Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

Human Rights navigation


Click here to return to the Submission Index

Submission to National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from

the University of NSW Centre for Refugee Research and The Australian National Committee on Refugee Women

This submission draws substantially on research papers by Eileen Pittaway and Linda Bartolomei which are currently pending publication. The content of this submission may not be reproduced or quoted without the written permission of these authors.

Authorised by:
Dr Eileen Pittaway
UNSW Centre for Refugee Research
& Linda Bartolomei
ANCORW

About the UNSW Centre for Refugee Research

Mission Statement

About the Australian National Committee on Refugee Women (ANCORW)

Mission Statement

HREOC Terms of Reference for this Inquiry

The provisions made by Australia to implement its international human rights obligations regarding child asylum seekers, including unaccompanied minors.

The mandatory detention of child asylum seekers and other children arriving in Australia without visas, and alternatives to their detention.

The adequacy and effectiveness of the policies, agreements, laws, rules and practices governing children in immigration detention or child asylum seekers and refugees residing in the community after a period of detention, with particular reference to:

The impact of detention on the well-being and healthy development of children, including their long-term development.

The additional measures and safeguards which may be required in detention facilities to protect the human rights and best interests of all detained children.

The additional measures and safeguards which may be required to protect the human rights and best interests of child asylum seekers and refugees residing in the community after a period of detention.

Children, Families and Unaccompanied Minors in Detention

Background

In order to discus and address the effects of detention on asylum seeking children and families in Australia it is important to briefly describe the types of situations that they have escaped from and the types of pre arrival experiences which shape their need for asylum. This provides a context from which we can understand the reactions of asylum-seekers, when they find that instead of reaching a place of safety and security, where their claims are tested in a supportive and healing environment, they are placed in prison-like detention centres in which their human rights are denied and any chance of normal family functioning is stripped away from them.

The problem faced in writing about the situation of children and families in detention in Australia is that of gaining access to do the research necessary to build an academically rigorous argument. Access to Detention Centres is restricted, and tightly controlled. People working in the Centres, including full time staff and visiting personnel, such as lawyers and psychologists and even volunteers, are bound by confidentiality. The majority of those asylum seekers who were found to have valid claims for asylum and have been released into the community on three year temporary protection visas are afraid to make public statements about conditions in the centres because they believe that if they do, the Government will revoke their visas. We are therefore forced to work much more than usual with anecdotal evidence and case studies given by a wide range of staff and former detainees, but on strict conditions of confidentiality. The stories are so consistent, and there are such similarities in cases from each detention centre that they must be taken seriously. The weight of evidence gathered indicates that it is imperative that action be taken now to end Australia's practice of mandatory detention of all asylum seekers.

Refugees in detention current policy and practice

The right to seek and enjoy protection from persecution is a fundamental right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The responsibilities of countries to provide protection are set out in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. These include an obligation on the part of states which are signatories to this convention to ensure that those who are seeking asylum from persecution are not sent back or refouled to a country in which they would be at risk of serious human rights violations. In addition to this obligation, signatory states are obliged to honour their commitments to international human rights standards. These include commitments to ensure the human rights of asylum seekers within their borders are not violated whilst asylum claims are processed. These rights are addressed in a number of conventions including the International convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Australia has signed and ratified these conventions, although only the commitments made under the CRC have been substantially incorporated into Australian domestic law.

Despite these international obligations Australia along with an increasing number of countries in the developed world, has sought in recent years to avoid its international obligations to asylum seekers through the development of harsh and discriminatory domestic laws and practices. The practice of detaining all those who arrive without documentation, including families and children, often for prolonged periods is common in many developed countries including America, Canada, the United Kingdom and a number of European countries. This practice directly contravenes international standards of refugee protection which deem that the detention be used only in exceptional circumstances and for the shortest possible period (Excom Conclusion 44, in Amnesty, 1998). The detention of children in any circumstances other than as a matter of last resort contravenes the CRC. It is only in Australia that all asylum seekers who arrive without documentation are mandatorily and arbitrarily detained. Thus in Australia asylum seekers, including children, may remain in detention for months and sometimes years.

Refugee Children

The uprooting, disruption and insecurity inherent in refugee situations can harm children's physical, intellectual, psychological, cultural and social development. These factors are severely compounded when, in addition, children suffer or witness the torture or murder of family members or other forms of abuse or violence. Unaccompanied children are particularly vulnerable.
(UNHCR, 1994, p. 38).

It is estimated that about 40% of the approximately 12 thousand people who enter Australia annually as part of the Refugee and Special Humanitarian Intake are children and young people. Many of these children have suffered from severe hardships, they have had their sense of safety violated, suffered physical abuse, neglect, abandonment, sexual abuse and exploitation, some have been forced to fight as child soldiers and most have witnessed torture and/or been tortured themselves. They have watched fathers, brothers and uncles being killed, or have seen them 'disappear'. Many watched as their mothers, sisters, aunts were tortured and raped. Children suffer from nightmares because they remember bombing, fear and living on the run. Refugee children and young people have to cope with a range of traumatic incidents and human rights violations in the process of their cognitive, emotional, social and physical development. Their often traumatised mothers have to respond to the needs of their children as well as their own needs to heal and develop coping strategies which will help them support their children. The fact that refugee children and young people are often dependent on adults who are themselves traumatised, and unable to meet the developmental needs of their children, makes them particularly vulnerable to mental health problems (Baker, 1994).

The past decade has seen important shifts in opinion reflected in the literature about working with refugee children who have survived torture and trauma. One of the most important of these relates to the 'resilience' of children (Pittaway & Breen, 1999). Until quite recently it was believed that children did not fully experience the negative impact of torture and trauma. It is now recognised that children as young as three experience problems in their psychosocial development if they are not given some extra assistance and support. The notion of resilience now relates more to the ability of refugee children and young people to resume their normal development if they are given early assistance and support to build their protective capacities. Early intervention has been recognised as essential to the prevention of later mental health problems.

The traumas experienced by refugee children can cause a range of symptoms including anger, hostility, nightmares, and severe dysfunctional behaviour and delayed development. If they are not addressed, the results are long lasting and debilitating and are often compounded by the unwillingness of refugees from some ethnic backgrounds to seek or accept treatment for what they regard as mental illness. The attached stigma breeds shame and humiliation.

Preliminary research into the effects of detention on refugee children was conducted by the Australian National Committee on Refugee Women (ANCORW) and the Centre for Refugee Research UNSW (CRR) in 2000. This research combined a comprehensive review of the relevant international literature with in depth case study interviews conducted with key service providers and current and former detainees. A major concern identified in the literature review and confirmed by several of the key service providers were the negative mental health effects on individuals of living in a confined 'community' in an atmosphere of unrelieved tension and stress, where there is a large mix of cultures, ages and sexes.

Regular visitors to Australia's detention centres reported harrowing stories of the conditions in which asylum seekers, including children, are detained. These included the use of solitary confinement to punish children for minor misdemeanours, such as being cheeky to guards; of the incessant screaming of disturbed and distressed detainees; of the constant noise of loud speaker announcements; of the vacant empty expressions of the children which masks their trauma and distress; and of personal accounts of violence and sexual abuse (Pittaway & Bartolomei, 2001).

The negative impacts of detention are further exacerbated by a lack of appropriate facilities and poorly trained staff who are frequently insensitive, unsympathetic or aggressive. Detainees reported difficulty in sleeping and eating. Many, including children, report experiencing regular nightmares which prevent them from sleeping. This combined with routine awakening by guards using flashlights during random night patrols, leads to fear associated with sleep. The practice of mixing different ethnic groups within the same sleeping quarters has led to some detainees fearing harassment of injury from members of those ethnic groups which persecuted them in their countries of origin, and also contributes to insomnia (Rogalla & Highfield, 2001).

Some impacts of Detention on the health of detainees

The life experience of asylum seekers and the level of their coping mechanisms prior to the traumatic experiences which caused them to seek asylum will of course influence their reactions to trauma and detention. Whilst this must be taken into account, the common symptoms associated with successive exposure to traumatic and life-threatening situation are:

a) Psychosomatic symptoms: anxiety, stress, restlessness, insomnia and problems with concentration
b) Physical symptoms: somatic complaints, poor health status, self-perception of health impairment, poor nutrition, experience of low to moderate pain and low energy.
c) Sociopsychological level: lack of interest in social tasks, difficulty in performing daily activities, breakdown of family units and familial roles (Silove & Becker, cited in Crock, 1993, p. 85 ).

To date, for reasons described in the introduction, only limited work has been done on the mental health impacts on asylum seekers held in detention. What has been done indicates that the majority of inmates in Australia detention centres exhibit signs of traumatic stress and anxiety and that they are exacerbated both by the fact of incarceration and the conditions in the detention centres. A recent research report by Silove, Steel and Watter (2000) states that the "potentially deleterious effect of detention on the mental health of asylum seekers has been raised repeatedly" (p. 608). They identify indicators of this which include high rates of attempted suicide and hunger strikes. They cite a study by Thompson et al (1988, cited in Silove, Steel & Watter, 2000) conducted with 25 detained Tamils, which found that they displayed twice the level of war related trauma when compared with compatriot asylum seekers and refugees living in the community. Whilst they urge constraint in drawing definitive conclusions from these studies given the difficulties in accessing facilities and sampling, there is a convergence with the anecdotal evidence provided by human rights groups and involved health professionals which indicates that detention is a powerful contributor to psychological distress in asylum seekers.

Features that emerge across studies on the psychological and psychosocial effects of incarceration in Australian Detention Centres suggest that both adults and children present as depressed and anxious. Their responses to events and circumstances are characterised by sadness, lack of energy and disinterest. They are frightened for their personal safety and worried about their families back home (Silove & Becker, cited in Crock, 1993, p. 85). More recent works undertaken by Zachary Steel and Professor Derrick Silove (Steel & Silove, 2001) and Kevin O'Sullivan and Dr Aamer Sultan, further evidence of the degree to which detention compounds refugee trauma (Sultan & O'Sullivan, 2001).

 

Some of the Impacts of Detention on Families

The emotional wellbeing of children is influenced by the protection and care they receive from their families and communities. Adults often suffer greatly in refugee situations; and this can influence their ability to provide for their children. Sometimes parental distress results in child abuse, abandonment, family strife and other forms of family disintegration (UNHCR, 1994, p. 38).

Children do not develop in isolation: effective family functioning is critical in providing the sense of self-esteem, security and identity that is necessary for the child to successfully develop and adapt to the social environment. Fundamental to children's developmental needs is a family environment that promotes positive and effective communication, where feelings are expressed, and where the opportunity to discuss issues is available.

A detention centre is not an environment conducive to normal family functioning. There are numerous stressors which affect the family dynamics whilst in detention which contribute to the breakdown of family units. It is common for husbands and wives to be separated. There is no current capacity within the Detention Centres in Australia to separate families from the general population (Rayner, 2001), so that families, women, children, young people and adult males are placed together in common areas. This limits both the privacy and the protection of vulnerable and traumatised women, children and young people, and exacerbates feelings of insecurity and mistrust. "Child detainees live behind razor wire, surrounded by uniforms, identification badges, roll calls and searches" (Rayner, 2001).

Effective parenting cannot occur in an environment where family and parent child routines such as setting bedtime, normal family mealtimes, and family outings are not possible and where parents' ability to provide a safe and supportive environment critical to children's development is removed. Parents report feeling a lack of control over everyday situations. Life is run by rules and regimentation, even the children's food is prepared by strangers: this erodes family structure when traditional patterns of food preparation, eating and parental role modelling are replaced by the life of the institution (Rogalla & Highfield, 2001). Children must queue for food with the adults, be scanned for concealed metal cutlery, and eat what is prepared. The eating times dictated by the Detention Centre staff often do not fit with the needs of small children. Loss of control of the type food available and the timing of feeding their children causes distress to mothers, especially when lack of access to food and cooking facilities means they are unable to provide for their children in the ways in which they are accustomed to do so. Small problems can become more significant than if they were within a normal community situation (Rogalla & Highfield, 2001; Pittaway & Bartolomei, 2001).

This causes high levels of stress for both parents and children. Research indicates that children as young as one are able to detect and react to parental distress and that their mental health may be adversely affected (Allodi, 1980; Sheering et al, 1995; & Sack, cited in JSTSI, 1995). Although it is common for parents to shield their children from the reality of their situation, for example, by choosing not to tell them about the possibility of having to return to where they came from, children are often aware of what is going on around them and are anxious about their situation. Children react strongly to being detained and often do not understand why their parents are unable to get the family out of detention. There are reports of children asking their parents what they have done wrong and why they are being 'locked up' and 'punished'. They become frustrated and suspicious of people granted their visas ahead of them and can not understand why their parents are not protecting them (Pittaway & Maksimovic, 2000).

Parents frequently feel shame about the situation their family is in. The feeling of shame amongst detainees intensifies the severity and instability of family relationships within detention. It is common for men to have strong feelings of shame in front of their own children and wives, not only that they have lost control and power over their current situation but because they often feel responsible for the family's predicament. Their parental roles are affected as they can no longer provide for and protect their families. This seems to be especially strong when detainees themselves are well educated and once held important occupations. Multiple stressors, such as conflict, violence, marital and familial role breakdown and severe psychological pressure are likely to produce 'dysfunctional' families. Detention centres appear to be a breeding ground for these stress factors (Pittaway & Maksimovic, 2000).

Strengthening families has become the catch cry of the current Australian government. Yet whilst on the one hand we are developing and supporting programs to achieve this goal in the wider community, at the same time we are detaining refugee families to the detriment of family members and effective family functioning. The importance of the family unit as the primary and sacrosanct social unit is one of the lynch pins of our commitments under both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This includes the right of family reunion, a right currently denied to many in detention and to all who are granted Temporary Protection Visas.

Children's Psychological Health

In the course of 2000 a small proportion of detention officer staff were treating detainees including children as if they were criminals; [that] intimidation and verbal abuse occurred and detainees were not sufficiently aware of their right to complain to the Ombudsman (Flood, 2001, p 23).

Refugees' psychosocial well-being is as important as their physical health. The ability of traumatised refugee children to cope with the traumatic experiences of war related and displacement experiences is greatly enhanced by a supportive family and community milieu, one in which parents can continue to project a sense of stability, permanence and competence to their children. Unless parents are supported to deal with their own trauma and grief they will struggle to provide appropriate support to their children (Ahearn & Athey, 1991; Ajdukovic & Marina, 1993).

One psychological factor unique to children is that they are still developing. Their personalities are being formed and social and coping skills are being learnt on a daily basis. The children are socially and culturally isolated, often held in remote locations away from Australian communities. Instead of fostering positive development, the experience of detention is more likely to produce antisocial and aggressive behaviour in children. Many children who are detained undergo behavioural changes caused by the stressful living conditions in the detention centre, and their unknown future. Such changes may include loss of appetite, insomnia, crying, withdrawal and increased dependency. The child may, in addition, sense the tension and stress its parents feel as a result of the parents uncertainty about the future, boredom, and lack of support in caring for their children whilst in detention (Abbott evidence, cited in Joint Standing Committee report into Children of Imprisoned parents, 1997). These combined factors lead to delayed and dysfunctional psychosocial and emotional development in the children.

Children's pre-migration experiences combined with the time spent in detention does not equip them with the skills and support required to integrate into and live a 'normal' life in the Australian community on release, or to reintegrate back into their country of origin if their application for asylum is rejected. Children are left with little hope when people from their own countries have perpetrated atrocities upon their families and community and in their country of asylum their human rights are denied to them.

It is common that when children of refugees and asylum seekers arrive in Australia their nutritional health standards are extremely poor. Childhood malnutrition inhibits mental and physical development and increases vulnerability to infections (UNHCR, 1994, p. 58). It is of great concern that three of the key service providers indicated that children within detention react to the stressful conditions by refusing to eat or being unable to hold their food down.

 

Social issues

"I spent nearly four years in Australian detention. Two women tried to commit suicide. There are no words to describe what it is really like in there. I spent four years without real schooling and without social life… I couldn't believe that this was Australia. Now that I've got to know Australians, I realise they are not like the government. A lot of them do not know what the Australian government does to people… I'm twenty-one and still doing the HSC" (Vinson & Lester, 1998).

Children are affected by not only what happens to them but by what they are deprived off, for example missing out on developmental essentials such as play and school (UNHCR, 1994, pp. 38-39). Opportunities for children to socialise with peers and the benefits from having an intimate friend of their own age with whom to share their ideas and experiences are as important as formal education. Feeling accepted by the peer group and being able to share school experiences and intimate confidences with one or more close friends are crucial to happiness in middle childhood and helps shape the child's social development (Peterson, 1996, p. 260).

The small number of children within detention at any one time and the variation in the age, culture and language groups often inhibits children from forming social relationships with children of a similar age. They often become suspicious of people who are not fellow detainees and become distant with those who try to work with them. This, combined with the lack of recreational space for children in detention centres, often results in the children associating with young adults, and as mentioned above, leads to children observing and participating in discussions surrounding 'Visa' and 'release'. These terms subsequently become part of their vocabulary, which they find difficult to terminate when they enter their new communities. It was noted that due to the poor facilities, lack of environmental stimulation and isolation, many children enter their community and school not only with an inadequate level of education for their age but not knowing the term for certain objects and expressions (Pittaway & Maksimovic, 2000).

This environment also encourages situations in which children as young as 12 take an active role in political activities, such as hunger strikes and sewing their lips together, as they are forced into a premature adulthood by the suffering and desperation of their parents and peers. These experiences will negatively influence their development and their attitudes to society and figures of authority in the future.

Unaccompanied Minors
 Increasing numbers of unaccompanied minors, that is children who are not accompanied by a custodial adult, are beginning to arrive in Australia, claiming asylum in their own right. Minors are defined in international law as people under eighteen years of age. Some of those reaching Australia are as young as twelve years old and these children need special care and attention. Families will often send minors to seek asylum in order to escape conscription as child soldiers. Other reasons are to escape targeting by authorities, punishment for political activity or to seek a place of safety for a family which is in danger. Often when they leave their families they are not aware that they will finish their journey in Australia. Fleeing is an act of desperation.

On arrival in Australia they do not enjoy the protection of either parents or guardians. They become wards of the Minister for Immigration and this constitutes a clear conflict of interest. It means that the person who is responsible for ensuring that the best interests of the child are met is also responsible for administering the asylum policy which will determine their fate. This is of particular concern when it is openly stated by the Minister that our asylum policy has deterrence as its major focus. In Australia, unaccompanied minors are held in detention for months, sometimes for years. They are released either singly or in small groups and left very much to fend for themselves, with the ad hoc support of community based organisations.

Unaccompanied children have special needs. They have often survived traumatic experience in their country of origin, frightening and dangerous journeys, and extreme disappointment when they discover that instead of a place of welcome and safety, Australia treats then with fear and suspicion. Emotionally, they are vulnerable as a result of torture or trauma, they may have experienced prior to their migration, where they may have witnessed the rape or killings of family members. On their arrival to Australia, they are incarcerated within an environment where they may witness rioting, water cannons and violence. Children cannot feel safe in an environment where they are surrounded by stressed adults, and where violence can erupt at any time. On arrival they often require assistance tracing family and contacting their communities. They need to establish whether their parents are alive or dead. They need to let their parents and family know that they are safe if this can be done without putting their families in danger from authorities because they have aided their escape. Delays in fulfilling these tasks can compound feelings of fear and anxiety in that these young people are already experiencing. It is part of our obligations under the Refugee Convention and the Convention of the Rights of the Child that we offer these children an environment of safety and security whether they are allowed to stay in Australia or not. Detention Centres do not provide this opportunity.

Detention Centre Management

Since 1997 the management of Australia's Detention Centres has been contracted to Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd (ACS). DIMA has determined the standard of care that the ACS must provide in order to meet the Government's duty of care obligations through Immigration Detention standards. According to DIMA these standards are designed to ensure that the needs of the detainees are met in a culturally appropriate way, while at the same time providing safe and secure detention (DIMA Fact Sheet 82). According to numerous reports from those entering Detention Centres in a professional capacity as well as reports from ex detainees, however, the ACS policies and practices do not even approximate an acceptable level of care.

This is particularly the case in relation to a lack of effective staff training in working with a population that is extremely likely to be traumatised and to have experienced torture. There is a complete lack of transparency in the benchmarking and performance components of the tender in relation to government established standards for care. These policy standards, while available for public review on the Internet, are broad and non-specific, and allow for extensive interpretation in their processes. There is no review process, which records the ACS's achieving and monitoring of these standards.

This brief overview of some aspects of the refugee experience provides a context for examining the potential sequalae of developed countries arbitrarily detaining asylum seekers in inhuman conditions for unspecified periods of time.
As discussed above, refugee children and their families are often extremely vulnerable, and can need intensive support to enable them to address and deal with their pre-arrival experiences before they are able to resettle successfully in a country like Australia. Instead of providing this support, as a developed and humane society, Australia is placing asylum seekers, both adults and children, into isolated, prison-like detention centres, regardless of its international humanitarian obligations.

Improving conditions in Detention Centres

While it is obvious that as long as Australia's asylum policy insists on the mandatory and often long term detention it is critical that conditions within the centres conform to our obligations under international law, we do not agree with these solutions, as they implicitly accept the continuity of detention as an established policy. This tacit acceptance condones human rights abuses perpetuated in the name of humanitarian law and practice. These abuses are enshrined in Australia's current detention policy and practice.

The available research and anecdotal evidence from a wide range of informed and reliable sources clearly demonstrates that prolonged periods in detention can only serve to exacerbate the trauma of refugees. A range of groups in Australia have proposed alternative models to detention. The current evidence, with respect to the negative and compounding impact that detention has on already traumatised refugees, points to the urgency with which these alternatives must be considered.

Alternatives to detention

There are better, more economically viable and more humane ways of responsibly handling onshore asylum-seekers. Other countries such as Sweden and New Zealand have various approaches to asylum policy and practices. These countries treat asylum seekers humanely and respect their dignity. Asylum seekers are given information and services to help them process their applications and begin the slow process of healing and resettlement. In Sweden, no child under 18 years is held in detention for more than 3 days - in extreme circumstances this can be extended to 6 days (Mitchell, 2001). Unaccompanied minors are taken directly to a supervised group home run by the Migration Board and Child Social Services where they undergo medical and psychological assessment and are allocated a caseworker who will help them with their asylum application and settlement procedures. The majority of asylum seekers are not held in detention centres, but are offered support to live within the community until their application is decided. They are not sent to geographically isolated areas. Counsellors and case workers who explain each step of the process with the asylum seeker are assigned to each asylum seeker, and their role also includes providing support if the claim for asylum is not accepted. Their alternatives are discussed with them, and they are escorted on to the next stage of their journey. (Maxwell, 1993 &Mitchell, 2001)

On releasing Women and Children only

There are calls for the release of all women and children, to be allowed to live in the local community under house detention, with visiting rights to family members, in particular fathers who are still held in detention. This is not an ideal situation. Research into the long term recovery of children who survived the holocaust identifies that children who remained with both parents, even in horrendous situations, recovered from the experience better than children who were separated from their parents for what was perceived as their own good. There is a danger that a focus on the needs of children in detention independent of the needs of the family might lead to a situation whereby children are separated from their parents and placed with foster parents or in institutions outside the detention centre. This would be detrimental to the future development of the children and to the capability and functioning of the family units.

The trial of removing women and children from the detention centres which began at Woomera last year, while better for the women and children in some respects, is still a deeply flawed model. It splits families who are already traumatised. Many families would prefer to be together in adversity than living separately. The women and children are still under 24 hour surveillance, they can only leave their place of residence in the escort of a guard, and visiting times at the detention centre are limited. The major problem is that Woomera is in the desert, many kilometres from the ethnic communities who could provide much needed emotional support and assistance to the women and children. It is very different from the Swedish system upon which it is supposed to modelled. In Sweden only those people who may have a criminal record or some other strong reason as to why they should not be released into the community are detained. If males in a family unit are detained, women and children are allowed to live freely in the community; detention centres are in urban areas near to supportive ethnic communities; and during the day time there is open access at the detention centre for families to visit their husbands, fathers and other family members. It is based on the principle of balancing the sovereign right to border control and protection of one's national interest, with the right of people to seek asylum and the principle of family unity and integrity.

 

Recommendations

Australia's mandatory detention policy fails to meet the very basic humanitarian needs of the individuals it incarcerates. The implications are particularly severe for children and the family unit as a whole, their mental and physical health and their long term prognosis for successful resettlement or integration back into their host country. We therefore recommend that:

It is essential that more effective and humanitarian services be provided for those who seek asylum and who are granted protection in Australia. With this in mind, it is recommended that:

In the past, Australia has had a proud tradition of honouring its Human Rights commitments. Investment into research, into policy and service provision which lead to more effective service provision for refugee children and children of asylum seekers is both an obligation under Australia's commitments to human rights and an investment in Australia's future.

Bibliography
 Ajdukovic,D & Marina (1993) Psychological Well Being of Refugee Children. In Child Abuse and Neglect, vol 17, pp 843 - 854.

Allodi, F. (1980) The Psychiatric effects in children and families on victims of political persecution and torture. Danish Medical Bulletin, vol.27, No.5/Nov,pp.229 - 231 ??????

Allodi F. (1980) The Psychiatric effects of political persecution and torture in children and families of victims. Presented in Montreal, May 3, at a colloquium on "The medical and legal aspects of torture" sponsored by Amnesty International Canada, Francophone section.

Amnesty International Australia, June 1998, Australia, A Continuing Shame: The mandatory detention of asylum seekers, AUS/POL/REF.

Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, (2001), National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, 2001 Media Releases, 28 November 2001, http://www.hreoc.gov.au/media_releases/2001/01_71.html, Date accessed 30/01/02

Convention on The Rights of The Child (20 November, 1989), http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm, Date accessed 12/01/01

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951
http://www.unhch.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm, Date accessed 05/10/01


Crock, M. (1993) Protection or Punishment? The Detention of Asylum-Seekers in Australia, Sydney: The Federation Press.

Goldson, E (1996) The effect of war on children. Child Abuse and Neglect vol 20, no 9 , pp 809 - 819


Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission(HREOC) (1998) Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals, Commonwealth of Australia.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December, 1966. http://www.unhchr.ch/refworld/refworld/legal/instrume/detent/civpot_e.htm, Date accessed 31/10/00

Iredale, R, Mitchell, C, Pe-Pua, R & Pittaway, E. (1996) Ambivalent welcome: the settlement experiences of humanitarian entrant families in Australia, Australian Government Publishing Services, Canberra

Joint Standing Committee on Social Issues(JSCSI), Children of Imprisoned Parents. Written report of evidence provided by the Louise Abbott of the Australian Red Cross - NSW Division to the Committee on Thursday, 6/3/97.

Maxwell, R. (1993), Government immigration policies, New Zealand Federation of Ethnic Communities National Conference Multi-ethnic Aotearoa New Zealands challenge of the future, Wellington, 1993, p30-34

Mitchell, G. (2001), Swedish model: treatment of asylum seekers, Eureka Street, Vol 11, no2, March 2001, p12-13

Molony, J. Looking at Australia Through Razor Wire in Canberra Times, 9/15/00.

Ozdowski, S, (2001) National Enquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, November 20, 2001.

Peterson, C. (1996) Looking forward through the lifespan: Developmental Psychology, Australia: Prentice Hall.

Pittaway, E, (1991) Women Still at Risk in Australia, Bureau of Migration and Population Research

Pittaway,E & Breen, C (1999) Refugee Children, Surviving War, Surviving Peace, AUSINET RESEARCH

Pittaway, E & Maksimovic, N (2000) Children in Detention, ANCORW and UNSW Centre for Refugee Research Report.

Pittaway, E & Bartolomei, L (2001) Fieldwork Notes, ANCORW and UNSW Centre for Refugee Research.

Pope, L, (1990) Refugee Protection and Determination: Women Claimants" (summary of comments made at the CRDD Working Group on Women Refugee Claimants: Training Workshop for Members, Toronto, Canada.

Rogalla, B & Highfield, T. (2001) The systematic incarceration of children in immigration detention in Australia: A modern form of torture. (Unpublished paper)

Silove, D, Steel, Z.& Watters, C. (2000) "Policies of Deterrence and the Mental Health of Asylum Seekers" in JAMA, Vol 284, No. 5.

Sultan, A. (2001), Related Article: Testimony, in The Lancet, May 5, Vol 357,

Sultan, A & O'Sullivan, K. (2001), "Psychological disturbances in asylum seekers held in long term detention: a participant -observer account", in MJA, Vol 175, 3/17 December 2001.

UNHCR. Guidelines on the Detention of Asylum Seekers. Cited in Gee, A, Pre-reading materials for "Misunderstanding asylum seekers" A Symposium on Truth, Myth and Justice In Australia, pp 19-27.

UNHCR (1994) Refugee Children: Guidelines on Protection and Care, Geneva.

UNHCR, (1995), Guidelines on Preventing and Responding to Sexual Violence against Refugee Women, Geneva.

UN, EXCOM Conclusions: No.39 (XXXVI) 1985, No.54 (XXXIX) 1988, No.64 (XLI) 1990, No.73 (XLV) 1993, and Information Note on UNHCR's Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women (UIN Doc. EC/SCP/67)

Vinson, T. & Lester, E. (1998, p. 22) "A high price for freedom" The Sydney Morning Herald.

Last Updated 9 January 2003.