Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

Human Rights navigation


Click here to return to the Submission Index

Submission to the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from

International Commission of Jurists, Queensland Branch


Introduction

Background Statistics on Children in Australian Detention Centres

International Obligations and Laws Governing Detention of Children

A. Some Rights and Obligations of Asylum Seekers under Australian Law and Standards

Appropriate and Proper Care of People in Immigration Detention

The DIMIA Regime, what it purports to do and how it is in breach of the CROC

Conclusion and Summary



Introduction


This submission will focus on the current Australian immigration detention regime as it applies to minors. The regime will be examined based on data and information made available by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“DIMIA”) and supporting documentation ranging from government publications, the Flood Inquiry and testimonies given to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission “HREOC” under oath. International conventions, domestic statutes and case law will also be referred to in order to contextualise the socio-political ramifications of Australia’s continued practice in it’s detention institutions as well as to lay down the fundamental tenets that inform international governments, lawyers and social scientists in this field. Secondary sources will be used to reinforce the principles and policies that should inform as to the best methods of dealing with the influx of asylum seekers to Australia, with particular emphasis on children and unaccompanied minors.

This submission will examine the detention institutes both generally and specifically, with emphasis on improvements and variations of methodologies required. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) (Queensland Branch) strongly recommends that the Australian government revise its policy of institutionalising, isolating and detaining children irrespective of their geographical heritage. We will reaffirm that the Minister is the guardian of all children that come onto Australia waters, air and soil and in this regard has the highest duty of care with regard to these minors and should be accountable to the Australian public, be responsive to international policies that inform on human rights and the dignity of children as well as the minors detained through the immigration policy. There has been some change to the immigration/migration policies pursuant to the Flood Inquiry, and while we commend this, we argue that more needs to be done and that our submission should, to whatever relevant extent lend itself to proactive measures by the government of the day. For the general issue of detention of children continues to be important as a matter of human rights, law and policy.

Background Statistics on Children in Australian Detention Centres


According to DIMIA, between 1 July 2001 and 12 April 2002 a total of 1,871 minors have been taken into detention. [1] On 26 April 2002 it was estimated that there were 184 minors in detention, 70 females and 114 males. [2] Of these, nine minors were held in immigration detention unaccompanied and another 12 unaccompanied minors were held in other places of detention as stipulated below. [3] The Refugee Council of Australia published numbers of Children Held in Detention as at May 2, 2002 citing a total of 153 children in the immigration centres mentioned below, as well as 368 on Nauru and Manus Island. [4] Woomera IRPC held the largest numbers of minors, at 61, with Curtin IRPC holding 42 and Villawood IDC having 28. Port Hedland IRPC, Christmas Island IRPC, Maribynong IDC and Perth IDC also housed minors in detention. [5] In other places of detention such as hospitals, prison, remand centres or alternate places of detention there were 24 minors. [6]

A year later the figures show that there has been a significant decrease in the number of children in detention centres but maintain that the presence of 33 such children is of ongoing concern to the ICJ. It is accepted that there is a decrease in the number of children being detained. It is submitted that even if detention is viewed as a last resort for children, it is imperative to note that detention like situations in the community will have similar detrimental effects.


International Obligations and Laws Governing Detention of Children



“Each child has his or her human dignity and the same needs: for protection of his or her personality, for integrity and privacy…Each child is an individual person whose personality and identity should enjoy universal recognition and respect…”


Current International Law Regime: International law, is a system of law comprising widely accepted rules and principles, which govern the international relations between sovereign States and other institutional subjects of international law. [8] These rules and principles, articulated in documents like treaties, conventions, charters and other such instruments, impose obligations only on the members of the international community who choose to be bound by them.[9] This may include an obligation limiting a government’s freedom of action.[10] The success of the international system of law depends exclusively on the political will of sovereign States, to firstly agree to be bound by such principles, and secondly to fulfil these obligations once they voluntarily agree to be bound by them. [11]

Each sovereign State has the capacity to act in a way which it individually feels is consistent with the legal obligations it has become a signatory to. [12] In Australia, ratification of a treaty or convention requires active adoption of the relevant instrument into domestic law in order to create enforceable rights. [13]

Following the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came a series of specific declarations and conventions, which canvassed a diverse range of human rights law. [14]

Treaties or Conventions Dealing Generally and Specifically with Child Refugees or Child Asylum Seekers: The ICJ believes that the following treaties should inform the government of their obligations under international laws:


(1) Specifically


(a) The Convention on the Rights of a Child (1989)
(b) The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and its protocol (1967)



(2) Generally


(a) Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954)
(b) Convention Against Discrimination in Education (1960)
(c) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)
(d) Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961)
(e) International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) (1966)
(f) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rigths (1966)
(g) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979)
(h) Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984).

In recent years Australia has gained a reputation for being a willing signatory to a number of treaties and conventions which articulate strong views on human rights concerns. It is an even greater challenge for sovereign States such as Australia to follow through the international law regime which has no legal ramification until it has been incorporated into domestic law.

We contend that the institutionalised detention of minors in detention centres has been under circumstances that breach international principles and are contrary to the international law principles Australia is widely known to accept. The importance of these conventions is reflected in the fact that over half of the world’s refugees are children under the age of 18. [15]

The Significance of the Convention on the Rights of a Child (1989) (“CROC”): The most important convention to this discussion is the CROC, which expands on the general principles governing rights of refugees which is found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [16] and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and its 1967 Protocol.[17] The latest figures show that CROC has 140 signatories and 191 countries are State Parties. [18]

The Four Main CROC Principles: CROC covers virtually all areas of the life of a child and regardless of their immigration status, all children are entitled to the full enjoyment of the rights enshrined within the convention. [19] There are four main principles which are considered to be the core of CROC. [20]

1. Best interests of the child. This is found in Article 3(1) of CROC:


‘In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.’



2. Right to non-discrimination. This is found in Article 2 of CROC:


i. ‘States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.’
ii. ‘States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.’


3. Right to participation and survival. This is found in Article 12(1) of CROC:


i. ‘States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.’


4. Right to development. This is found in Article (6):


i. ‘States Parties recognise that every child has the inherent right to life.’
ii. ‘States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.’


Other salient features of CROC: Include the right to family provision embraced in Article 5 :[21]


i. ‘States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognised in the present Convention.’

: Refuge-seeking children are entitled to the same educational opportunities as citizen children.[22] That is under Arts 28 and 29 of CROC respectively. There is a requirement on the Department of Immigration to ensure there is compulsory primary education, encourage secondary education and to make higher education accessible. [23] However, all international obligations that the Department owes are subject to policies taken on by the States and this has varying implications depending on the State where the detention centre happens to be located. [24]

: There is an obligation to ensure that suitable staff under competent supervision carry out the health and well being of the child as provided for under Arts. 2 and 6(2) of CROC. [25] The Department also owes children who are intellectually and physically disabled special obligations under Arts 23 and 25 of CROC respectively. [26]

:There is an obligation to provide for adequate and appropriate recreational resources under Arts 17 and 31 of CROC. [27]

:There is also a right to compensation for arbitrary detention and this should be applied to minors as well as adults in accordance with 9(1) and 9(4) (ICCPR). [28] In A v Australia [29] the applicant was held in detention for over three-years and was awarded compensation because detention was arbitrary and in contravention of arts 9(1) and 9(4) (ICCPR). Adequate compensation ‘for the length of detention’ is provided for under art. 2(3) (ICCPR), but Australia to date has not compensated ‘A’. [30]

Australian Law Governing Detention of Refugee Children

The Commonwealth has power to make laws regarding naturalisation of aliens, immigration and emigration, and the influx of criminals; therefore the Commonwealth has power to make laws in relation to preventing entry of non-citizens. [31]

‘Asylum-Seekers’ are subject to the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) [32] and must be a non-citizen to whom Australia owes protection obligations under the International Conventions. [33] Although regulated by the Act, international laws do have an impact on Australia’s domestic laws. [34]

A. Some Rights and Obligations of Asylum Seekers under Australian Law and Standards


Rights of Asylum Seekers:


1. Valid Visa Applications: It may be that ‘Asylum-Seekers’ will be unable to make valid visa applications depending on their place of arrival.[35] However, a person is entitled upon request to application forms for a visa or all reasonable facilities for making a statutory declaration for the purposes of obtaining legal advice or taking legal proceedings.[36]

2. Review of Refusal to Grant Visa Application: Decisions to refuse to grant or to cancel protection visas are reviewable. [37]

3. Review of Late Application: Where an original application is unsuccessful, only new information can be considered in a later application. [38]

4. Reasons by the Minister: The Minister is obliged to give reasons that the applicant understands and can comment on. [39]

5. Minister as Guardian of children: The Minister is the guardian of non-citizen children who enter Australia without being in the care of relatives that intend to become permanent residents (unaccompanied minors). [40] Guardianship is conferred under section 6 of the IGOC Act. This includes the basic human needs of the child as well as all of Australia’s international obligations to the child. [41] Although the Minister has delegated most of his powers and functions under the IGOC Act to various officers of the State or Territory departments responsible for child welfare through Memorandum’s of Understanding (MOU’s) [42] the duties owed to children under his custody are still to be discharged by the Department on behalf of the relevant Minister.

6. Substantial Justice: A Refugee Review Tribunal is to be fair, just, economical, informal and quick and must act according to substantial justice and merits of the case. [43]

Obligations of Asylum Seekers:


7. Obligations of Detainees to pay: It is possible to require detainees to pay a daily amount for their maintenance whilst detained as well as their costs of removal or deportation. [44]

8. Section 189 Persons: Persons detained under section 189 must be kept in immigration detention until they are deported or granted a visa. [45] There is no provision for earlier release by the courts or otherwise. [46]

9. Third Country Principles: Third Country resettlement may be possible. [47] Australia’s obligations extend only to persons who have taken all possible steps to enter and reside in another country. [48]

10. Arrival without identification: Arrival without identification should not be interpreted as an attempt to defraud the system because refugees are at risk of persecution and loss of documents is not unusual. [49] However, they may not be eligible for permanent residence and may only be granted a three year Temporary Protection Visa (TPV). [50]

It is acknowledged that there is no common law right to enter into Australia. [51]

 

Appropriate and Proper Care of People in Immigration Detention


Immigration Detention Standards: The Immigration Detention Standards (IDS) set out the appropriate and proper care of people in immigration detention including the requirement to provide safe and secure detention. [52] These standards also establish a right to educational services and the right to be called by name and not to be referred to as a number. There are guidelines that all persons have access to health facilities and specialist facilities where required.

In particular Standard 9.1 provides that children with ‘special needs’ be identified to increase their quality of life.[53] The Standards further cover a range of services including accommodation, food, clothing, bedding, religion and recreation.[54] However, these are standards only as the Department has limited facilities. [55]

Duty of Care owed by Department and the Services Provider:
Both the Department and the Services Provider are required to meet duty of care obligations, which go beyond the provision of basic needs; these commitments require the provision of a “safe and secure physical environment and, to the fullest extent possible, the prevention of physical, verbal or cultural abuse, sexual harassment, neglect and any other abuse.” [56]

Duty of care obligations also require the provision of appropriate educational programs and above this is the duty of care to all detainee children, in particular unaccompanied minors because of the Minister’s guardianship responsibilities for these children, as discussed above. [57]

Services Provider: The Services Provider is required to have a case management plan for all children within 14 days of being taken into detention to ensure that their needs are met and regularly reviewed. The Status report on each unaccompanied minor should be provided weekly to High Risk Assessment Team meetings held within the facility, and each Services Provider Centre Manger provides a written report weekly on the welfare of all unaccompanied minors to the DIMIA Manager. [58]

The DIMIA Regime, what it purports to do and how it is in breach of the CROC


What DIMIA claims to be doing: It is submitted that many of the claims put forward by DIMIA are to be commended, given the staff training and development needs necessary to implement many of the programs to be monitored by the Services Provider Centre Manger and DIMIA Manager. DIMIA have stated that the detention centres run various programs to enhance the detainees stay, including:


“education services for children and adults, including English language instruction, cultural classes and sporting activities. Detainees are free to practice their religion of choice…Detainees are provided with three meals daily, which are developed by qualified cooks/chefs in consultation with qualified dieticians. Detainees have input into the formulation of culturally appropriate menus through the Detainee Representative Committees and often are involved in the preparation of meals. Milk is available for the children to drink.” [59]

They go on to explain that children have access also to health, welfare and psychological services. [60]

DIMIA’s Breach of the CROC: The majority of children in detention (56) were aged between five to ten years of age. [61] Those aged between 11-15 years numbered 50. There were 41 between 16-17years and 35 were under five years of age. Nine of those were less than a year old.[62] A report of the Senate Standing Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee into Refugee Detention Centres in 2001 indicates that being exposed to a detention environment as a baby and in early childhood is not favourable to healthy development. [63]

This would seem consistent with the fact that the early years are seen as vitally important for future development of the brain both cognitively, in terms of future learning and emotionally in terms of developing a healthy secure attachment to a caregiver. [64] This attachment has been found to be necessary for the child to develop trust, self-identity, independence, self-esteem, social skills – such as forming meaningful relationships and knowing the difference between right and wrong, emotional stability and control, sensitivity and empathy with others. [65]

It is submitted that many of the duties of proper care and support that DIMIA is supposed to be providing fall far short of that department’s own standard and certain key issues are addressed to highlight these short fallings. It is further submitted that due to these drastic short fallings that DIMIA is in fact in breach of the CROC and that the Minister is outside of the general standard of care owed to children in detention centres. Below are some reasons that have informed the ICJ perspective that the DIMIA needs to make reference to it’s own commendable standards and maintain them as it would be obliged to by the community it represents and is accountable to.

Parental Responsibilities and Support: DIMIA have stipulated that the responsibility for nurturing and disciplining the children, ensuring hygiene and cleanliness, supervising and encouraging participation in recreational and educational activities remains with the parents. However, they state that the detention centres provide assistance by way of parenting programs such as newsletters, tape-recorded information and sessions run by police.[66] Parents are also the mechanism through which minors in detention are able to have their say about their needs, apart from unaccompanied minors who are regularly spoken to by DIMIA Managers and Deputy Managers. [67]

If minors are assessed as having emotional issues and their parents are assessed as possibly depressed or with poor coping skills they are treated and monitored by the High Risk Assessment Team. [68] The Services Provider encourages all staff (such as teachers) to be aware of children in need and then deal with them pro-actively.[69] Children who self-harm are referred to appropriate professionals and counsellors. [70] The Detention Centre staff also take on the role of “mandated notifiers” and are required to report suspected incidents or risk of child abuse or neglect. [71]

An example of the negative developmental effect of detention was outlined by a Perth paediatrician, a previous Woomera employee who had examined a child born in detention:


“I met him in August and he was six months old. When I went back in January, he was still there with his family and he was barely able to crawl. He was showing all the signs of a year’s worth of environmental deprivation.” [72]

Recommendation: It is submitted that in detention centres, parents are no longer in control of the living situation and may often be unable to control the situation because of their reactions to the circumstances. If a parent is depressed, emotionally detached or feeling helpless they are unable to focus on the needs of their child, provide them with nurturing, support and protection and as such the children may experience neglect both emotionally and physically. [73]

Another aspect, which prevents children developing this attachment and adds to the alienation between parents and child, is the state of mind of the parents. These people may also be subject to depression and their own symptoms, for example, of post-traumatic stress disorder and may then be contributing to their child’s trauma and disruption in their emotional development. [74] Specifically, “parents experiencing post-traumatic symptoms are often extremely irritable, have unstable moods and poorer impulse control.[75] ” Children are frightened and traumatized by these symptoms. [76]

A related instance is that the normal behaviour of terrible toddlers may result in abusive discipline. [77] An example of the problem was outlined by a Psychiatrist from the Rural and Remote Mental Health Service. She stated that a severely depressed and possibly psychotic mother had concerns that she would harm her 5 month old child. The child was subsequently removed from her care and placed with another family. The mother and child were finally admitted to the hospital and treated but are now back in detention. [78] The reality of this is seemingly addressed by the treatment and monitoring by the High Risk Assessment Team, however the numbers who are affected does not look to be reflected in those cared for by this Team and there is some question about the qualifications of those in the team.

It is further submitted that the regimentation and control exhibited in the detention environment can confuse the child in relation to roles and responsibilities. They discover that their parents are not in control and so this effects their view of the parents and how they respond to their authority, in turn breaking down the family unit. [79]

Unaccompanied Minors: For unaccompanied minors a mentoring program is in place in which an adult (usually a parent of a child of similar age and cultural background as the minor) is delegated with the task of assisting the minor to maintain their culture and language. [80] This again raises issues if this adult is effected by depression, etc and further there seems to be a gap with respect to other issues that the minor may require assistance with and how they should vent these.

Recommendation: As mentioned earlier, all children are to have a case management plan as assessed by a qualified Services provider to ensure needs are met satisfactorily, however there seems to be a question regarding the follow up to this. [81] Primarily, this issue should be resolved on the basis that the DIMIA, under the supervision of the Minister, owe a duty of care to children in detention and it is our contention that this duty has been breached. The Minister is the guardian of these unaccompanied minors and as long as they remain within the Minister’s jurisdiction and should not be disadvantaged for want of adult representation and concern for their needs.

Violence in Detention Centres: A report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 1998 found evidence of violence between detainees and between detainees and custodial officers. [82] The Flood Report also found that during the year 2000 “a small proportion of detention officer staff were treating detainees including children as if they were criminals, intimidation and verbal abuse occurred.” [83]

It has been submitted that children are further exposed to violence in the detention centre in the form of witnessing the violence between adults, the protest action such as riots and hunger strikes, self mutilation and attempts at suicide, searches of both rooms and bodies, tear gas, water canons and in some centres nightly headcounts, disrupting sleep, along with the public address system which can run into the night, when many children should be sleeping. [84]


Recommendation: It is acknowledged by the ICJ that the Minister has taken heed of the Flood Report and that new endeavours to ensure that personnel of a corrective centre background are not left with the sole responsibility of managing the proper security within the detention centres. However, it is also acknowledged that this must be across all detention facilities in Australia and on pacific shores to eliminate the stigma that is attached with seeking refuge and asylum on foreign shores- it is not a crime to flee persecution and it is imperative that asylum seekers and refugees be treated with humanity according to Australia’s laws and international conventions.

Sexual Abuse: There have been alleged cases of sexual abuse in Curtin which the Australian Association for the Welfare of Child Health states is evidence of the danger of confining children and adults (who are often suffering from various levels of mental distress). [85]

Recommendation: It is submitted that the staff employed by DIMIA are not necessarily qualified to identify certain symptoms. Further, there are inherent problems with detention centre staff making these observations, particularly as they may be ‘blind’ to the problem, either due to the length of their contracts and confidentiality issues may create barriers in obtaining assistance. It is therefore recommended that continued staff development be introduced in these areas and that clear mandates be put in place to cover any privacy/ confidentiality concerns that may cause ethical and moral dilemmas to staff. Staff themselves can easily recommend the DIMIA Manager and the office of the Minister as to what concerns they face and how they have previously dealt with these issues.

Cultural diversity: The Refugee experience itself contributes to a large amount of cultural loss and bereavement. On arrival the refugee will often experience disorientation and confusion associated with the “culture shock” of a new lifestyle, environment, government systems including legal, educational, health and welfare avenues. [86]
Iranian minors figure the highest among children in detention at 70, with Afghanis numbering 52 and Iraqis 29. [87] The remaining 33 are drawn from nationalities such as Chinese, Sri Lankans, Palestinians, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Indians, Malaysians and others. [88]

DIMIA have indicated that in 2001 that more than 40 languages were present in the mainland detention centres, including Arabic, Cantonese, Dari, Farsi, Filipino, Indonesian, Korean, Singhalese, Tamil, Thai, Turkish and Vietnamese. [89] DIMA and the Service Provider engage interpreters for receiving and orientating detainees or explaining changes in routine at the centre, discussing complaints and requests, attending the medical detention facility and processing of property or money requests. [90] There are on-site interpreters competent in common languages, and for those not so common a telephone interpreter is organised unless face-to-face is necessary. In general day-to-day communication other detainees often act as interpreters. [91]

Recommendation: It is not good standard practice where proper care and support are due for the DIMIA to rely on interpreters whose own language skills may not be appropriate and whose motives may present a conflict of interest dilemma to be placed in this position. It is further asserted that the facilities provided for interpretation in matters that touch and concern the lives of people is insufficient. For instance, cultural issues may prevent women, children and younger persons, for example, from openly discussing matters with male interpreters or other members of a family having to hear and relate distressing times to others. It is a fact that in war-time, as in times of peace, women and children are disproportionately disenfranchised and this many include anything from homeland dispossession to rape and torture- issues which may constitute a cultural taboo. The same may happen to men.

Religious Diversity: DIMIA aims to maintain religious diversity by facilitating visits by accredited religious personnel and making space and equipment available for religious services. The Service Provider may also vary food or meal times to respect “particular religious practices such as Ramadan. [92] ” However, it would seem that only particular religions are catered for and certainly most rituals are not catered for.

Recommendation: It is strongly recommended that detention officers participate in cultural awareness training as an essential element of their staff development training. Bodies such as the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture and the Refugee Council [93] are equipped to do this if the relevant Ministry is not. It has been found however that sometimes this training does not happen, and it is certainly very limited in depth. Cultural and religious awareness could certainly improve the relations between the staff and asylum seekers. The limited access in detention to communities, religious organisations (and places of worship) and appropriate schools and cultural activities such as rituals, which would normally be available to support the child’s cultural development in mainstream society may have a negative impact on children’s ability to cope with change and a sense of identity. [94] As multiculturalism and not assimilation is the ideology of the day, it is recommended that this should inform the DIMIA on how it views the importance of cultural and religious expression in detention centres.

The DIMIA is commended for taking heed of the Flood Report where it was identified that there was limited privacy and respect accorded to asylum seekers who were previously identified as a number rather than a name. It is hoped that this practice has been stoped for good. However, such impersonal anonymity may still exist where guardians lose the role of the parent [95] in an environment that appears to be prejudice and discriminatory through it’s isolation from others with similar cultural backgrounds. This leads to less acculturation and as such contributes to an increased risk for mental health problems. [96]

Health and Disability: When detainees arrive at a centre they participate in an initial health assessment and medical personnel attempt to assess whether the child displays signs of past trauma or developmental harm.[97] There are 24 hour, seven day a week medical centres in all centres to meet needs of triage, nursing and first aid. [98] Access to this facility is sometimes by way of an appointment being made (often by a security officer if they deem it necessary.) [99] Otherwise, medication is distributed (depending on the centre) between once to four times daily. [100] If detainees cannot be treated within detention they are referred off-site. [101]

DIMIA further states that Doctors usually visit the centres daily and are on call at all times, psychologists or counsellors are available either on site or by referral and centres housing children “try to ensure that nursing or general practitioner staff have experience in paediatrics or child health.” [102] In addition, attempts are made at employing staff who have experience in dealing with torture or trauma sufferers. [103] All medical staff are given (if possible) a one-day orientation program including cultural awareness sessions. [104]
DIMIA have stipulated that it is the responsibility of the Service Provider to ensure that detainees have suitable clothing and footwear for their age, gender and other needs. [105]
Specifically, for children milk and fruit is available, however parents must request baby food from the Services Provider and baby formula is available from the medical centres. [106]

However, the guidelines above seem to be in dispute with the claims by an Adelaide Solicitor in relation to Woomera who states that:

In a similar vein, Barnados Australia has described a case study of a five year old girl with multiple disabilities who came to detention with her father. Medical staff were aware that she suffered from asthma. When she became ill and was constantly coughing her father took her to the medical centre but was told to make sure she kept up her fluid intake. Two weeks later when the illness continued he was given cough medicine. It took three months for an inhaler to be granted. Medical tests were carried out on the girl without an interpreter or any explanation being provided for her father. Doctors noted on medical certificates that further investigations were necessary to diagnose the extent of her brain damage but no follow up was arranged. [108]

As at 30 April 2002 there were 9 children with assessed disabilities (such as congenital, intellectual and psychological disabilities, speech impediments, delayed cognitive skills and language acquisition) in detention. [109]

Recommendation: The Services Provider is required to have a case management plan for all children within 14 days of being taken into detention to ensure that their needs are met and regularly reviewed. This is a standard known by the DIMIA and expected of the Services Provider. Again, the DIMIA is commended for introducing standards to properly care and support asylum seekers but it must ensure that these are maintained at all times. It is also submitted that the mental health of children under the guardianship of the Minister aught to receive the treatment and proper care that will equip them to join the community at large.

In discussing the effects that detention has on children we must recognise that many of these children come from environments in their own country in which they were exposed to many traumatic or torturous events such as war, persecution and abuse, leading to possible loss of family members, displacement and the associated conditions such as poverty and ill health. [110]

Mental Health: Detainees (including children) have been found to exhibit symptoms of depression, extreme anger, bitterness, resentment, urges of self-destruction and suicide, social withdrawal and absence of emotions, numbness, guilt, fear, sadness and alienation as well as post-traumatic stress disorder. [111]

Post-traumatic stress disorder in children is exhibited in such symptoms as disorganised behaviour, compulsory repeated behaviour or monotonous play, nightmares without recognisable content, panic attacks, lack of interest in previously enjoyed activities, tension, fear in the dark (before falling asleep or in the bathroom), lower self-confidence and loss of attributes such as language or hygiene abilities. [112] In a Media Statement by President Professor Alice Tay AM and Dr Sev Ozdowski, Human Rights Commissioner OAM the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission recently reported on an interview with a family member of a 13 year old boy in Woomera:


“We notice that while he sleep he talks and screams: “fire, fire, fire,” and jumps up from sleep in nightmares…We ask him to go and bring a book and he forgets about that and when he is walking he walks disordered and not concentrating.” [113]


Julian Burnside QC has reported of a friend’s visit to Woomera in which she witnessed two teenage girls wearing nappies. When she questioned this observation she was advised that the stress had made them incontinent. [114]

International research indicates that refugee children are traumatized through their experience as a member of an oppressed group and that their recovery then depends on the individual child’s response to that experience as well as the environment in which the recovery is expected to take place. [115] That is, the trauma experienced in their own country and in flight is further “exacerbated by being placed in detention centres and the uncertainty about their future…” [116] This was seen to be the case in Australia where a report of a survey of 25 detained asylum seekers in Maribyrnong when compared with a similar study of community-based asylum seekers, suggested that detainees were more affected by depression, suicidal tendencies and other symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder than their counterparts within the community, even when taking into account their often higher level of past trauma prior to presenting to detention. [117]

The longer in the detention environment the more serious the consequences. Of the minors in detention, 12 have been detained for up to three months, 11 for three to six months, 42 for six to nine months, 36 for nine to twelve months, 55 for twelve to eighteen months and 28 for longer than eighteen months. [118]

Michael Dudley of Suicide Prevention Australia compiled a table of “Medically Serious Suicide Attempts by Children and Youth in Immigration Detention Centres” which included incidents of hanging, slashing, hunger-strikes, lip-sewing and ingestion of shampoo by children between 10 and 18 years in the centres of Villawood, Maribyrnong, Woomera and Port Hedland from January 2001 to April 2002. [119]

The incidence of Post-Traumatic Stress disorder and indeed other symptoms of mental illness can be intensified by the fact that parents are often also affected and unable to provide support. [120]

Sultan and O’Sullivan have observed a link between the status of an asylum claim and the mental state of the asylum seekers. They have found that although initially suffering some shock and dismay when entering detention the asylum seekers retain some hope. However, as the process continues through to a rejection by DIMIA, and then the Refugee Review Tribunal the asylum seeker moves into more and more serious depressive states. Children have been found to also obsess over the stage of the asylum seeking process and children of parents who are at the most severe depressive stage are more vulnerable to develop disorders and extreme distress such as mutism, stereotypic behaviours and refusal to eat or drink. [121]

Amnesty International [122] outlined a case of a child who was initially at Woomera with his family where they made their refugee application. At Woomera the child witnessed amongst other things, detainees setting fire to themselves in the riots. He stopped speaking for part of the day and displayed signs of fear such as huddling in the foetal position on certain triggers. He refused food and refused to participate in activities, fearing his family would be harmed if he left. A Woomera psychologist diagnosed him as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and recommended urgent expert treatment and removal from the environment of the detention centre.

Once transferred to Villawood the child began treatment at a Children’s Hospital on referral from a Nurse requesting assessment and advice regarding the child’s “history of night terrors, bed wetting and aggressive behaviour, following incidents of witness to self-harm.” It was expressed that he was “totally withdrawn, not speaking, not eating…” The child would draw “pictures of people standing up against the barbed wire fencing with wire coils at the top. (He also drew his family, and ACM Guard shouting and a man cutting his wrists with blood running from his wrists.)” [123] The child was diagnosed with acute traumatisation and was at risk of dehydration due to poor fluid intake and the Senior Clinical Psychologist stated the symptoms developed:


“in the context of the physically restraining environment of the detention centres in which (on May 2001) he has now resided for close to fourteen months… They are also perpetuated by the lack of predictability regarding his future and inability of his parents to reassure him due to their own uncertainty, and furthermore by the lack of stable peer group in that other children move out of the detention centre while he stays behind.” [124]

Barnados Australia talk of case studies in which this seems to be demonstrated, such as a young man who has now become “involved in antisocial behaviour…He was seriously disturbed and anti-social, demonstrating violent behaviour.” [125] Another example offered by the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health is of a toddler who exhibits phobias due to the experience in detention, where even cyclone fencing distresses him. [126]


Recommendation: The Australasian Society for Traumatic Stress Studies states that mental illnesses and consequences of such do not necessarily recede once released, but instead may manifest at this time. [127] In fact, the above findings are consistent with theories which indicate that if “people come to perceive their situation to be one over which they have no control … they become anxious and subsequently depressed.” [128] Alternatively or in addition the onset of symptoms and consequences of mental illness an have delayed effects and cause difficulties in functioning in adulthood reducing the value of these children to the workforce and the community in the future. [129] It is therefore recommended that post-traumatic stress disorder in children in detention centres should be treated with expediency and the highest priority.

The DIMIA cannot be said to be exercising appropriate and reasonable care if children are allowed to suffer mental disease without redress, furthermore this cycle is likely to carry itself into the adult life of the child and cause further social, economic and emotional impediments to what would otherwise be a normal, healthy adult life. The Mental Health Care Facilities in the detention centres should be evaluated according to their usefulness and only well trained staff should be expected to report on and detect mental illness in children as it arises or within a reasonable time of the child’s arrival in the detention centre. There should also be adequate support for the parent’s of children who are going through trauma on how to best restore feelings of confidence and esteem in the child as well as a willingness to embrace change.

Facilities and Hygiene: The Adelaide Solicitor mentioned above also claims that in Woomera there were (at the time of witnessing) two working toilets for 700 people, which were both leaking and had sand on the floor to soak up the leak, four working showers for 700 people with hot water only available after midnight, no air-conditioning, fly screens or heating (which is exacerbated by the extremes of temperature reached in the area).[130] It would seem that observations by the Western Australia inspector of Custodial Services supports this view in respect particularly of Curtin as he states “many of the toilets were broken, some of the washing machines were also broken…and above all, medical and dental facilities were inadequate…Such evidence as exists indicates things are little better at the other centres…” [131]

In another instance, an affidavit by an Iraqi woman has been referred to in a number of papers [132] outlining a day in August 2000 at approximately 5.00 a.m. when her family was separated and she was put in a cell with her daughters, while her husband and sons (including a 5 year old) had been put in solitary confinement. She specifically refers to her time in the cell and that after refused requests to guards to open the door so that the children may use the toilet for two days they were left to use a plastic bag found in the cell to relieve themselves. [133]

Recommendation: It would seem from reports that the low numbers of toilet and shower facilities, as well as absence of heating and cooling in such harsh environments may have an adverse impact on hygiene and subsequently on the health of children. Immigration Detention Standards (IDS) should be applied to the health and hygiene of children in detention centres as set out by DIMIA. It is acknowledged that these are guidelines that apply to all persons ensuring access to health facilities and specialist facilities where required. It is submitted that the current DIMIA health regime is in breach of CROC and the general standards the community would expect should apply to children who are under the guardianship of the Minister.

Education: DIMIA has indicated that if a child is likely to remain in detention for a longer period of time, a formal assessment of educational needs aims at providing appropriate and tailored education. [134] Sometimes children have access to education on-site, and occasionally are placed in local schools (if detained at Curtin, Port Hedland or Maribyrnong). [135] DIMIA further states that they expect educational programs to be available at a pre-school, primary and secondary level and that they are provided, as far as possible in line with State/Territory curricula. [136] The main subjects at a primary level are English, mathematics, art, physical education and computer skills while secondary subjects are English, mathematics, physical education and computing. [137]

It is further submitted that the hours of schooling are not on par with the community. Hours of educational programs and resources vary between centres. Woomera [138] provides a program at St Michael’s (former Catholic school in Woomera township) that runs from 9a.m. to 12p.m. on weekdays and incorporates one class for all children. [139] However, at the Perth Centre, which houses the least amount of children three hours of education a week are provided. [140]

Professor Richard Harding has identified the problems in educational services provided in Curtin Detention centre which he inspected in June 2001:


“A glossy brochure indicated that children were receiving 5 hours daily education in four different groups. In reality, they were receiving one hour’s education. Teaching took place between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m.; thereafter, the children stayed in the teaching area until 11.00a.m., during which time some contact with the teacher might occur; then there was a lunch break until 1.00p.m; and after that so called ‘homework’, if the children felt like doing it, occurred in the classroom area until about 2.00 p.m.” [141]

Recommendation: It has been stated that there is a lack of follow up or transition in the child’s educational progress; specifically, no assessment files are kept, there is no set curriculum and there are merely scarce resources in some centres. [142] It is submitted that it is therefore not possible to provide a holistic approach to education if such scant attention is given to the development of children and their curriculum. Also the requirement for extensive resources to provide the necessary breadth of curriculum and support for these children is not present and indeed lower than if a child was enrolled in a State school.[143] It follows that if refugee children are to be successfully integrated into Australian society they should not be at an educative disadvantage that will continue to set them back well into their productive and adult lives. The circumstances of the limited consistent full-time education facilities and exclusion from mainstream education as well as insufficient play areas may lead to impaired development. This is particularly so as “predictability of being able to access play and education facilities to the same level as children in the general population will create a sense of normalcy which is of paramount importance to their development." [144]

Further, the integrated school system which has been taken up in part by the DIMIA, can provide an alternative network for security and support to enhance physical, cognitive and developmental opportunities. [145] However, this may be impeded by the high turnover of teachers, as is evident from statements of teachers from Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre who explained that they were employed on contracts for six weeks, which could then be extended by Australasian Correctional Management [146]. Also the teachers may lack the necessary qualifications/experience, for example the Education Department in South Australia asserts that only 1 of 5 teachers now employed at Woomera detention centre is registered in South Australia and only one is qualified to teach English as a Second Language. [147]

It should also be noted that as well as learning in English, opportunities should be provided to learn in their own language to maintain the child’s sense of identity and coping skills. [148] It is also imperative that parents and their children are not lost by the cultural divide that they are bound to experience if children are taught inadvertently to shun their own language.

Conclusion and Summary


Whilst it is acknowledged that the government of Australia is progressively detaining fewer children it is equally as important that the issues addressed in this submission are not transferred to other forms of detention within the community. Children who come to Australia as refugees need adequate facilities irrespective of where they are so that they can integrate into society without the added stigma of their status as refugees. It is imperative that the Australian law and policy makers consider the role that CROC should play in any formulation of law and policy impacting on children. While the decline in numbers of children in immigration detention is to be welcomed, that decline and the recognition of CROC that it indicates, should now foster a strong policy stand with respect to children in detention in any capacity. Recent proposals for changes to the
powers of ASIO, for example, included the possibility to detain children both over and under the age of 10, as well as the possibility to strip-search children over 10. There was no need to even inform parents of decisions about detention of children under that proposed regime.

Continuing attempts to write such breaches of CROC into law raise real rule of law concerns. Those proposals - together with the regime that has been detailed in our submission here - illustrate that the need for formal acknowledgment of CROC and the human rights of children in Australian law and policy. We contend that this remains a pressing issue in Australia. Detention of children should, in accordance with the CROC regime, always be a last resort. Detention style facilities in the community should also be avoided and every effort be made to ensure that policy makers and agencies involved in the management and integration of refugees be aware of the past problems, how these affect children in detention as well as when they are integrated into the community, importantly, it is important to be aware of the plethora of issues affecting refugees so that whatever model the government implements it is one that will not have the same negative effects as the detention model.

1. Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p29
2. Ibid at p30.
3. Ibid at p192.
4. Refugee Council of Australia on www.refugeecouncil.org.au citing source of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2/5/02)
5. Note 1 at p30.
6. Ibid.
7. Lopatka A, “The Rights of the Child are Universal: the Perspective of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child” in Freeman M and Veerman P, eds The Ideologies of Children’s Rights, London, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992 at 49.
8. Dixon, M, (MA) Textbook on International Law, 3rd Edition, Place, Blackstone Press Limited, 1990 at 2-3
9. Shaw, M N, International Law, 4th Edition, England, Cambridge University Press, 1997 at 73,75
10. Holsti K I, International Politics: A Framework for Analysis, 7th Edition, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1995 at 290
11. Note 8 at 11.
12. Note 10 at 297.
13. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, “Background Paper 1: Introduction” National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/background/introduction.html (29/04/02)
14. Kaye S and Piotrowicz R, Human Rights in International and Australian Law, Australia, Butterworths 2000 at 42
15. Van Bueren G, The International Law on the Rights of the Child London, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995 at 360.
16. Article 14(1): (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
17. Article 1(A)(2): A refugee is someone who “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself to the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
18. Article 33(1): Non-refoulement is the principle that prohibits the forcible return of any person to a country where they risk facing persecution on return. On http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/65humanitarian.htm – legislative changes in no way detract from these obligations.
19. The United Nations, “Convention on the Rights of a Child: United” United Nations Treaty Series, vol 1577 http://www.un.org.Depts/Treaty/final/ts2/newfiles/part_boo/iv_11..html (29/04/02)
20. Note 13.
21. Note 13.
22. Note 13.
23. Questionable whether Convention fetters executive powers – Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273; Submissions to the National Inquiry into Children in Detention Centres in: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/submissions/index.html#education
24. http://www.immi.gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf p79
25. Ibid at p87.
26. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf p57
27. Ibid at p58.
28. Ibid at p87.
29. Art 9(1) states that arbitrary detention is inappropriate and unjust; art. 9(4) allows for access to lawyers.
30. A (name deleted) v Australia, Communication No. 560/1993, Human Rights Committee, 59th session, 24 March – 11 April 1997, UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 dated 30 April 1997, reported in (1997) 9(3) International Journal of Refugee Law at 506.
31. Ministerial Rlease: www.minister.immi.gov.au/media _release/media97/97126a.htm
32. Section 51(xix), s51(xxvii), s51(xxviii) Constitution Act 1901 (Cth)., Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329.
33. Section 65(1) Migration Act 1958.
34. As outlined above, particularly in note 18.
35. The ICCPR art 10(1) applies. Mabo v Queensland (1992) 175 CLR 1@42; Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration v Ah Hin Teoh (1995) 128 ALR 353, referred to in Wu Yu Fang and 117 Others v. The Minister for Immigration And Ethnic Affairs and Commonwealth of Australia No. WAG 89 of 1995 FED No. 106/96 Immigration per Jenkinson, Carr and Nicholson JJ.
36. The Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Act 2001 (Cth) – prevents non-citizens who arrive at an “excised offshore place” from making a valid visa application and allows for the possible detention and removal from those places of unauthorised arrivals.
37. Section 256 Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
38. Section 411(1)(a) and (b) Migration Act 1958(Cth)
39. Section 50(b) and (c) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
40. Section 57(1) and (2)(a)-(c) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
41. Immigration and Guardianship of Children Act 1946 (Cth) (“IGOC”)
42. X v MIMA [1999] FCA 995 and [2000] FCA 704, per Justic North
43. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf p100
44. Section 420 (1) and (2)(b) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
45. Section 208(1) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), under (2) and s210 Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
46. Section 189(1)(a)-(c) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as per ss198,199 or s200
47. Section 196(3) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
48. Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Act 2002 – From 12 April 2002, the Act amended to allow for the bringing to, detention and removal from Australia “transitory persons” in a third country.
49. Section 36(3) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
50. Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions Act) 2001 (Cth)
51. Visa Subclass 785 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because they arrived without valid visas or passports after 20 October, 1999.
52. Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329 – difficult to say as there was a 2:1 decision on that point but stringent laws by executive may be said to curtail the court’s powers in this matter.
53. Submissions to the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention: Education in Immigration Detention Centres in: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/submissions/index.html#education
54. http://www.immi.gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf p58 and 71.
55. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf p101
56. Sections 4A, 4B, 4C Immigration (Education) Act 1971.
57. Ibid at p34.
58. Ibid.
59. http://www.immi..gov.au/illegals/hreoc/hreoc2.pdf p43 – 44.
60. Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs “Information Resources – Women and Children in Immigration Detention – Detention Overview” (viewed 14/6/02 on www.immi.gov.au/detention.women.htm) at p1-2
61. Ibid at p4.
62. Above n1 at p192.
63. Ibid at p193.
64. Report of Senate Standing Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee Report on Refugee Detention Centres 2001.
65. Perry, B., Pollard, R., Blakley, T., Baker, W., Vigilante, D. (1995) Childhood Trauma, the Neurobiology of Adaptation and Use-dependant Development of the Brain: How states become traits, Infant Mental Health Journal 16(4) cited in NSW Branch of the Australian Early Childhood Association “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p3 and Shore, R (1997) “Rethinking the brain: New Insights into early development. New York: Families at Work Institute cited in The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.4.
66. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.5.
67. Note 1 at p41.
68. Ibid at p.44
69. Ibid at p.66
70. Ibid at p.67
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid at p.95
73. Dr Annie Sparrow in Debelle, P & Shelton, R (9/4/02) “Children draw on their own trauma”, The Age cited in Diversity Directions Inc “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.8.
74. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.5.
75. Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p4 and Australian Association for the Welfare of Child Health “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.3.
76. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.3
77. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.3
78. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.4.
79. Ibid at p.4
80. The Australian Psychological Society “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published onwww.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.5
81. Note 1 at p43.
82. Ibid.
83. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission “Those who’ve come across the seas: The report of the Commission’s Inquiry into the detention of unauthorised arrivals” Canberra:HREOC, 1998. Available http://www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/human_rights/asylum_seekers/h5_2_2.pdf
84. Flood, P “Report of Inquiry into Immigration Detention Procedures” February 2001, p32.
85. Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p5 and The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.4.
86. Australian Association for the Welfare of Child Health “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.3.
87. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.6.
88. Note 1 at p194.
89. Ibid at p31.
90. Ibid at p.46
91. Ibid.
92. Note 1 at p46
93. Ibid at p.48
94. Ibid at p.49
95. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.5 and The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.7.
96. The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.4
97. The Mental Health Council of Australia ““Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.4 and 5.
98. Ibid at p.66.
99. Ibid at p.59
100. Ibid at p.63
101. Note 1 at p.63
102. Ibid at p.59
103. Ibid at p.60
104. Ibid at 66.
105. Ibid.
106. Above n1 at p.74
107. Ibid at p.76
108. Burnside, J “Human Rights – Julian Burnside (a paper presented to SBS staff on 10 December 2001) published on www.users.bigpoind.com/burnside/HRights.htm downloaded 20/5/02 at p6
109. Barnados Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p5.
110. Ibid at p71 On http://neda.org.au/7.html 15/4/02 cited in Diversity Direction Inc “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p 4 it was explained as approximately four percent of children in detention have a disability such as cerebral palsy, hearing or vision impairment, dwarfism, cardiac and genetic disabilities..
111. Schaller J, “Protection of Children and their Health During Times Of War” ed E Verhellen, Monitoring Children’s Rights, 1996, The Hague, Martinus Nuhoff Publishers p891 cited in Public Health Association of Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p12.
112. Sultan A, O’Sullivan K. “Psychological disturbances in asylum seekers held in long-term detention: a participant-observer account.” Med J Aust 2001 and The Australian and New Zealand College of Mental Health Nurses (Qld Branch) “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p2.
113. Pynoos, Nader, March, “Post-traumatic Stress Disorder” ed Weiner, Textbook of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1991, Washington, American Psychiatric Press Ltd at p339-348 cited in Public Health Association of Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p13; Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p4.
114. Published on www.humanrights.gov.au/media_releases/2002/05_02.html downloaded 24/4/02
115. Burnside, J “Asylum Seekers, Illegal Immigrants or Smuggled People?” A speech delivered tot he Politics Society of Latrobe University, 19 March 2002 published on downloaded 20/5/02 at p3.
116. Public Health Association of Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (www.users.bigpond.com/burnside/humans.htm 2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p2
117. Ibid at p4
118. Thompson M, McGorry P. “Maribyrnong Detention Centre Tamil Survey” cited in Silove D, Steel Z, eds The Mental Health and well-being of on-shore asylum seekers in Australia. Sydney, University of New South Wales, Psychiatry Research & Teaching Unit, 1998: 27-31.
119. Above n1 at p189.
120. Suicide Prevention Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p7.
121. The School of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University of Western Sydney “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on at p.4.www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm
122. Sultan A and O’Sullivan, K “Psychological disturbances in asylum seekers held in long term detention: a participant-observer account” MJA 2001: 593-596
123. Amnesty International Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p28 and 29
124. Amnesty International Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p29
125. Ibid at p.30
126. Barnados Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p7.
127. Personal communication with Steve Thompson, Psychologist from Survivors of Torture, Trauma and Rehabilitation Service in “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p6.
128. Australasian Society for Traumatic Stress Studies “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p3.
129. Abramson, L.Y, Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J (1978) “Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74 cited in The Australian Psychological Society “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.4.
130. The Australian Psychological Society ““Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p11.
131. Note 98 at p.6.
132. Burnside, J “Asylum Seekers, Illegal Immigrants or Smuggled People?” A speech delivered tot he Politics Society of Latrobe University, 19 March 2002 published on www.users.bigpond.com/burnside/humans.htm downloaded 20/5/02 at p3.
133. Burnside, J “Human Rights – Julian Burnside (a paper presented to SBS staff on 10 December 2001) published on www.users.bigpoind.com/burnside/HRights.htm downloaded 20/5/02
134. Ibid at p.6
135. Note 1 at p.81
136. Ibid at p.82
137. Ibid at p.83
138. Ibid.
139. with the highest population of minors at 47 as mentioned above at page 2.
140. Above n1 at p.85
141. Ibid at p.152
142. Cited in Amnesty International Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.22 and 23.
143. Amnesty International Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.21
144. South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.8
145. Australian Association for the Welfare of Child Health “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.4
146. The Australian Psychological Society “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.8
147. Amnesty International Australia “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.21
148. South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment “Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention” (2002) published on www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/index.htm at p.2 and 3.

Last Updated14 July 2003.