawfully seeking protection visas.
14. The numbers of people arriving who were to be accommodated also far exceeded the intended capacity of the WIRPC. It was significantly overcrowded in its early days with in excess of 1100 people living in accommodation initially designed for about 650.
15. When the numbers of children started to increase throughout 2000 the inappropriateness of the WIRPC as a place to hold children and families became clearer. While efforts were made by those working at the WIRPC for DIMIA and Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) to meet the needs of children and families with the resources available, it is my opinion that the detention environment at the WIRPC simply cannot meet those needs and it was not a safe and healthy environment for children.
16. In developing the infrastructure at the WIRPC, we did not have any input from people with expertise in the needs of children. This was not an area in which I had any experience or training, and the pressure under which we worked at the WIRPC to keep the centre running, especially following riots, meant that it was not a priority in the work I was doing.
17. I was not aware of any Immigration Detention Standards, such as now exist, when I was involved in setting up Woomera.
Development of the WIRPC
18. In about late March or early April 2000 there were the first serious disturbances at the WIRPC which ended in rioting and a break-out. This seemed to have been caused most significantly by the frustration of detainees at the time taken to process their claims. I was aware that the first group of detainees were held in detention for almost four months before they had their first proper interview with DIMIA to assess their claims for a protection visa.
19. From my experience in the Department I am of the view that, although the large increase in the number of people arriving unlawfully created difficulties for the processing of protection visas, resources could have been made available to quicken processing but were not. There was a view held within DIMIA of which I was aware that to quicken processing would be to “give in” to the detainees, especially following the disturbances.
20. It is my opinion that the processing of protection visa applications in a transparent and efficacious way would have significantly changed the dynamic of the WIRPC. Even if the physical conditions in the centre had been improved, the frustration of the detainees at the time taken and the lack of information provided about the process made the conditions for all detainees far more difficult that they needed to be. The sometimes severe psychological stress being felt by detainees was obvious.
21. To my knowledge, no priority was given to the processing of protection visa applications by children, including unaccompanied minors and children in family units. People were interviewed in turn.
22. After the first rioting and break-out in April 2000, the main concern with infrastructure was security, such as trying to ensure that the fences could not be breached. The needs of children were, again, not a priority. It was following this time that the WIRPC became more like a detention centre and its conditions came to be that of a medium to high security detention facility.
23. There seemed to be great concern politically with making the conditions in the camp such that others may be deterred from coming to Australia, and this influenced the development of the WIRPC by DIMIA. Children were basically caught up in this.
24. I was in the WIRPC compounds every day and could see negative effects of detention on the children such as crying, distress, signs of depression, inappropriate attachment to female figures such as nurses. Sometimes I raised particular things I had seen with the centre manager, but found that I had to divorce myself from operations and concentrate on infrastructure.
25. Security for children at the WIRPC was a problem because, although families had separate rooms, the main compound had a mixed population which still included many single men. I was aware that ACM officers did patrol the compound with a view to minimise the risks to children’s safety, but the arrangements did create problems for children and families.
26. A separate compound was developed while I was working at the WIRPC for women and children but it was then used for accommodating Afghani detainees. I understand that there may now be a compound for families operating at the WIRPC.
27. I had suggested that the area opposite the WIRPC be made into a walk-in, walk-out centre for women and children so that they could be accommodated separately and visit male family members daily in the main camp. I thought this would be a significant improvement but the proposal was rejected. I believe cost was a prime reason for this rejection.
28. Cost was always a governing factor in infrastructure decisions, and this significantly limited the ability of staff on the ground at the WIRPC to readily remedy deficiencies in the infrastructure of the WIRPC.
Facilities for Education and Recreation
29. Initially it was thought that children would be able to attend the local school. However it was decided to provide education in the WIRPC because this required less staff to facilitate it, and also because there were concerns from people in the Woomera township about having children from the detention centre in the mainstream school – for example, there were concerns expressed about exposure of local children to infectious diseases.
30. It took a long time to establish an education block. There was a kindergarten set up fairly early in the operation of the WIRPC, but most education took place in the open air and under shade-cloths. There was not a lot of push for education facilities from ACM because school was not generally well-attended and there was, to my knowledge, no real curriculum in the early stages.
31. When an education centre was set up in a demountable building, it was the target of vandalism and burnt to the ground before it came into commission.
32. Further attempts were made while I was working at the WIRPC to have education provided externally. In particular, the Catholic school in Woomera which had closed to students, was suggested. However, the idea was rejected by DIMIA management. I believe the rejection was because ACM believed schooling should be provided within the detention facilities and because additional staff resources would be required to manage school attendance out-of-centre.
33. Playground equipment that had been dismantled from the town had been made available to the WIRPC but it sat dismantled for many months because ACM had concerns about legal liability in the event that children were hurt. Ultimately DIMIA insisted that it be put up to give children something to play on. It was modern, plastic equipment that had been in use until recently in the town before the downturn in Woomera’s population made it surplus to requirements.
34. There was no grass and children played on gravel at the WIRPC. It would have been, in my view, difficult to have established a lawn in the centre and we did try to put down some softer sand but that was too difficult for children to run and play on. I thought that a solution to this would have been to use the town oval, which was hardly used, for recreation. However this was resisted by ACM and DIMIA again essentially on the basis of extra staffing and compromised security.
35. Kids did have some excursions to the park in town, but these were infrequent – perhaps once every 10 days. However, they became less regular and were temporarily cancelled when there were disturbances in the centre.
Conclusion
36. My overriding concern with the detention of the children at the WIRPC relates to the inappropriateness of the environment that exists there for children. While I believe that I did the best I could in the circumstances, the parameters are fundamentally flawed when it comes to providing for children’s needs.
I make this solemn declaration by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 as amended and subject to the penalties provided by that Act for the making of false statements in statutory declarations, conscientiously believing the statements contained in this declaration to be true in every particular.
Signed 1 July 2002
Last Updated 30 June 2003.
