Click here to return to the Submission Index
Submission to the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from
Len Baglow,
B.Soc.Wk., G.D.U.R.P, Child Abuse Counsellor
INTRODUCTION
As a counsellor of children and families at risk of child abuse and neglect, I have a number of concerns about the children being held in immigration detention in Australia and in our region on the request of Australian authorities. In my professional capacity I see children who have been abused by their Australian families. I find it appalling that Australia as a nation is now systematically abusing children whose parents have sought asylum here. In the following submission I offer suggestions under a number of headings:
Last Updated 9 January 2003.
- Should children of asylum seekers be in detention at all?
- Are the education needs of children in immigration detention being adequately met?
- Are the health needs of children in immigration detention being adequately met?
- The conspiracy of silence and the lack of accountability for children held offshore.
- Alternatives to Detention
SHOULD CHILDREN OF ASYLUM SEEKER BE IN DETENTION AT ALL?
In the modern era there have been a number of international documents that have sought to protect children and acknowledge their special status. I note in particular the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1959, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1990.
In article 2 of the Convention it states in part that:
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.
This article of the convention seems both self evident and consistent. Yet, we the Australian people are punishing the children of asylum seekers on the basis of actions taken by their parents. Certainly, in many cases, it would be crueller to separate the children from their parents. However, the fact remains that the current policy of mandatory detention results in children being detained in detention centres because of the actions of their parents.
In article 3 of the Convention it states in part that;
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.
I am aware that being a primary consideration is not the same as being the only consideration in matters of public policy. However, I are not convinced that in this matter, the welfare of children really has been a primary consideration as envisaged by the Convention. The Government, I know, has claimed that the detention of children is part of a necessary policy of stopping the flow of illegal immigrants. I believe that there are alternatives, which must now be seriously considered, if we are to have as a primary consideration the best interests of children.
In article 27 of the Convention it states in part that;
States parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
I do not see how one can realize an adequate standard for a child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development in a detention centre.
ARE THE EDUCATION NEEDS OF CHILDREN IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION BEING ADEQUATELY MET?
I understand that the Government states that education is provided for every child in detention in Australia provided that they and their parents if accompanying them agree. Nevertheless, I have serious concerns about the quality of education that can be provided within a detention centre, especially in centres based in remote areas. Indeed, it is apparent that significant numbers of adolescents are not getting anything like an appropriate education. Given that we know that the majority of these children will eventually be accepted as refugees, we are not only disadvantaging them, but also sowing the seeds of further social problems in Australian society. We have known for many years that getting a basic education is one of the essentials both for employment and social integration as adults.
I commend the Derby regional kindergarten-to-Year 12 school for welcoming 16 students from the Port Headland detention centre. I am concerned however that this appears to have been an isolated case, and according to the "The Australian" newspaper, Derby is the only known education centre to have refugees from detention centres amongst its full time students.
I also have concerns about the level of education being provided to children held in detention in Nauru, Christmas Island, and Papua New Guinea.
ARE THE HEALTH NEEDS OF CHILDREN IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION BEING MET?
I am aware that many of the children in immigration detention centres have been traumatized by events in their country of origin, and again by events on the trip to Australia. I am concerned that the experience of detention, often for an indefinite period, can further traumatize these children. It is my experience that the treatment of trauma, while trauma is still ongoing, is of very little therapeutic use, and indeed can be counterproductive. It is for this reason that I argue that children who have suffered psychological trauma in either their country of origin, or on route to Australia, should not be held in detention for this is likely to further accentuate their problems and slow the healing process.
Furthermore, I am concerned about the culture of violence that seems to be growing in some detention centres, particularly at Woomera, and the exposure of children to the resulting violence. Such exposure has an extremely damaging affect on children, especially if it is accompanied by fear for their own or their family's safety.
The lack of privacy at some detention centres is also detrimental to the mental health of children. At one level children should not be exposed to every aspect of adult life. At another level, children, like adults, need at times their privacy so that their imagination and spirit can grow.
THE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE AND THE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CHILDREN HELD OFFSHORE
During the compilation of this report I have become increasingly frustrated by the failure of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to release basic information about children being held offshore in immigration detention. I would like to place on record the saga of the search for basic information.
On Christmas Eve, I wrote to the Minister asking for the numbers. He did not reply.
In mid February this year I began ringing the Department asking for the figures. I have rung on average once a week ever since. On advice from DIMA I began ringing the Public Affairs section of the Department. Initially the officers told me they were sure the figures were on the public record and a more senior person would get back to me. I pointed out that the figures were not available on the website.
After a month, a helpful young officer, who was obviously embarrassed and distressed, assured me that he was now ringing his superiors every 2 days asking them to phone me. Eventually, he contacted me to tell me that he had been ordered to tell me that in order to get the figures I would need to phone the Minister's office.
I then rang the Minister's office. A curt woman at the Minister's office directed me to the office of the first secretary Phillipa Godwin.
At the first secretary's office someone initially informed me that someone would get back to me. On my second call, a very helpful person told me that the first secretary was unlikely to know anything about my query as she was principally concerned with refugees held onshore rather than offshore. However, she gave an undertaking to follow up the issue for me, which she obviously did.
A message was left on my work answering machine on the Wednesday before the ANZAC day holiday from [name deleted] from DIMA saying that she was responding to my query and I could contact her the following Tuesday. No phone number was left. As a result I phoned the first Secretary's office looking for her, and by one of those quirks of telephone systems, actually spoke to the first secretary, Phillipa Godwin, who was a delight. She explained that I had the wrong number, but if there were any more problems following up [name deleted] and getting the figures I needed, then I was to get back to her.
I phoned [name deleted] who was unavailable and I left a message. She did not reply. I again phoned her and eventually was put through. She gave me the figures for minors detained offshore on May 1, 2002.
The figures were
On Christmas Island 8
On Nauru 243
On Manus 125I then asked why it had been that I had not been given the figures in February, when I first asked for them, and were the figures just now being released. Ms [name deleted] told me that it was her understanding that the figures had been released to a Senate Enquiry in mid February and as a result were on the public record. She stated that the figures had also been released to the press. I pointed out that I had been watching both the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian for these figures and had never seen them published in the papers. Ms [name deleted] felt that the reason I had not been given the figures was that I had been asking the wrong people.
I am afraid that I do not believe Ms[name deleted]. I think that senior people within the DIMA have made it deliberately difficult for the public to access the figures on children in detention offshore, because they are clearly an embarrassment to the Government. Had it not been for the intervention of the First Secretary's office, I do not believe I would have been given the figures.
Clearly, there are now 376 minors held in immigration detention offshore. This is now more children than are held in immigration detention in Australia at this moment. Most of these children have been held for over 6 months. Had these children been allowed into Australia, between 70-90% of them would have been released into the community, based on previous percentages of applicants being granted refugee status.
This is clearly a figure that the Government does not want to be made widely available. This is appalling behaviour by a Government Department. How can a Government be accountable when even the most basic information on the children in offshore immigration detention is withheld from ordinary citizens? It seems that the Government is following a policy of out of sight leads to out of mind. To a large extent this immoral policy is working.
I note also that various sections within the Government claim that some of these children held offshore have been abused by their parents. Yet it is not clear that the Government has done anything to protect these same children from ongoing abuse.
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
It seems that the main reason that the Government has given for not finding an alternative to detention is that too many of the those seeking refugee status will abscond.
I would like to make a number of points in relation to this.
1. While it may be relatively easy for an individual to abscond, it is much harder for a family with children to abscond. Families simply have too many needs to make it easy to disappear. Furthermore, the risk of endangering a family would seem to us to be a real encouragement for parents not to disappear.
2. A large percentage of families seeking refugee status do indeed eventually get granted this status. For the most part these families will have no incentive to abscond, as it will weaken their already strong case. As the current situation stands, these families and children are penalized because of the smaller percentage of families that are likely to abscond.
3. While it is important to ensure that adult asylum seekers who have a weak or nonexistent case for asylum do not simply disappear into Australian society, should this principle so override the needs of children of asylum seekers, that these children are held in detention centres? I do not think so.
Len Baglow, Child Abuse Counsellor
