Transcript of Hearing - Adelaide
Monday, 1 July 2002
Please note: This is an edited transcript
DR SEV OZDOWSKI, Human Rights Commissioner
MRS ROBIN SULLIVAN, Queensland Children's Commissioner
PROFESSOR TRANG
THOMAS, Professor of Psychology,
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
MS VANESSA LESNIE, Secretary to the Inquiry
HILTON HOTEL
(MEETING ROOM B)
DR OZDOWSKI: I would like to formally open this public hearing which is one of a series of hearings conducted around Australia. My name is Sev Ozdowski and I'm the Human Rights Commissioner. I have two colleagues sitting with me, Mrs Robin Sullivan who is Queensland Children's Commissioner, who is assisting with the Inquiry and Dr Trang Thomas who is Professor of Psychology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology who is the second Assistant Commissioner. I also have Ms Vanessa Lesnie, sitting to my left and she is Secretary to the Inquiry and she will also ask some of the questions. Before the Inquiry begins, I have made a number of rulings relating to confidentiality and privacy because the Commission believes the respect of privacy of individuals and particularly the issue of the protection of children is of utmost importance.
So consequently I issued a number of directions and the ethic of these orders is that the identity of asylum seekers is not to be disclosed around the hearing, that the identity of any other person who requests anonymity is not to be disclosed and that identity of any third parties is not to be disclosed. This includes the current and former employees of Detention Centres. The issue is that these people should not be named because they would have not an opportunity to defend themselves against allegations that could be made. I don't see media here - or do we have any media here? Yes, we have got some media here, so I would like in this case to ask media that where a witness requests to not to be identified by name or photograph, please respect this, and also when filming, please respect the wishes of people who may not wish to be included in the background shots.
Now I would like to invite Professor Nicholas Proctor to give evidence. Perhaps I will mention that the role of the Commissioner is to test the evidence which was provided in submissions and to obtain other information which would be helpful to the Inquiry. We are inquiring into the acts and practices of Commonwealth Government with regard to children in detention and we are trying to establish whether Australia is meeting its international obligations especially with regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. So I would like to ask you to take an oath or affirmation and I will ask secretary to the Inquiry to administer it.
DR NICHOLAS PROCTER, sworn [8.38am] Associate Professor of Mental Health, University of SA
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Could I perhaps - one more comment, considering what I said about privacy and confidentiality, you may wish if you have some names you would like to notify to do it in confidence to the secretary of the Inquiry and also if you would like to provide later some additional material in writing, you are most welcome. If you have a problem with understanding some question or wish to seek clarification, please do so. At the moment, let us go maybe, to your submission and my understanding is that you have conducted study of the mental health of refugees released from detention. Could I ask you to make an opening statement and let me know what the main findings of the study were?
DR PROCTER: Yes. Thank you very much. I undertook a project which was funded under the Australian Trans-Cultural Mental Health Network. The project lasted for 14 months. The Australian Trans-Cultural Mental Health Network is part of the National Mental Health Strategy. My project involved the creation of a model of interactive learning between mainstream mental health services so that people who work in those services, psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists, psychiatric nurses and three culturally and distinctively diverse groups, one of which was a group of Iranian and Afghani men who had been released from either Port Hedland or Woomera Detention Centre.
I undertook the study using ethnographic techniques which is a qualitative form of inquiry involving in-depth interviews, participant observation and my task was to learn as much as possible from these men about their experience of sadness, broadly defined which brought me to the interface of their struggles, if you like, in the post-detention period of their life and involved very lengthy periods of field work in their homes and where their study was based which was at the Migrant Health Service. I think the main point to make is that these people talked very much about their experience being a dehumanising one and I've broken that down into the number of sort of areas which I can speak to and the dehumanising experience begins in the detention camp and never really ends. It continues throughout the everyday life of people and it is something that people keep thinking about every minute of every single day. Almost all of the information that was given to me was never given to me directly. In other words, there was also the use of an interpreter so it was never - it was in the Farsi or Dari speaking language through an accredited interpreter at level 3.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could you say how many men were involved with your study?
DR PROCTER: Yes, a group around 14 who were core men and then up to around 50 who came and went.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could we perhaps come now to the outcomes of your studies? Could you say something about the impact of detention on the mental health of these people?
DR PROCTER: What I can say is that the key issue is trust and a feeling of worthlessness that was manifesting a range of behaviours and attitudes and let me explain what I mean - feeling down, feeling sad, feeling as if they are second class citizens, feeling as if nobody believes their story, feeling as if they are not wanted here and feeling as if they can't be trusted. Many felt that they were disillusioned by the treatment that they had received in detention and the sort of treatment that they were talking about was this, sort of mocking of them as being here as terrorists, or their humanness was not trusted, their worthwhile sense of who they were was not trusted and many of them felt that it would take a long time for them to develop the sort of trust that they needed to in order to get on with every day life and one of the major issues, I think for many of them, is that the processes that take place post-detention, in a sense reinforce the processes that took place during detention. In other words, there was a range of, your know, letters and information and regulations that they needed to follow in the post detention period which made it more - increasingly difficult for them to move on and move forward and have any sense of worthwhile purpose. They were
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes. Did you discover that the length of detention plays any role in their feelings?
DR PROCTER: People talked about what the group determined as time torture. This notion of not knowing the outcome of their detention and this process of wanting to - needing to, having to tell their story over and over and over again and will they be believed. I don't have any more material on the length of detention, only to say that it was a sense of: what will happen next? This feeling of being in limbo and with that a lack of structure and purpose. It is very difficult to plan so in the post detention period people have difficulty planning, making plans because they don't know the outcome of the three year visa.
DR OZDOWSKI: This Inquiry is focusing on children. Were any of these men fathers with children here, or they were single men?
DR PROCTER: Okay. Some were fathers, and as I mentioned to your staff in the invitation that I received to come and speak to you today, I never spoke with children. It is important for me to make that perfectly clear, but what I did offer your staff was insight into adult life which may complement some of the other Inquiry questions that you have. Some people had children and one of the features of that experience was the role reversal. For the older child who had picked up English rather quickly or had some English, there was a pressure coming down on that child to undertake, I guess, an interpreting role. So they would pick up the phone or they would take information in and relay that back to their parents. There were issues in relation to the way funding is allocated, such as security funding is allocated and for some parents it was difficult for them not to be in control of those funds or moneys so that the whole role alteration and erosion of role, more to the point.
I think there were thirdly, issues in relation to the dreams and aspirations that parents had for their children and their wanting to do whatever they could in supporting and encouraging and nurturing the development, social and intellectual development of the child and their feeling of letting down the child and betraying the child and that inevitably broke down relationships with - between the child and the parent and their were periods of frustration. It was reported to me during my work period that what goes on inside the house is quite different to what goes on outside the house and there was one example put to me of yelling and physical threats being made to spouses that was, in a sense, these periods of intense emotional distress and exhaustion and frustration and those sorts of reports were picked up by the authorities who were involved so that was one isolated incident that I came across.
DR OZDOWSKI: So it was happening inside the house?
DR PROCTER: That is correct. Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes. So what would be your professional view, how family can function? What impact on family as an institution would that detention and especially long term detention?
DR PROCTER: I think the - the opinion that I have is more to do - the link between detention, medium to long term detention and post detention, I don't have strong links to make, but what I can say to you is that the breakdown of family structure and the recasting of a new family structure in an ambiguous time bound context where people don't know, can't plan, want to plan, need structure, want to have intimacy with others within themselves and in their family and want to be able to trust others, is made incredibly difficult and the processes of detention create, I believe, a worsening situation.
There is no opportunity to develop trust. There is no opportunity to be able to move forward and to develop the sort of confidence that is needed because of all of these external variables that seem to be ever present. As a family structure what I have noticed is that people are struggling to keep it together. Their struggle is manifest not only within the interface they have agencies that they need to interface with, but their struggle is also within themselves and whilst - and I can comment a little bit about the workers who are involved in the care of those people or social service providers of those people, but I think it is very hard to plan and it is very hard to plan on the long term.
DR OZDOWSKI: Before I will ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask their questions, I would like to explore with you, one more issue, and it is the issue of self harm in detentions. Did you hear any reports of self harm during your studies?
DR PROCTER: No.
DR OZDOWSKI: No. Okay, so
PROF THOMAS: Yes, but first of all, can I just establish your background. Are your sociology, psychology or
DR PROCTER: No. I'm an Associate Professor of Nursing
PROF THOMAS: Yes, nursing.
DR PROCTER: Mental Health at University of South Australia.
PROF THOMAS: Okay. Your background was in nursing then?
DR PROCTER: And sociology.
PROF THOMAS: Okay, thank you. So obviously we can use the same language. Now, in your model that you are trying to build and in your study, in your methodology, were you able to differentiate between the impact of the detention centre and the impact of the past trauma that the people experienced before they came to Australia?
DR PROCTER: We didn't go searching for the differentiation between previous torture and trauma histories and the impact of detention because it wasn't part of what we were looking for. What we were really looking for was post detention experiences and in the process of post detention experiences we came across detention experiences and some previous histories but they weren't the primary focus of my study. The study - the primary focus of the study was to be able to learn as much as possible from people in the present day about their experiences, the metaphors and the language of their experience of sadness and depression and to take that material, within the languages of the project, to take that material across to mainstream mental health workers to give them an opportunity for more informed and compassionate awareness of those issues and at the same time, take material from mainstream mental health workers about their view, the Western ontology of depression, and put that back into community languages, working with community people, trying to build closer bridges between mainstream ontology, if you like, and the metaphors for cultural experience and cultural ways of knowing of these particular people and in that process we naturally when you - and any qualitative inquiries, you would know, you come across other information and that news became the Human Rights Equal Opportunity Commission people became aware of that and invited me here today to speak.
PROF THOMAS: So in your study did you find any cultural impact on the people - reaction, a coping experience to the experiences? Did you see any difference between the Iraqi, the Iranian, the Afghanistan?
DR PROCTER: I didn't speak with Iraqi. I spoke to Afghani and Arabian. I think what
PROF THOMAS: Or the gender difference?
DR PROCTER: Yes, I only spoke to men
PROF THOMAS: Men, right.
DR PROCTER: okay, and what came through was certainly a feeling of - well, certainly a very strong feeling of wanting to withdraw, shame, embarrassment, stigma in relation to their experience. For example, there are 78 Middle Eastern men living around the Murray Bridge region at the moment and what they are talking about and what they have been talking about is a feeling within that region that a lot of people think they are homosexual. They greet each other in the street, they kiss each other. There are five or six men living in the one house. There is no woman living in that particular house and they wear clothing which resembles western styled feminine dress. You might say that on the one hand that is a, you know, that is a one isolated kind of description of people living in a semi-rural location in South Australia.
What for many of these people seems to come through is the cross currents between being detained, seeking asylum, being detained and being treated in a dehumanising, or what they feel is a second class way, and the notion of dehumanisation stayed on this project for around 4 months. We met with the men often in group situations or in individual situations and many of them couldn't just move off that notion of dehumanisation and people talked about it in terms of black and white South Africa where they felt that they were always different. Other refugees who were legitimate would have experiences or would have access to social services that they did not have access to and I think that for, certainly the work that I was trying to achieve, was to try and bring around a sense of trust and what mechanisms would be useful to try and do that. That in a sense is a synopsis of some of this and I guess, if you have got any other questions I can respond to them.
PROF THOMAS: In your study, did you come up with any recommendation for some special kind of intervention for them - you know, for the people? Did you look at the treatment aspect at all?
DR PROCTER: Yes. The recommendations were less, well certainly less of an emphasis on psycho pharmacological interventions for depression, more language based therapies, a recommendation for partnership models or greater community participation in mental health services, engagement with interpreters, it should be the same interpreter each time, particularly with children, recommendations for children with families to have as much integration in social life as possible, recommendations for structure and importance of structure and creating structure, whether to create employment or voluntary work. Now all of those recommendations have been made and have been sent back to the Commonwealth and there are others and having said that, there are still problems within those recommendations too which - they are not as straightforward as I've just put in this time limited interview but there are a number of issues and problems within those recommendations.
Certainly there needs to be a greater alignment between the sorts of services that are being made available to TPVs that would normally be made available to refugees and certainly Family Assistance payments is one of those. One very useful anecdote, just to give a sense of this, is for many of these people they felt as they did in detention, that they were under surveillance and 2 weeks ago someone came to Centrelink with a letter, this letter had been given to this man and it was saying that he could have intensive assistance but as soon as he hit the front desk it became aware that he was a TPV and he was not eligible and it takes many, many hours of work to explain to this man that he is not eligible for intensive assistance, because of the disappointment and rejection.
I think that that is something, at the very beginning of my submission, this sense of every minute of every day there is a difference. It has its own depth and its own dimension and it comes up unexpectedly and it comes up at times when there are all these other variables, such as the feelings of people not wanting them here, feelings that they are under surveillance and clearly, a feeling of not knowing what will be the outcome of their visa application.
MRS SULLIVAN: Did the people involved in your study comment on the use of medication, in terms of their treatment?
DR PROCTER: I'd have to go back over raw data. Nothing stands out. I could come back to you on that.
MRS SULLIVAN: Thanks. The second thing is, are there any elements of your recommendations that could be implemented in a detention context as distinct from an outside detention context?
DR PROCTER: Yes, and I'd be very happy to draft up some specific recommendations if you wish, after this interview, but I think certainly letting people know more about what is going on and why there are delays, why there are administrative processes, I think certainly that would be of tremendous value and letting people know that in the language most familiar to them on each and every occasion.
MRS SULLIVAN: In your submission you talk about the retelling of their stories over and over again and the impact of that, and I think at one point you talk about the equivalence of discrepancies with the use of the term "lies". Would you like to expand on that a bit?
DR PROCTER: Yes. I think the document that you are referring to is a public lecture that I gave as part of the Hawke Institute's: Weaving the Social Fabric public lecture series. Very briefly, in the early part of this work and understandably very few people were willing to speak to me and it took several weeks to be able to better understand that but by the same token people kept coming and wanting to meet with me and there was one moment during the work where a particular gentleman said, you know: what do you really think of us? Do you really believe us? What that unravelled was a whole series of stories about having to tell and retell their story over and over again, and what came through for me was, the questions people are asked about their life history or their circumstances, are asked with particular thoughts in mind on the behalf of the person asking the question, as being central to that person who is asking the question, when in actual fact they are not central to the person who is telling the story.
It coinciding with some work that was published just a few months ago in the British Medical Journal where a group of Kosovar refugees who were seeking asylum in Europe were asked similar questions and of the 27 Kosovars who were interviewed in a B & J paper found none of them had identical stories and it made perfect sense to me for two reasons why people felt that way. One is that they were being asked questions in an environment and a context that was not trusting and not facilitative of trust and disclosure. It also meant that people had difficulty talking about things not knowing how the information would be used and how do you guarantee that. There's a whole range of questions around that. It also brought home for me that these questions and the life histories of people that I've certainly be talking to, tells something about the inner life of people and the inner life of people is something that people want to protect at all costs.
So I took the view that, in order to better understand the inner life of people it is going to take some time and I think that the context in which you would do that is best done outside of a detention setting where the context is not one that is facilitative of the elements that I speak of, the elements of trust, the elements of understanding what is going on and certainly the elements of having some predicability in where their people are going and how the information will be used.
MS LESNIE: There is obviously a bureaucratic need to establish the facts in circumstances of individual cases, have you got any recommendations, other than your comments earlier about how that process could satisfy that need as well?
DR PROCTER: I am not against detention per se. I think it is the conditions which, clearly, are causing concern. I think that the way in which you could broker better community participation and better trust between people who are in detention, across the lifespan of all ages, is through a series of community liaison workers or community development workers, probably similar to what you might see with people who are needing to be detained in the community for other reasons. The nature of the work that would be done would constantly involve the use of two languages and would involve interface with authorities but could be done in a way that was more culturally appropriate, more informed and certainly more compassionate and I would be recommending that people explore that and cost it at the same time and look at the benefits, both social, emotional, mental health as well as financial.
The other part of my recommendation would be to have, at the outset, people approach that with a framework of acceptance of these people. Acceptance of them as people and their stories as people rather than come at them from a framework that they are somehow sinister or foreboding beings who are here from a foreign land to, to you, to be investigated.
MS LESNIE: Finally, having given that description, could you hypothesise about whether there are any aspects you would add on for children and young people? Is that universal comment or do you consider there are some additional features that you would want to accommodate the needs of children and young people?
DR PROCTER: I think I would emphasise for children and young people the importance of a safe and predictable environment and I think that is important for all people but particularly for children and also I would emphasise the use of peer support mechanisms for children. I can come back to you - go back to my data and extract more fully. If you wish, I am happy to do that.
MS LESNIE: That would be helpful. It is just really trying to tease out whether it is of universal significance or whether there are some special dimensions.
DR OZDOWSKI: Professor Procter, thank you very much for your submission and for the evidence you gave. If you would like to provide us with specific recommendations as you said, then you are most welcome. Thank you for your attentions.
Now, I would like to ask Ms Karyn Fromene, I hope I am pronouncing the name properly, to come forward. As I mentioned before the role of the hearing is to test evidence we received so thank you for coming in. I understand you have been hear before so you listened to the ruling regard privacy so I don't need to repeat them. I would like to ask you to take an oath or affirmation now.
MS KARYN FROMENE, affirmed [9.07am] Coordinator, New Arrivals Clinic, City of Port Adelaide Enfield
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you very much. Now, I would like to ask you to give your name, address, qualification and capacity in which you are appearing, for the record.
MS FROMENE: My name is Karyn Fromene. I live at [address removed]. I am a community health nurse and I work for the Port Adelaide Enfield Council and I am here as a local government immunisation provider.
DR OZDOWSKI: Again, thank you very much for your submission, it was very useful. Could we start, maybe with examination of immunisation services which are provided in Woomera. Could you perhaps describe briefly the extent of immunisation services which are provided on Woomera.
MS FROMENE: To the best of my knowledge, at the moment children have been given full immunisation services. This was not always the case. I believe originally they were only offered oral polio vaccine and measles mumps and rubella. That has changed since, I believe last year.
DR OZDOWSKI: When last year, would you know?
MS FROMENE: Towards the end of last year. They were then offered all vaccines that were offered to children on the Australian immunisation schedule.
DR OZDOWSKI: So by now you are satisfied that all immunisation which is provided is very comparable with immunisation provided to general public in Australia?
MS FROMENE: I believe that the immunisation - vaccines are offered to these people, they are available to them but they don't always have the access to them. I can speak from our experiences of what happened with us. I actually conduct an immunisation clinic in the Enfield area, a public immunisation clinic and middle of last year we had families attending our clinic, large families, families of up to eight people in some cases, requesting immunisation services. Child and Youth Health, who I work fairly closely with, have been going out to help these families in the home but obviously of the 60 to 80 families in the area, which could be up to 300 to 400 people, and people were coming to us because obviously they felt they needed the services.
When they arrived at our clinic we were not set up for refugees or people that have a different language and it is quite - it was quite evident they needed much better services than what we were able to offer. So what we did was we actually approached Child and Youth Health and asked them if they would like to, in collaboration with us and the Department of Human Services, offer a clinic for these people to attend that we could offer them culturally appropriate information and make them feel more comfortable and that way, hopefully, improve access to the vaccines.
DR OZDOWSKI: How many people did you immunise, people who are on TPVs?
MS FROMENE: Our first clinic we had about 20 people turn up, 20 to 25 people, sorry, I can't remember exactly how many. It was quite confusing. The first time they all turned up. Records, at first they didn't have all their records. We were not really sure what they had had and what they hadn't had. With immunisation, if a person does not attend with records then you have to assume they haven't been immunised and you have to commence again.
Eventually we were able to ascertain that most people have initially been to Migrant Health in the city and have been commenced on catch-up - this is children I am talking about - have been commenced on a catch-up schedule of vaccines. The problem with that access to transport can be a big problem for families. If you have eight people in one family trying to get to the city on a bus, it can be quite cost prohibitive in some ways so a lot of these people had commenced vaccination services but hadn't continued on because obviously it was far too hard for them.
Basically, the first clinic we had around about 20 - I think 22 people. We found there was a problem with the families. They didn't like to take their children out of school, there was another barrier for them. They are very keen to have their children learn English and even for an hour - we had to change to our times around, make it more appropriate for them to attend because they really didn't like to take their children out of school.
DR OZDOWSKI: Ms Fromene, going back to the numbers, you said initially 20 to 22?
MS FROMENE: Yes.
PROF THOMAS: Were there any
MS FROMENE: We fluctuate from - sometimes we only have half a dozen people turn up and then the last clinic we had we had 17, I think, and we are actually getting new parents turning up as well which obviously means word of mouth is reaching these people. Brand new babies, only 6 weeks old. We are quite hopeful that will continue and it will be an adjunct to the Child and Youth Health program.
PROF THOMAS: You mentioned you had some problems with having records of previous immunisation, would you go a bit further?
MS FROMENE: Well, mainly, I think, families were unaware that we required the records when they arrive so in some instances they did have records at home but didn't bring them and it was very difficult to ascertain what they had had. Other times the parents had no records but the children did. We felt it was really important that the parents also were immunised as well, that is why we commenced them on a program as well.
There were some people from Port Hedland and they appeared not to have too many vaccinations at all. I think they only really had polio and that was all that we could see that they had been given. It was very difficult because Child and Youth Health document what vaccinations in their records and the families with the hand-held records they had, didn't always mesh together so it was always a bit difficult to ascertain what was required.
DR OZDOWSKI: Did you try to get in touch with Port Hedland or Woomera or any other detention centre to establish what records are available?
MS FROMENE: No. At that stage I believe South Australian Immunisation Coordination Unit has actually got a data base they are trying to establish from people from Woomera. It is not by name, it is by boat number so it is very difficult. Unfortunately, a lot of the names are similar and it is very difficult to work who is who and who has had what so what we have done is we have - if they have no records, we commence from the beginning.
DR OZDOWSKI: So the detention centre is providing you with boat numbers and not with the names?
MS FROMENE: This is the immunisation unit. They actually have records of people in their unit but as far as my understanding is, it is boat numbers - they go by boat numbers not names.
DR OZDOWSKI: Not the names. Do people, in your experience, use boat numbers after they are released from detention?
MS FROMENE: No. No, they have all used their names.
DR OZDOWSKI: So how do you match boat numbers with the names?
MS FROMENE: We don't. We just commence - if they haven't got records we just offer them from the beginning.
DR OZDOWSKI: Did you see any records which were issued in the detention centre about immunisation?
MS FROMENE: Yes, yes, there was a couple and it had Woomera written - now whether - I am not actually sure whether they were from Woomera that they came or whether they were established that they were given by - the previous provider had written Woomera across the card so I am not really sure. I would imagine it would be the previous provider, it might be Migrant Health, that would have ascertained they would have had a certain amount of vaccinations in Woomera and would have written Woomera across - the same went for Port Hedland as well. We didn't - it just had Port Hedland written on the card, it didn't actually have what they had actually been given.
DR OZDOWSKI: Are you aware of any communication between your clinic and the detention centre or maybe between state authorities and detention centre about immunisation records?
MS FROMENE: I have faxed off a list of people that we have immunised, their dates of birth and their name, to the South Australian immunisation record to let them know what we have given them but I haven't received any - I haven't spoken to them about how they mesh in with their records, as of yet.
DR OZDOWSKI: Did you have any formal
MS FROMENE: No.
DR OZDOWSKI: communication with the detention centres?
MS FROMENE: No.
DR OZDOWSKI: No. What about state authorities? Are you aware that they had any form of communication with the detention centre about records?
MS FROMENE: I believe they do. The nurses from the South Australian Immunisation Unit go up to Woomera, I believe, and offer the polio and measles - were offering polio and measles, mumps and then later on diphtheria, whooping cough etcetera so I believe they were actually going up there and making sure people were vaccinated.
DR OZDOWSKI: Before I ask my Assistant Commissioner to ask you questions, could you perhaps focus on children who are coming to your clinic. How did they behave, very much like any other children who are coming to your clinic or are there any differences?
MS FROMENE: I would have to say they are very quiet children. They don't cry when I give them their injections. They are very well-behaved. They are very - I wouldn't say withdrawn but very quiet. They do as their parents tell them and they are very polite so I wouldn't say they are totally withdrawn as such but they are much quieter than normal children that have vaccinations for the same age.
DR OZDOWSKI: How is their English?
MS FROMENE: English is - mainly the children that attend school have a very - a small command of the English language. We do have interpreters there so they interpret for them. Some of the children can speak English but it is not very much. The ones that go to high school seem to be better able to speak English.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Mrs Sullivan.
MRS SULLIVAN: In your judgment should children or adults from the backgrounds these people come from, require any additional vaccinations other than the regime that is given to the Australian children?
MS FROMENE: I wouldn't say additional, I believe they should have what everyone else has here, especially the polio and measles. Measles - I believe they come from a high area which is endemic to polio and measles. They probably have had some form of vaccination as children or babies in their own country but many of the families cannot remember what they have had, they don't know, so I believe they should have what we have.
DR OZDOWSKI: Those that turn up at your clinic obviously believe in immunisation. Are you aware of any adults who for some reason, maybe cultural reason, were resistant to immunisation?
MS FROMENE: Not that I am aware of, no. The families - the parents are very, as you say, very aware that immunisation is important and as far as I know, I don't know of any families that are not coming for that reason.
DR OZDOWSKI: Is there anything else you would like to add to your testimony?
MS FROMENE: Basically, I would just like to say, I guess, I would like to see more public providers offering this service for their community, if they knew there was a community that needed service like this in their community. I am very lucky to have a very good employer that supports us in this. I really just think it would be terrific if we could continue and if we could have some - if we could have resources to help us offer culturally appropriate translated material for people so that they know what is offered to them. I am sure at Migrant Health they are able to get this information but it is not always easily accessed. We don't always have the information. It is very hard when we send to the Department of Aged Care, for instance, for translated material. We usually have to wait a long time for it. If we are offering this service, it would be nice to be able to have the information to give to the families.
MS LESNIE: I wanted to just quickly go back to the records. Could I just clarify, when people - do you ever see people who have been in detention centres that have medical - do they have medical records in their hands that have a list of vaccinations?
MS FROMENE: Some of them do, some of them don't.
MS LESNIE: The ones that don't, have you asked them why they don't have records?
MS FROMENE: We have had - we ask them do they have their cards and I don't normally push the issue if they don't.
MS LESNIE: Sorry, what is a "card"?
MS FROMENE: We actually have a record - it is an immunisation record that is given to people when they are vaccinated. It should be given to everybody that is vaccinated. So if they have been vaccinated anywhere, then they should be given a record.
MS LESNIE: So people who are vaccinated inside the detention centres are vaccinated by the South Australian Government?
MS FROMENE: Yes.
MS LESNIE: Whoever does that, gives them a card. So if they don't have the card, is it ever noted on their sort of medical portfolios?
MS FROMENE: I couldn't tell you that.
MS LESNIE: You don't know?
MS FROMENE: We don't actually have access to their medical records as such but they do have - they carry a little envelope with all their bits and pieces in it and we basically just - we just ask them have you got a record we can have a look at and if they don't, then we have to assume they have not been vaccinated. Some of them are quite adamant that they have been vaccinated and they are up to date but without being able to - going on parent parental recall is not always - does not always work and they might think they have done it and they haven't so it is best to just commence the course again and make sure they are covered.
MS LESNIE: The second question I have is how do people know to come to your clinic?
MS FROMENE: Child and Youth Health, when they do their home visits, they have actually been promoting our clinic saying - the nurse that does the home visits at Enfield goes out and does an initial assessment of all the families and then lets them know that we are there, what dates we are there and they actually ring them on the day - they get the interpreter to remind them to come in and make sure they attend if they have said they are going to attend.
MS LESNIE: Do you know how - why do Child and Youth Health go and visit these families? What is the system?
MS FROMENE: Well, as far as I know, because of the accessibility, the language barriers. Child and Youth
MS LESNIE: How do they know that they are there?
MS FROMENE: They are referred from Migrant Health, I believe.
MS LESNIE: So they would have to have gone to Migrant Health first?
MS FROMENE: First. Yes, if they have never been there, then they would never know.
DR OZDOWSKI: I ask you two more questions. Firstly, could you name the vaccinations of every child that expected to have in Australia now?
MS FROMENE: Yes, from age - what age
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes.
MS FROMENE: From birth they are given hepatitis B vaccination and then at 2, 4, and 6 months they are given diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and hepatitis B, haemophilias influenza B, which is the HIB, and an oral polio. At 12 months of age they are given a measles, mumps and rubella and another HIB. At 18 months they get a diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough on its own and at 4 years of age they get a diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps and rubella and a polio vaccine.
DR OZDOWSKI: At the moment all these vaccinations are given to people released from detentions centres that did not have it?
MS FROMENE: They are made available now, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: What was the difference before the end of last year? Which of the vaccinations were not given the end of 2001?
MS FROMENE: As far as I know, diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough and HIB. I know they were given measles, mumps and rubella and a polio but as far as I know the other two were not offered at that stage but the South Australian Immunisation Coordination Unit was very supportive and if we have families attend our clinic, our public clinic, at that stage we were asking what do we give these people because we weren't sure. Most of them were TPV clients so we were told to vaccinate them with what we would normally catch them up with.
DR OZDOWSKI: Vaccinations are free for all these people?
MS FROMENE: Yes, they are.
DR OZDOWSKI: They do not pay anything?
MS FROMENE: No. They are free for everybody in the community.
MS LESNIE: Do you know how often - is it Child and Youth Health, goes into the detention centre to do the vaccinations?
MS FROMENE: The South Australian Immunisation Unit was going. I don't know if they are still attending. Child and Youth Health, as far as I know, were attending as well. I don't know how often. I don't really have access to that information. We also offer - for the adults, that haven't been vaccinated against tetanus, measles, mumps and rubella, our area offers free tetanus so we do offer that to the parents as well which is not normally free. That is a local thing that we offer all our residents.
DR OZDOWSKI: That is, I think, all from us. Thank you very much for putting forward your submission and coming in to appear at this hearing. Ms Fromene, thank you.
Now, could we ask please Ms Tina Dolgopol, if she is here? No. In this case, I am ordering 5 minutes break.
SHORT BREAK [9.26am]
RESUMED [9.37am]
DR OZDOWSKI: All right, thank you. I would like to welcome Ms Tina Dolgopol and I would like to mention that we are here to test the evidence provided so thank you for the evidence provided so far and I would like to ask you to take an oath or affirmation now.
MS DOLGOPOL: The affirmation.
MS TINA DOLGOPOL, affirmed [9.37am] Action for Children South Australia
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Could I ask you now to give your name, address, qualifications and the capacity in which you are appearing for the record?
MS DOLGOPOL: My full name is Ustinia Dolgopol. My address is [address removed]. My qualifications are senior lecturer in law with a JD from the State University of New York at Buffalo. I'm appearing today before the Commission as Chair of Action for Children, a community-based children's rights organisation here in South Australia.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you very much. I would like to remind for those who came later that the Commission believes that it is important to respect the privacy of individuals and to protect children in particular. So when giving the evidence please remember that the identity of asylum seekers is not to be disclosed and also the identity of said parties including former or current employees of detention centres should not be disclosed. If you feel that the Commission should know some details regarding the identity of people, please talk to the Secretary of the Inquiry, Ms Vanessa Lesnie, who is here and leave her with the details after exhibiting.
Could I ask you first to start with an opening statement and in particular indicate the experience you have with people from detention centres? I understand you were making visits to Woomera and I also understand that you interviewed former detainees and when you are making this opening statement if you also could focus on your contact with children from detention.
MS DOLGOPOL: Thank you very much. During January this year I had an opportunity to visit the Woomera Detention Centre and interview approximately 16 families. In addition I interviewed two families on temporary protection visas in Adelaide at a subsequent date. Our submission is divided into several parts and I would like to touch on each of them in my opening statement. From the point of view of the families that we interviewed, clearly one of the matters and most pressing concerns is the developmental delays that are being experienced by their children.
These families are very much aware that the lack of leisure and recreational activities have affected the mental state of their children, and also affect their child's creativity. They also uniformly expressed concern at the lack of education, appropriate education available to their children. I realise that since my visit some things have changed and that there are the trips now to St Michael's that were not taking place at the time I visited Woomera but certainly there still remain concerns from the families I've spoken to who are on temporary protection visas about the quality of education for adolescent children.
One of the main issues and one of the overriding senses I had from those interviews was that the detainees or asylum seekers do not feel that either the government or the Australian population actually understands what they experienced in their countries of origin and as an organisation we think this is a crucial issue, that it is not really part of the public domain in Australia. The extent of the persecution that they have suffered in their countries of origin, nor the extent to which the rule of law is undermined and the things that we take for granted in terms of an impartial judiciary are not present in any of the countries and although obviously steps are being taken at the moment to return Afghanistan to a democracy, it would be hard to say that there is a functioning independent judiciary in Afghanistan at this moment in time.
If one can stop and think about the effect that that has on a culture and a society where you have no belief in your ability to attain any sense of justice from a court system and the ongoing levels of persecution that these families experienced, whether it was for their political views or their status as a religious minority, and one has to remember that in terms of the children, they become aware in many of these societies at a very early age of the persecution that their parents are experiencing. If they are members of a religious minority they become aware at a very early age of the persecution that they are experiencing and I think that we need to do far more to assist the Australian population to actually understand that background so that they can put in context some of the behaviours that they see.
It is not out of the ordinary for someone who has experienced years of persecution to react when they are in a detention facility with nothing to do all day and where they feel they are again being persecuted. I think you have to look at a history in order to understand present behaviour. I also think that there are levels of racial and religious intolerance that are reappearing in the Australian community and that the government is not doing enough to depoliticise the situation. It is not doing enough to educate people about that level of persecution so that they gain at least some sense of the humanity of the detainees including obviously the children.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, and could I maybe stop you for a moment? Could we go back and establish how often did you go to Woomera?
MS DOLGOPOL: Just the once.
DR OZDOWSKI: Just once? How many people did you meet?
MS DOLGOPOL: About 30.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thirty. Were you meeting them individually, as your clients, or you were meeting them in group meetings?
MS DOLGOPOL: No, I met individually with families and in some cases where there were families with children I interviewed some of the older adolescents. I did not try and interview the younger children, although at times some of them were present in the room. Each of the families was told that I was there specifically for the purpose of the Inquiry that the Commission was undertaking and that I was not there to represent them as their lawyer.
DR OZDOWSKI: I see. So you went there. When it was, it was
MS DOLGOPOL: In January this year.
DR OZDOWSKI: In January. So you went after our Inquiry was announced and you went especially to prepare the submission.
MS DOLGOPOL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Did you have a chance to visit Woomera facilities or you met only in the reception area?
MS DOLGOPOL: We met in the interview rooms that are in the centre of the compound.
DR OZDOWSKI: So you didn't visit the facility?
MS DOLGOPOL: No, I did not.
DR OZDOWSKI: You didn't go to the places they live and so on?
MS DOLGOPOL: No.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay and now could we also establish your contacts with people who are on TPVs now in Adelaide. How many of them do you know?
MS DOLGOPOL: Two families.
DR OZDOWSKI: Two families. Thank you very much. Please continue.
MS DOLGOPOL: I would like to move on to the part of our submission that deals with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of South Australia and the Minister for Immigration. It is of serious concern to our organisation that no independent authority has oversight of child protection issues, particularly when it is the guards or the very conditions at Woomera that lead to the emotional or physical abuse of children. In our society we have set up child protection legislation not only in terms of what parents may do to their children but in terms of what institutions may do to a child and in this particular case no legislation existing in Australia can reach the child protection concerns that come out of the very conditions that exist in Woomera Detention Centre.
When you have that number of children who are suicidal or self harming and the Commission may note from our submission that the interpreter and I spent 45 minutes with a 16-year-old woman who was suicidal on the day that we spoke to her. We spent 45 minutes trying to calm her down and deal with the guards in order to have her situation focused in on and dealt with by the ACM Management. That to us was a clear case of child protection and yet there's nothing anyone can do and as I understand it from media reports this morning, the State Government of South Australia will be making some comments on that as well about their inability to focus in on it.
But it does seem to us that at a minimum the Minister cannot carry out his functions as the guardian of unaccompanied minors as well as being the jailer of those unaccompanied minors and that something needs to be done to create an independent authority so that the Australian people can be comfortable that child protection matters are being taken account of. We have in our submission made very specific recommendations about the creation of an independent authority.
I would also like to note that there have been a number of issues raised with respect to gender, the issue of gender, that almost nothing has been done at Woomera to educate the ACM guards on women's rights. Both women and adolescent girls experience levels of harassment from other detainees from cultures that may be somewhat different than their own. Some minority group members are harassed by men from majority groups in the countries that they have fled. This resembles the persecution they were already receiving from that majority group. ACM has done very little to address this issue, despite constant complaints from families and some of the adolescent girls about this matter. There is
MS LESNIE: Sorry, you said they have done very little. Do you know what they have done to address this issue?
MS DOLGOPOL: I didn't want to say they have done nothing because I can't be sure of that. We did not go back and speak directly with the ACM Management. My impression is that some of the people we spoke to have raised this matter with the guards but didn't feel that they were getting anywhere.
MS LESNIE: So what sort of things would you want them to be doing to prevent that risk for young girls?
MS DOLGOPOL: Well, as we pointed out in our submission, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has specifically called on all parties to the Refugee Convention to appoint gender advisers for each and every refugee detention facility or each and every refugee facility around the world. That in fact is being done in a number of countries around the world, both in the developed world and in the developing world, yet we have not done anything along these lines. The whole purpose of a gender adviser is to talk to women about the issues that they are experiencing and to then carry on some negotiations with management of the centre whether that management be a government management as it is in some countries or as here, a private security firm.
But you need someone who will take up these issues and who is in a position to carry out ongoing negotiations. One of the issues that keeps arising is the absolute sense of powerlessness that the asylum seekers feel and their comments to us, because we specifically asked them whether there were complaint mechanisms at Woomera, were that there were not specific complaint mechanisms. Those people who did complain, never got feedback on their complaints, were never told what had happened to them and they had no understanding of any changes that had been made as a result of their complaints.
So you need someone there who is in a position of power who can be a mediator between the asylum seekers and the management. Also although there are no complaints about the behaviour of the guards, it is clear that some of the treatment that the women detainees are receiving, they find humiliating and I'm not sure that the guards actually understand that.
MS LESNIE: Could you give examples?
MS DOLGOPOL: Comments made about their always wanting to go to the infirmary, comments, difficulties in obtaining milk for their children when they need it and then comments made to them about being too demanding, issues around obtaining nappies, issues around their own medical complaints being dealt with and there is a sense in which there is a tension that exists there because of course people who have nothing much else to do during the day because those facilities are not being provided to them will focus in on their physical condition. You then create a cycle where they will in fact say something because of course it is one of the things they end up focusing in on and the guards then see them as too demanding or too insistent and you then have an interchange where there's a complete lack of understanding and I think that this is a major issue, both in gender terms and in cultural terms.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could I perhaps change the tack of questioning and I would like to - we will come later yet again to gender issues, time permitting, but I would like to go to your legal expertise and in a submission which we received from the Department of Immigration there was an assertion that under Australian law immigration detainees have the capacity to take proceedings before a court to determine the legality of the detention. Is it a correct reflection of Australian law? How do you see it?
MS DOLGOPOL: I don't actually agree with that assertion. The only alternative which a lot of detainees would not be aware of because of course there isn't a complete right to legal advice in the sense that we would understand that in the general population and in fact the Australian Government has admitted before the Human Rights Committee that the only way in fact you could test the legality of the detention is through a writ of habeas corpus. Now, there are not that many writs filed in Australia to carry through on that but in terms of the actual legislation, the privative clause that prevents any effective review by the Federal Court would prevent an effective review of detention and I think the government has been a bit disingenuous and is found to be disingenuous by the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations.
DR OZDOWSKI: Did you hear of even one writ of habeas corpus relating to detainees?
MS DOLGOPOL: Yes, there has been one.
DR OZDOWSKI: There has been one?
MS DOLGOPOL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Any more?
MS DOLGOPOL: As far as I'm aware, certainly what I'm aware of in South Australia is that there has been one writ of habeas corpus which at a trial level was successful but is up on appeal by the Minister.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you.
MS DOLGOPOL: I would like to add to that that that writ did not in fact test the conditions of detention. What it tested was that you had a detainee who wanted to go back to a third country that they had initially escaped to. So even in that writ it was not the lawfulness of the detention itself but rather the unwillingness of the government to allow this person to leave to yet a third country that they claimed they could get access to.
DR OZDOWSKI: The second issue you mentioned before is the issue of child protection legislation and my question is really to you about the state legislation and about its effectiveness in that area. As I understand there is quite good state legislation in the area of child protection and I understand that if a child living in South Australia is mistreated or isn't sent to school and so on, there are enough measures in the legislation to ensure that the best interest of the child is well looked after. The question to you is does this legislation apply to children in detention centres?
MS DOLGOPOL: I think the answer is both yes and no and in our submission we actually quoted a part of the memorandum of understanding and perhaps it would be easier if I read that into the record. "The Department of Human Services has a legal responsibility to investigate child protection concerns for children in immigration detention in South Australia. However any interventions undertaken to secure the care and protection of detainees must be actioned by DIMIA. DIMIA will consider carefully DHS recommendations to ensure that the best interests of the child are protected."
I think that language is pretty clear that at the end of the day it is DIMIA that is the arbitrator of whether or not any action should be taken and whether in fact any abuse has occurred and that to us is what causes the problem. The legislation ultimately has a very limited effect.
DR OZDOWSKI: DIMIA reports the issues of sexual abuse of children on a regular basis for state authorities investigation as I understand. Are there any other circumstances where DIMIA or ACM or anybody working in detention centres calls upon state authorities to look into the welfare of children?
MS DOLGOPOL: There have been a couple of suggestions of physical abuse of children. The problem is I'm not sure that the asylum seekers themselves have any real knowledge of child protection laws. When you ask people what they've been told about Australian law they say: basically nothing. Very little is done to educate them so it is not surprising that the reports are being made by ACM more than by the detainees themselves because the detainees don't even know that they have a right to make those allegations.
In our conversations with some of the families concerns were expressed about the behaviour of some of the other detainees towards children in the compound, of unnecessary discipline and forceful discipline which might amount to forms of physical abuse of a child and there were also issues raised about the emotional abuse of children both by other detainees and by ACM guards.
DR OZDOWSKI: What kind of a model should be adopted, legislative model, to ensure much better protection of children in detention?
MS DOLGOPOL: Either the Commission or the Ombudsman needs to be given some power in this area or, as we have recommended, an independent authority but there has to be a Commonwealth-level authority that will have the ability to investigate abuses in any detention centre around Australia because the inherent problem in this is section 109 of the Constitution and any place where there's a conflict between State law and Commonwealth law, the Commonwealth law will prevail. So unless you have a Commonwealth law in this area you will always be stymied by that part of the constitution. So it seems to me something needs to be done at the Commonwealth level.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, thank you very much. Now, I will ask my Assistant Commissioners to put questions to you.
MRS SULLIVAN: I was just interested in pursuing this independent authority a little further. If we could imagine a scenario that at some point in the future the children were to attend state schools in South Australia and a teacher reported that a child had disclosed to them, how would you play out that scenario in terms of an independent Commonwealth authority?
MS DOLGOPOL: It depends on if the - are you talking about a child who is still nominally in detention but who may be living in the community and then
MRS SULLIVAN: Or on day release to a school.
MS DOLGOPOL: If the child was still in detention then it has to be the Commonwealth authority that would investigate the child abuse or authorise the State authorities to investigate on their behalf but it still needs to be independent from the Minister because ultimately the Minister is in a position where his responsibility to control or as he sees it to control Australia's waters will always conflict with the child's protection needs. It would be very difficult for anyone in that position to make a truly neutral and unbiased decision and that is why we need to be confident that the decision maker in that area is neutral.
MRS SULLIVAN: It is also quite well known that the definitions of child abuse and neglect vary from state to state.
MS DOLGOPOL: Yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: How do you overcome that problem with an independent commonwealth body?
MS DOLGOPOL: They do vary from state to state but there is some overlap and I think it is more important that we look at perhaps best practice. It might be possible to find one piece of State legislation that seems to be more specific and use that as a model. We have enough lawyers and talented people around Australia that I would have no difficulty in believing that they could draft legislation that would be appropriate to the situation. I wouldn't be concerned about the ability to draft the legislation. It is really the interaction between that authority and the Minister and who will have the final say that becomes crucial and I think that would be the difficulty in the political discussion.
MRS SULLIVAN: Did you get any sense in your interviews of how much intra-familial abuse could be occurring, if any?
MS DOLGOPOL: No. It was brought to our attention that there were a couple of instances, including among the families that we interviewed, of suggestions but no proof as yet. There were more concerns expressed about physical issues than sexual issues in the families that we interviewed but I did not specifically question family members about this because those sorts of interviews would have taken time and required a counsel to be present. I did not feel it appropriate to actually push the families to try and discover whether there are instances. I think many of us have come away and certainly I personally came away with a concern not at what parents were doing to their children in a sense of purposely doing, and I don't fault the parents, but real concern about the fact the children are witnessing the deterioration of the mental health of their parents, of what that must do to them as children to watch that phenomenon taking place.
I kept thinking to myself, of trying to picture what it would be like as a child to watch a parent who is that depressed who constantly found it difficult to cope with life and who could state quite clearly and was very much aware that they were finding it difficult to cope with their parenting responsibilities. Again I think we need to remind ourselves that it is the situation and the conditions of detention that lead to that and the lack of proper training of staff, as I said, in terms of persecution people faced. But I think that this is a serious concern that children have to watch the mental deterioration of their parents.
MRS SULLIVAN: Finally you mentioned you interviewed some adolescents. Given that adolescence is a period maybe of, I don't know, hormones if nothing else, would you like to comment on the main trends you perceived in those interviews and how those adolescents may have been having different experiences than their counterparts outside detention centres? And I'm thinking particularly in terms of the mental issues you have raised but also perhaps some education and vocational issues.
MS DOLGOPOL: For some of the adolescents we interviewed who came from Iran and Iraq there was a very strong level of homesickness. They remember the quality of life that they had in terms of relationships with family, extended family, with their school, with their friends. They remember the things that they did as normal every day children. And so several of the children talked about missing that aspect of their life and of course then were quite aware of what they had had and what they did not now have.
All of them expressed concern about their future, about the lack of education and what that would do to their future prospects in life. These are children who want to work hard, who want to make a better life. There was also a sense from some of the male adolescents of a resentment developing which, you know, to give them credit they were very much aware of. There was a lot of self insight but certainly resentment developing towards the Australian Government about their treatment and the fact that they had been made to suffer like this and they couldn't understand it.
They could not understand why having fled persecution they were being made to suffer yet again by a government that they thought was democratic and of course because they've had so little interaction with the Australian population they don't actually know what any of us think about the situation. They don't know about the divergency of views in the Australian population and during those interviews it is not appropriate to try and discuss those matters with them. So I'm just recounting, you know, the sense of frustration and resentment that they are feeling and of course that level of pent-up frustration cannot be good for anyone.
One of the unaccompanied adolescent females was very concerned because she comes from a particular group where women are modest. She accepts her cultural background and is a firm believer in women being very modest. Men show an enormous amount of disrespect towards women when they are not accompanied by an older male relative and she was finding this situation incredibly difficult. She had no effective way of dealing with it and I think that that situation and the fact that nothing was being done despite the fact that this situation had been brought to the attention of ACM's management several times by the Woomera Legal Outpost and by other visitors to Woomera, nothing had been done and I'm sure that the constancy of trying to deal with this situation led to her being suicidal.
MRS SULLIVAN: Were they taking advantage of the English lessons, for example?
MS DOLGOPOL: The levels of depression in the adolescents is such that even they can't always take advantage of the situation. Some of them had gone to school and I think one of the issues that is raised in Action for Children's submission and I know has been raised in other submissions, is that the lack of resources into education means that there's no difference made between those students who may in fact have been studying English in their countries of origin and there's a wide range in the families that have come to Australia.
Some have come from middle class backgrounds who are either at school or privately they were taking English language classes so they already had some level of proficiency. Other students had had no formal education at all in their countries of origin and yet everyone has been lumped together and so it became very difficult. If you are being taught an alphabet that you already know and you actually had some basic command of the English language, to be sitting in a room where someone is trying to teach you the ABCs all over again becomes quite frustrating. So certainly a couple of the adolescents said that they had stopped going to school because they felt they weren't learning anything.
DR OZDOWSKI: Professor Thomas?
PROF THOMAS: Considering the cultures these people came from, patriarchal, male-dominated, how do you think the gender advisers will be able to operate?
MS DOLGOPOL: One of the things that the High Commissioner for Refugees has talked about quite extensively is that even in societies that are very patriarchal there are often structures in place for women to have their voice heard. They may not be obvious to us as an outsider but inside their culture you know whether it is through family members, whether it is through other networks of women, but women do manage to in fact find a voice in many societies where we wouldn't necessarily assume that. Becoming refugees mean those structures have all broken down so that you don't have that way of making your voice heard. That is one of the things that a gender adviser is supposed to be doing, is looking at the cultural background of the women and thinking through how they can in fact give them a voice in a way that would be culturally appropriate.
PROF THOMAS: What do you think is the long-term impact of the detention centre experience is on the girls, the women, when they come out of the detention centre?
MS DOLGOPOL: Absolutely. I mean, the women that I interviewed felt that they had come to a point where they could not effectively carry out their parenting responsibilities and given that a lot of them saw this as one of their major roles in life it was quite a depressing thought and obviously fed into their levels of depression. It was awful for them to think through that they were not being the sort of parents that they wanted to be to their children. I think for some of the adolescents there are issues about how they learn to be adolescents both within the context of their own culture but they are very much aware that they have come to Australia and that Australia will be different. They are not being given an opportunity to learn how you deal with being an adolescent from a particular culture but living in this society that is different from your own.
I think the High Commissioner for Refugees has pointed out on a number of occasions that wherever you look around the world, sometimes people from developed countries who are in a refugee camp bring prejudices with them about the situation of women and girl children and don't actually try and learn. I think it would be that sort of situation that is happening now where we make assumptions that because these are girl children from particular cultural backgrounds that they don't have goals to be educated, that they don't want a career, when in fact in their own society they might be able to get access to those things and many of them do. I think we need to be careful not to put our own prejudices on the people that are at Woomera.
DR OZDOWSKI: Just a last question, coming to this legislative conflict. We have got state legislation dealing with child protection; we don't have federal legislation here.
MS DOLGOPOL: That is right.
DR OZDOWSKI: Where is the conflict?
MS DOLGOPOL: The conflict is in the Migration Act. Ultimately the Minister is the guardian under the Migration Act of unaccompanied minors and has the right to detain unauthorised arrivals. As I read into the record, that provision, the whole Memorandum of Understanding is based on the theory that the Commonwealth has the power and ultimately
DR OZDOWSKI: So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying, it is a mandatory system of detention and the federal legislation overrides the state legislation dealing with child protection.
MS DOLGOPOL: That is the way everything has been structured. Obviously it has not been tested in Court and you are right but we don't have two pieces of legislation that claim to be dealing with the exact same issue but everyone has been operating on the assumption that the Migration Act and the Minister's powers under the Migration Act override any authority of the state.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Thank you very much for your submission. Thank you also to your organisation, Action for Children, and thank you for coming and giving the evidence.
MS DOLGOPOL: Thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now I would like to ask Dr Ros Powrie to come forward. Thank you very much for coming to give the evidence and also thanks for the submission which was certainly very interesting. I would like to ask you to take an oath or affirmation to start the proceedings.
DR ROS POWRIE, affirmed [10.09am] Australian Association for Infant Mental Health
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Now, could I ask you to give your name, address, qualification and capacity in which you are appearing for the record of proceedings?
DR POWRIE: My name is Dr Rosalind Powrie. I reside at [address removed]. I'm a child and adolescent psychiatrist and a perinatal psychiatrist in the public health system in South Australia and I have also been a visiting psychiatrist to the Survivors for Torture and Trauma Rehabilitation Service up until August last year. I'm here in a capacity as representative for the Australian Association of Infant Mental Health and authored submission on behalf of that association into the Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Could you perhaps mention a bit more about whether you have got any direct experience of going to detention centres or of people who are released from detention centres, in particular children?
DR POWRIE: I visited Woomera Detention Centre on one occasion on March 7 this year. That was in relation to an invitation from the Australian Correctional Management Services to Adult Mental Health Services looking at what kind of pathways of referral could be made in relation to detainees and also I went with an interest in looking at how the detention centre supported, or didn't, the mental health needs of children.
DR OZDOWSKI: So you went, one could say, as a consultant to ACM?
DR POWRIE: I probably went along more as an interested party because the invitation was directed to the Adult Mental Health Services but I did in the course of that visit gain some understanding about the difficulties that children and families face in detention and also the difficulties that the ACM staff have in identifying problems of children.
DR OZDOWSKI: Were you paid for your services to ACM?
DR POWRIE: No. No, I was not.
DR OZDOWSKI: So you just were invited just to
DR POWRIE: I went of my own - yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Now, could I ask you to make an opening statement.
DR POWRIE: The Australian Association of Infant Mental Health, first of all it is important to put in context our interests. We aim to improve the professional and public recognition that infancy is a critical period in psycho-social development for infants and family and to provide a focus for multi-disciplinary interaction and cooperation for those who are involved and interested in working with infants and care givers. So our specific focus in making this submission was to make comments on the psychological and social well-being and development of infants and young children in families in immigration detention; to make recommendations about specific services required for young children and pregnant women in detention and on release in the community; to look at culture and its influence on the psycho social well being of infants and parents; to make comments on the impact of detention on the well-being of young children and recommendations thereof.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Your submission is saying that the first few years are really crucial for the development of the child. Are you saying that the changes to development - if it wasn't conducted in a proper way there will be some irreversible changes in child psychology?
DR POWRIE: That is correct. We know now from the last 10 years of research into brain development and research into the development of children's social and emotional life that the first years are absolutely critical to the subsequent adjustment in childhood and adulthood and what can happen in the first 3 years can certainly be irreversible and long lasting. We see this in cases of severe child neglect and emotional abuse where actual changes in the brain structure occur and they are irreversible.
DR OZDOWSKI: And it applies to all children or some of them would be more resilient and would be reacting differently to their environment?
DR POWRIE: Yes. One of the influences on the impact of trauma, neglect or abuse on children is their own genetic potential and of course genetics play some part in the resilience of children, so does their constitution and temperament and so do factors related to their attachment relationships and the ability of care-givers to help repair the impact of trauma and to help enrich their development such that they may overcome adverse circumstances.
DR OZDOWSKI: Does the detention involvement impact on development of children after 3 years?
DR POWRIE: We believe as an Association it certainly does. When you look at the world literature on the impact of emotionally depriving environments, which detention clearly is and I can speak about that further, we can see that that does have an impact on the development both intellectually, emotionally and socially of children's lives.
DR OZDOWSKI: There are some mental health services provided in detention. Are you aware of any services which specifically focus on children - mental health services in detention centres?
DR POWRIE: As I understand it, the Australian detention standards do state that there are services available for children, health services and psychological services. However, these are largely ineffectual in relation to the length of time that psychologists are available. They are on 6-week contracts mostly in ACM and there is little continuity of care for families or children who have mental health problems and certainly in visiting Woomera and other services there is extremely poor access to what our larger community or larger body of children in the community have to specialised mental health services, certainly no perinatal services and very poor access to child and adolescent mental health services.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. I now will ask Professor Thomas to continue asking questions.
PROF THOMAS: Could you comment on the effect of the mental health of the parents on these little children?
DR POWRIE: Yes. We know that the mental health of parents certainly impacts on the development of children's attachment relationships. Infants are extremely sensitive to their environment and in fact require their primary care-giver to provide them with an environment that will help their emotions develop. So parents who are emotionally unavailable because of their mental health problems, we know that there are very high rates of mental health problems in asylum seekers in detention and in the community. Up to 40 per cent, for instance, in one study in Sydney were assessed as having post traumatic stress disorder. We know that those kind of problems can severely impact on the development of attachment relationships and sensitive care giving.
PROF THOMAS: So what kind of major changes would you like to see happen? I mean practical implementable strategies?
DR POWRIE: Well, the first would be that particularly for infants and young children their period in detention is kept to a minimum and they are also for women particularly who are at risk of mental health problems, antenatally and postnatally and certainly women in immigration detention would be in this category, that they have direct access to the kind of services that would provide help for them. But overridingly it seems that detention has a pathogenic effect on parenting. The institutional experience of parents, as has already been mentioned here, very much undermines their ability to care for their children. They cannot provide for children's emotional needs while they are in a situation of deprivation themselves. So that kind of problem is passed on to children and
DR OZDOWSKI: Could last for life? The impact of it could be lifelong?
DR POWRIE: Potentially it could. Children's brains develop at - there are critical periods for the development of certain abilities in children and critical periods certainly those could be impacted upon, such that they can have lifelong effects.
PROF THOMAS: There is one mention in your submission about the practice of ACM to transfer pregnant women at 36 weeks to the hospital. On the surface it is - is it a good thing or in your submission it could be a very traumatic experience. Can you explain why this practice should be stopped or should not?
DR POWRIE: Well, this is a practice that seemed to be best practice in obstetric care in rural and remote areas, so it just does not apply to women in immigration detention. Unfortunately the problems of language and understanding about obstetric care are seen to be very lacking in terms of the antenatal care for women in detention centres and I think the recommendation is that women consent - are fully aware of their options in terms of giving birth and fully consent to those options so that they are not traumatised further by separations from their families, of which they know no reason for.
PROF THOMAS: You emphasise that the first 3 years is crucial and therefore do you think that age has a factor, children - of the children under the age of, say, 5 or 6, 10, 11 and so on? I'm just looking at the developmental stages of the children. Do you think that children in the first 3 years are more vulnerable than the 5-year-old or 6-year-old or the impact is different for different age groups?
DR POWRIE: Well, certainly both of those statements are probably true. I think in terms of children's brain development though, the early years - the impact of environmental stress is even more critical in the first 3 years of life because children of that age require a most consistent and nurturing environment to support healthy development. The impact of an adverse social situation or an adverse environment will be different for an older child who has previously had a good enough experience of attachment or nurturing. So it will impact differently at different stages of development but certainly during the first 3 years when the infant's brain reaches 90 per cent of its adult capacity then those years are a very vulnerable time for the young child.
PROF THOMAS: So are you saying this, that the children who have had a good first 3 years, say, before they arrive here and they arrive here at the age of 5 or 7, the impact will not be so serious?
DR POWRIE: It is not that it will be so serious, it may be quite different and it will impact differently on their developmental task that they experience at that particular time. For instance, a 5-year-old child who previously has adequate development and adequate parenting but perhaps arrives in a detention centre without then adequate schooling or whose parents then become depressed, demoralised, where the environment does not support the further development of that child's needs, then you will see a different set of behaviours or emotional reaction but you probably won't get the extent of difficulties that you would for a younger child placed in similar circumstances.
PROF THOMAS: Yes. The Minister claimed that he has offered to move mothers and little children out but they refuse to leave because the father would have to stay behind. So how would you recommend an implementable strategy?
DR POWRIE: The removal - the separation of families is not a healthy development or not a healthy solution to the child's needs and we would recommend that families are kept together and not separated with the father in detention and the mother and children in, say, community housing. Some detainees, some may choose to do that but in fact it is not a healthy or necessarily a protective solution to those children's problems.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could I ask you, there is a picture of this dilemma in terms of policy because the Minister is saying that he is showing the best interests of the child by keeping the whole family in detention rather than allowing separation and letting children out or letting mother and children out. How do you see
DR POWRIE: Well, from a child developmental point of view there is no dilemma. A child's development is best supported within a healthy family context where parents are free to care for their child in their culture and supported in a way in which they see fit as parents.
DR OZDOWSKI: So what you are saying is that the best interests of the child cannot be served in the detention context.
DR POWRIE: No, and they cannot be served either by a forced separation of parents because, of course, that creates a whole new set of difficulties for the child being separated from the other parent and for the parents in being unable to support each other and parent together as a family unit.
PROF THOMAS: They report some of the parents say: take my children, take them away from here. Then what do you think about the fostering, that maybe the children are - if the parents agree, what do you think about the impact of that strategy?
DR POWRIE: I can understand parents wanting - well, I can understand parents doing that. Parents will in extremes will put their children's survival above their own and that is how I would interpret that situation, that is one of trying to ensure their children's survival. Ultimately in the long term that is not going to serve children well, being separated from their parents and in an adopting or fostering situation for the long term. For the short term it may be appropriate in some circumstances but certainly not in the long term, it is likely to have very damaging effects for the child.
MRS SULLIVAN: Can I just ask you to comment on the impact of higher stress levels on infants and young children. I guess I'm making an assumption that there are in fact heightened levels of stress in the situation we are just describing.
DR POWRIE: Yes. Well, there's certainly a lot of literature around to show that even in utero infants - well, foetuses exposed to high levels of anxiety in their mothers will have an increased risk of adverse outcomes perinatally. Those children are more likely to have low birth weight and more complications in the perinatal period. Some of the advances in neuro-biology show that circulating stress hormones have a toxic effect on the development of the brain and Bruce Perry's work has shown that children who are exposed to those highly stressful environments, particularly where there's maltreatment or community violence or community trauma, have poor outcomes in terms of their intellectual development and their social development.
MRS SULLIVAN: Given that list that you have just provided, have you any recommendations about how the stress levels within detention centres could be reduced, given that you visited there fairly recently?
DR POWRIE: It is hard to see, given the environment of detention and what detention is set up to do, how stress levels could be reduced. It is a quasi prison environment and so the problem really is one of changing that context for children rather than trying to, I suppose, restructure detention. I think it would be very difficult to offset the stress by changing what goes on in detention but if that were to happen I think there are lots of things within the environment of the detention centres, what I have seen anyway, that could be changed. It is a physically harsh environment with very poor opportunities for infants and children to play freely so enriching that environment may be one way of offsetting the stress, providing proper early child development enrichment tools, having proper facilities for enriching children's development, having facilities for parents to play with their children and having the freedom to do so, for parents to be having regular and adequate access to therapeutic services which will help decrease their stress levels may be of some help. I think that is probably tinkering around the edges and not getting to the fundamental issue and that is of the kind of environmental deprivation that is part of the detention structure.
MRS SULLIVAN: Could I explore one other aspect of your submission and it relates to attachment. What is the impact, in your view, of detention on attachment and have you any advice to us again about possible improvements within the detention context?
DR POWRIE: Well, as I outlined in my report, in the submission, the detention environment is one basically of dehumanisation and as has been pointed out previously children witness that dehumanisation of their parents and themselves every day. That inevitably erodes the attachment relationship, whether it was secure or insecure, with their parents, it erodes that even further. Parents aren't able to actually care for their children and - in a way that is part of normal parental responsibility. They are not allowed to feed their children in a way that is customary for their family. They cannot provide them with clothing, they cannot even dispense medicines or have ready access to things, nappies and so on without first having a gate-keeping process. All of those parenting functions mean that the ability for parents to care and protect for the children is very much compromised. So clearly that will have adverse effects on the attachment relationship with their children and children experience that, can experience that as a parent depriving them of emotional nurturing. So the attachment relationships are very much undermined by both the problems of parenting in detention but also doubly undermined by the high rates of mental health problems that parents experience as well.
MRS SULLIVAN: In your visit do you see any signs of re-attachment to others, in other words, an attachment of children to adults or individuals other than their natural parents?
DR POWRIE: I didn't witness that directly but certainly there are a number of case vignettes cited by other psychiatrists, particularly Dr Sarah Mares, where children, especially young toddlers would wander off and attach themselves to the ACM staff for instance, over and above their parents, they seem to sort of wander aimlessly around with no attachment really to any particular adult. I saw children probably a 6 or 7 year old little boy wandering around when I was there with a group of men who had dug mock graves and it was - I don't know what that child was doing but no one seemed to be caring for that child. He was wandering aimlessly around the compound.
DR OZDOWSKI: Just two things which were not covered by your submission, when we speak to parents and children quite often we are told that there is no special food prepared for children. Quite often children complain that their food, which is prepared for adults, is inadequate. Is it of relevance to child development that there are some special meals provided or it is more or less a question of taste only?
DR POWRIE: Well, children have many varied patterns of eating. One of the things we recognise in the mainstream community is that the children need to be offered a variety of tasty and nutritional foods, particularly for younger children who don't have the kind of adult appetite that we do. They are often best served by allowing to graze on food during the day, have healthy snacks in between meals so that their nutritional requirements are met and that is just a fact of good childcare and what we know about children's eating patterns, that they don't necessarily eat at set meal times, three meals a day, as might be offered in an institutional setting. They eat when they feel hungry and that depends a lot on the individual child and their level of activity.
DR OZDOWSKI: The second issue is the issue of self-harming. We have seen children as young as 9 years old committing self-harm. Could you explain how this could happen and what I'm also interested in is whether parents play - could play some role in encouraging children to self-harm?
DR POWRIE: In the detention
DR OZDOWSKI: In the detention centres, yes.
DR POWRIE: Certainly children are very susceptible to the influence of adult behaviour around them and in a very confined community such as immigration detention, children are witnessing and are unable to be protected it seems from witnessing the despairing and often self mutilating acts of other adults. When children are unable to be offered an alternative behavioural strategy or modelling for dealing with despairing feelings, hopelessness, anger, then often they will model on the kind of adult behaviour they see in a copycat kind of way. SO that is one of the possible mechanisms why children may, as young as 9 may self-mutilate. As to parents, I don't think any parents would wittingly would want their children to hurt themselves, but I think in the kind of despair and helplessness that some of these parents feel they actually cannot connect with their children's needs. They cannot - they are so overwhelmed and pre-occupied with their own situation that they cannot think about the needs of their children and that is a very serious and worrying situation for young children in immigration detention.
DR OZDOWSKI: In your professional experience, how frequent is self-mutilation in broader Australian community among children?
DR POWRIE: Self-mutilating behaviours are very uncommon in pre-adolescent children. They become more common in the teenage years and often related to stressful circumstances, depressive illnesses, in some sub-cultures of youth self-mutilation becomes a form of acting on one's despair and existential despair, in particular, but in younger children it is extremely uncommon. What you are more likely to see in young children who are miserable and unhappy is just neglect of themselves, behavioural and emotional disturbance, anxiety and probably risk taking behaviours, an unawareness of their own safety in keeping themselves safe.
DR OZDOWSKI: Are you aware of any statistics kept on State or Federal level which relate to children's self-harm?
DR POWRIE: There are certainly many studies looking at suicidal behaviour in adolescents, in particular. There are many studies in Australia, I cannot tell you the direct references at the moment, but certainly there is a large literature body of research on self-harming behaviours in children and adolescents.
DR OZDOWSKI: Any other questions, yes?
MS LESNIE: I just have one question to take us back to where we started which was in your submission that the impact of detention on the 3 and under age would be quite grave. As we know, a large number of the people who arrive unauthorised end up in the Australian community, can you describe to us the sorts of problems that, we as a community, will have to deal with as a result of the impact that detention has had on these infants?
DR POWRIE: Well, the cost I guess will be potentially quite great in terms of the services that might need to be engaged with these families to help children with their educational difficulties because children who have been subject to trauma and abuse in early childhood often end up having quite severe learning difficulties so extra resources are needed there in terms of helping their education. These children are more likely to have behavioural difficulties, problems with their impulse control, some of these children will be seen to have attention deficit disorder which is probably a simple way of looking at their problem but does not understand the complex pathological pathways that result in that kind of behaviour. These children will have difficulties in socialising with other children, again, that will affect their schooling, it will also affect their relationship with their parents. Their parents also because of the adverse affects on their attachment will probably have difficulties in parenting those children so they themselves will need extra support in helping to care for their off-spring. There may be a whole host of problems which will result in more intensive therapeutic support needed for these children and families. For boys the problem may be particularly difficult in that we know that boys, male children subject to early trauma and attachment problems are more likely to develop acting out behaviours, disturbances of conduct and down the track even delinquency and that is one of the pathways that can lead to criminal behaviour.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, thank you very much, Dr Powrie. Thank you to you and to the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health for the submission. Now, we will have a break for coffee until 11 o'clock. Thank you.
MORNING TEA [10.40am]
RESUMED [11.10am]
DR OZDOWSKI: Sir, I would like to ask Ms Angela Newbound to come forward. Thank you very much for availing yourself - please take a seat, to this inquiry. To start with I will ask you to take an Oath of affirmation.
MS ANGELA NEWBOUND, sworn Coordinator, Adelaide Northern Division of General Practice
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, could I ask you to state your name, address, qualifications and capacity in which you are appearing for the record of the proceedings?
MS NEWBOUND: Angela Newbound, [address removed]. I'm the local immunisation coordinator for the Adelaide Northern Division of General Practice. I'm a registered nurse, a registered midwife, and an accredited immunisation provider and I've been asked to speak today in regards to immunisation of the Australian children and detained children.
DR OZDOWSKI: I understand you have got a video you would like to show us?
MS NEWBOUND: Yes, I have a 5-minute video.
DR OZDOWSKI: 5 minutes video?
MS NEWBOUND: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: So what I would propose that may be if you make an opening statement?
MS NEWBOUND: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Then show us your video and then we will come to questions?
MS NEWBOUND: Sure. It was while undertaking the course for the accreditation of immunisation providers at the University of South Australia in 2000 I wrote a short critical reflective paper entitled: The Immunisation Status of Detained Refugees. It was while researching this topic that I became aware of the risk of possible recurrence of certain vaccine preventable diseases should they detainees not be fully protected while in detention and furthermore should they be released in to the Australian community. The 5-minute video is outlining some of the vaccine preventable diseases we protect Australian children and adults against.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you.
VIDEO SHOWN
MS NEWBOUND: That is it, thanks.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, thank you. Now, could we return perhaps, Ms Newbound, to your opening statement. Could you perhaps describe a bit more about your contact with TPVs what - how many of them, how often and what would you do with them?
MS NEWBOUND: In my role as the local immunisation coordinator for the Adelaide Northern Division I have had no contact directly with detained refugees or those that have been released from detention centres. I've been asked here today really to give an overall picture of vaccine preventable disease coverage that we offer people here in Australia and the risks associated with detainees not being vaccinated while in detention.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. In our submission it states that immunisation is offered on the same basis to the overall community. Could you set out what the standards are?
MS NEWBOUND: We have a very high standard of immunisation here in Australia. Australia's current coverage rate for children aged zero to 7 years is about 89 per cent. The National Health and Medical Research Council developed several standards for childhood vaccination, about 13 standards in fact, one of which is the vaccination services are readily available, another is that there is no barriers or prerequisites to vaccination services, another is that providers use accurate and complete recording procedures and another is that vaccines are administered by properly trained individuals who receive ongoing education and training on current vaccination recommendations and going back to my paper that I wrote during my course for the Adelaide University I found that these standards were not being met at the detention centres.
DR OZDOWSKI: How are they not meet, where is the difference between overall community standards and the detention standards?
MS NEWBOUND: It was my understanding from the research, from my paper, that the nurses that were in the detention centres often did not have any experience at all in immunising children or giving vaccinations to adults which in South Australia we like obviously a much higher standard than that. There is a very intensive cold chain maintenance management that we ensure for the safety of vaccine storage to give vaccines that have not been maintained by the cold chain guidelines are ineffective vaccines, so vaccines could have been given to people and it will not have any effect at all.
So I felt also with the research from my paper that full scheduled vaccination aren't offered routinely, particularly to adults. I found in my paper that children that were born while in detention were put on to the Australian vaccination schedule, but those that arrived were not and they were put on a small catch-up schedule that may not have covered them for all the diseases that we protect against.
DR OZDOWSKI: What applications are applied in the detention centre, especially to children? Was there any change at that time in this application?
MS NEWBOUND: From my understanding, measles, mumps, rubella and an adult diphtheria and tetanus were given to adults, and to children over the age of 7. Children under the age of 7 were given what would have been equivalent to a catch up schedule or the Australian Vaccination Schedule, to my knowledge.
DR OZDOWSKI: How does that compare to children who are in the broad Australian community?
MS NEWBOUND: In the broader community?
DR OZDOWSKI: Community. Is it the same?
MS NEWBOUND: Our children, between the ages of 0 and 5 are offered a HIB vaccine which you saw the influenza HIB on the video. This vaccine is only effective for children under the age of 5 so unless it is given to them under the age of 5, then they don't have any coverage at all.
DR OZDOWSKI: These are given to children under 5 in the detention facilities?
MS NEWBOUND: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: It is.
MS NEWBOUND: Well, I can assume that they are if they are following the catch up schedule. I found, in my paper, that the staff that didn't feel comfortable to vaccinate didn't vaccinate so there may well have been children, quite possibly, that have missed being vaccinated at all.
DR OZDOWSKI: So what, do you suggest that the records were made, that they were vaccinated and, in fact, they were not vaccinated or that they just generally missed because the staff felt uncomfortable?
MS NEWBOUND: I would probably suggest that they have technically been missed altogether but, certainly, if vaccination records aren't correct, then it is anybody's guess really to whether they have truly received vaccines or not, and whether they have received potent vaccines more importantly.
DR OZDOWSKI: Let us, maybe, go now to the records. When the people are released from detention on TPVs or on other visas, and when you or your services do come in contact with them, what kind of records do they have of previous immunisation, especially immunisation at the detention facility?
MS NEWBOUND: Certainly, the cases that I have seen in a role as an immunisation provider, I do some work providing for immunisation that's not in my role as the Immunisation Coordinator at the Adelaide Northern Division, but certainly, the records that I've seen are very poorly written and when we actually compare those vaccination records with the released detainee, they don't seem to match with what the detainee remembers having.
MRS LESNIE: What do you mean by poorly written? With immunisations, is there not just a list of what has and has not been administered?
MS NEWBOUND: There doesn't seem to be, no. There seems - the records that I have seen have just been written up very briefly and they haven't often numbered the dose number to whether it's dose 3 of OPB that they've been given or dose 4 or 5, or dose 1 of MMR or dose 2 so it's just poor documentation.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could you describe how this kind record looks like? It is just a piece of paper or it is an official form? Is it handwritten or typed or
MS NEWBOUND: No. I've seen a handwritten record that's been written up on - a reasonably formal document, I would imagine, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, and who fills out these documents usually? Would it be a nurse or
MS NEWBOUND: Well, the person that is providing the immunisation is truly responsible for writing what they have given, the batch number that it belonged to, the site in which it was given, and it should be signed, dated, and then the signature, the person's name should be written legibly underneath.
DR OZDOWSKI: What you are saying is that not always are all the details provided on the forms for the detainees?
MS NEWBOUND: Certainly. On the ones that I've seen, that is not the case.
DR OZDOWSKI: What did you do to follow it up? Did you get in touch with the Department of Immigration or with the management of the detention centres to find out or to improve the records?
MS NEWBOUND: Okay. What we did on this particular case was through an interpreter that we had for these particular people, we could establish from their memory and also from the records that they did have what may have been truly given, and from there, we worked out the remainder of the catch up schedule and we have placed them on that catch up schedule.
DR OZDOWSKI: Is there any danger if a person gets immunisation twice, the same immunisation twice?
MS NEWBOUND: No, there is no danger.
DR OZDOWSKI: So there's no problem?
MS NEWBOUND: No.
DR OZDOWSKI: So, basically, the outcome is only added expense to you?
MS NEWBOUND: Yes, yes, but we always say that if there is incomplete vaccination history, then a catch up schedule is offered from whatever details we do have. If a person has no vaccination history, then they are put on a program that would completely cover them from scratch.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. That is all I had, Professor Thomas.
MRS SULLIVAN: I was just interested in whether you believed that people coming from countries of origin such as these people require additional vaccination over and above the Australian standard?
MS NEWBOUND: I would believe that they should be classified as high risk people - therefore, should be offered hepatitis B. In closed communities such as detention centres, the risk of transmission of disease is very high, particularly things like hepatitis B. If polio vaccine is not given correctly according to the schedule, there have been known cases of vaccine acquired paralytic polio myelitis which we refer to as VAP, which is where a vaccinee has received some oral polio vaccine, other members of the community haven't. The other members of the community, if they are not fully immune to polio, can catch polio from the person who has had the vaccine and that danger is very high so it must be - that particular vaccine must be carried out quite strictly across all age groups.
MRS SULLIVAN: Are these two vaccines currently in use in detention centres, to your knowledge?
MS NEWBOUND: The OPV, the oral polio vaccine, is, yes. As to whether or not it is actually given at the same time to all detainees would be questionable. Hepatitis B, to my knowledge, is not offered.
MRS SULLIVAN: Thanks very much.
MS NEWBOUND: Okay.
DR OZDOWSKI: Hepatitis B is offered in the more general community?
MS NEWBOUND: Yes, it is. It is actually now part of the infant schedule. They get a dose within 7 days of birth, and then they also get additional hepatitis B vaccine, in a combined vaccine, at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. It is also offered as a free Government funded program in year 8 at high school.
DR OZDOWSKI: If I understand you correctly, the risk of getting hepatitis B is higher in detention centres than the broader community?
MS NEWBOUND: Any closed community, I would say, would be higher, yes. If there's a person in a closed community that carries hepatitis B, yes, the risk would be higher.
MRS LESNIE: How is it transmitted between people?
MS NEWBOUND: It's transmitted through blood and body fluids, or body fluids.
DR OZDOWSKI: So, for example, it could relate to hygiene, toilets and so on?
MS NEWBOUND: Absolutely, yes, yes, and treatment of injuries as well should somebody have a cut or anything like that.
DR OZDOWSKI: Would you know the reason why the hepatitis B vaccine is not provided in detention centres?
MS NEWBOUND: I would have no idea.
DR OZDOWSKI: Is it a high cost or
MS NEWBOUND: It's not a high cost vaccine. We usually sell hepatitis B vaccine at around about $10 a dose. People require three doses for full coverage.
MRS SULLIVAN: I wonder if I could clarify something. We had someone earlier who spoke about immunisation as well, and she mentioned that a Department of the South Australian Government went in to detention centres and gave immunisations. Is that your understanding as well?
MS NEWBOUND: That happened on two occasions.
MRS SULLIVAN: So it has happened on two discrete occasions. It's not a systematic
MS NEWBOUND: It's not an ongoing - no.
MRS SULLIVAN: Okay, thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI: Anything other questions? No? Thank you very much for appearing and thank you for giving the evidence.
MS NEWBOUND: My pleasure.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Could we ask our next witness to come forward, Maria Iadanza, please? Thank you very much for agreeing to come forward, and thank you for your submission. Could I ask you to take an oath or affirmation?
MS MARIA IADANZA, sworn [11.31am] Principal, Adelaide Secondary School of English
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, could I ask you to state your name, address, qualifications, and the capacity in which you are appearing for the record of the hearing?
MS IADANZA: My name is Maria Iadanza. I live at [address removed]. I am a qualified teacher. My area of specialty is ESL, English as a second language. I've had over 20 years of experience with working with what we call "new arrival students", and I'm speaking as Principal of the Adelaide Secondary School of English.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. You understand about privacy issues which I mentioned earlier, but basically what I'm asking you is not to mention names.
MS IADANZA: Absolutely.
DR OZDOWSKI: If you would like to do it, we can take details confidentially later.
MS IADANZA: Yes, thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, could I ask you to make an opening statement explaining your involvement with children who were released from detention?
MS IADANZA: Okay. Since the beginning of 2000, we have had 127 temporary protection visa students, TPVs, and we have also had 16 students that we call DIMIA students who, in fact, are legally considered still in detention. Most of the students that are TPVs are unaccompanied minors, and I suppose we have seen a number of issues that have come to the fore since they've been coming to the school.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could you, perhaps, describe the key issues?
MS IADANZA: Yes, sure. I think with some of the first students that came through, there appeared to be relatively few difficulties in settling into a school environment or life in Australia. They tended to be positive, looking forward to their new life in Australia. Most of those students had been up to 3 months in detention, and of the unaccompanied minors, most of those were living independently. A few were living in foster care. Since, I suppose, the end of last year with the change to the Federal Government's policy, we noticed some change in their behaviour and attitude.
There seems to be what we hadn't picked up before - a degree of anger and uncertainty and a feeling, I suppose, of hopelessness. Students that were coming through towards the end of last year, they had been spending more time in detention and, again, that was coming through in other ways and I will speak about those. I suppose the third group that I refer to is the students that we call the DIMIA students, the ones that - as I said before - are in detention. I think out of the three groups, they are the ones that we have been concerned about. Right from the beginning, they seemed to be very anxious.
There were concerns that, as a teacher or an educationalist, would trigger alarm bells - indications that something was not right there, whether it was, perhaps, some form of trauma. Most of these students had spent a considerable amount of time in detention and they seemed to have a lot of difficulty in settling into the school routine, so much so that for many of them, they had never been to school. They were having difficulty dealing with a full day at school. They seemed to lack routine and what we have done is organised what we call an alternative program for them with a couple of other support agencies.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could I stop you for a second
MS IADANZA: Sure.
DR OZDOWSKI: just to go back a bit? You seem to be suggesting that the length of detention contributes to the difficulty with settling them at school?
MS IADANZA: Based on our experience of the last 2 years, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Clearly, the length is a key factor
MS IADANZA: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: which is created. When you were earlier getting students after 3 months, they were settling much easier
MS IADANZA: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: not when you are getting
MS IADANZA: I need to stress that's not to say that they weren't going through any of the issues associated with settling into a new country
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes.
MS IADANZA: but they were happier, more settled.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, coming to young people whom you call DIMIA students, they are unaccompanied minors?
MS IADANZA: They are unaccompanied minors. They are under the care of FAYS
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes.
MS IADANZA: but because they are legally deemed to be in detention, they are in foster care arrangements.
DR OZDOWSKI: To be legally in detention, deemed in detention, you need to have - say, understand the guards looking after you? Is that the case or just a family is taking over and there is no ACM officer accompanying them?
MS IADANZA: No, there's no officer accompanying them. They're just in foster care arrangements.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, thank you very much. So maybe let us go back now to the children. How do they go when they are released from detention? What I'm especially interested in is the settlement into new schools and, in a way, also just standards of education they are bringing from the previous country and the standards they learned in detention.
MS IADANZA: Okay. From our experience, part of our enrolment process is to look at their previous schooling so that we can place them in the appropriate class. A significant number of these students have never been to school before. There is a question mark about the date of birth. Many of them, I believe, are not sure when they were born so it's either 31 December of 1 January. For those that have been to school, it seems to have been very disrupted or inconsistent. A significant number appear to have been to religious schools and my understanding of that is that it is focused on learning the Koran. I believe that students can attend, or could attend classes at Woomera. My understanding of the educational program there is that the courses go for half a day, focused on English and IT. With some of the later students that are coming through, I gather with older students that it was optional and some of them chose not to go. We don't get a lot of information about what they were taught, other than what they have given us. I do know - again, if I can refer back to the DIMIA students - that because of their set of circumstances feeling the sense of hopelessness and why bother, that some of them were choosing not to go to school.
DR OZDOWSKI: When they are released and you are meeting them, do they bring with them some kind of certificates of attendance from detention centres, or at least the subjects they attended and how much?
MS IADANZA: No, we have no documentation.
DR OZDOWSKI: So no documentation whatsoever?
MS IADANZA: No documentation whatsoever. It's what they tell us.
DR OZDOWSKI: Please continue.
MS IADANZA: Some of them have volunteered the information that with some of the difficulty, riots, that they've had up at Woomera, and their education centre, I think, had been destroyed and so for a while, it appears as if there were no classes being held but I can't verify that. As I said, one of our concerns is that when they come to us they appear to have what we call "oral language." They can communicate socially but when we assess them, there's a significant gap and what we're finding is that while their oral language is quite good and they can communicate socially, however, when it comes to the academics, they're greatly being disadvantaged. For those that have already gone onto mainstream schools, we're finding that some of them are having difficulties coping with the mainstream subjects because of their age and the year level that they would go into.
DR OZDOWSKI: Can they recover and if so, how much effort and time will it take?
MS IADANZA: They could do. We do offer at the school a course for students who have had no schooling or limited schooling, and that takes up to six terms, 1½ years. It is possible. Again, our records, from experience with other groups, they can do it but it does take time, yes. One of the other difficulties too is given that they're on temporary protection visas and they know that they've got this 3 years, one of the issues that's beginning to surface is they're into the second year of their visas and now they are questioning what's the value of education and why are we here? Why do we have to learn English if we're going to be sent back to Afghanistan?
DR OZDOWSKI: It is more for younger students or for students who are reaching the age of 15 or 16 so they could
MS IADANZA: Yes, we have them from 12 to 18 so we have the whole range. For the older students what we've, again, done to try and help them is we've organised what we call some vocational type courses. A couple of those have gone on to get apprenticeships and employment but the number is small.
DR OZDOWSKI: What about motivation of students coming from detention centres?
MS IADANZA: It varies. I think with those that were coming through in the year 2000, their motivation was quite high. As they've been longer in Australia and, again, not knowing what their future holds for them, the motivation isn't as high as it could be. I think sometimes they get quite despondent and depressed. It's more than what we would expect from any of our other students that are new to Australia and go through what we call "the adjustment issues".
DR OZDOWSKI: So if their visas get extended, what's their future?
MS IADANZA: It's mixed. Some talk about expecting to be going back. They, sort of - I think they're looking that way. Others just have no idea and I think that's the biggest difference that I personally have noticed with this lot of unaccompanied minors to the last lot that I worked with in the 80s.
DR OZDOWSKI: I will ask Mrs Sullivan as to continuing asking questions.
MRS SULLIVAN: Thanks. We have received a submission from DIMIA which states that the aim is to provide educational opportunities broadly consistent with those available in the general Australian community. Could you list for us what those might be and the ones that you feel might be missing from what you have seen of the students?
MS IADANZA: We've had very little contact, as I indicated earlier, with the education providers at Woomera but we've had no documentation. It would appear to me that they've focused on just English, and it seems to be, what I would call, social skills. There's no evidence that they've done anything else. I know that they have opportunities to do information technology but apart from that, I'm not aware of anything.
MRS SULLIVAN: So the South Australian curriculum framework does not appear to be in evidence from what you have seen?
MS IADANZA: No, no.
MRS SULLIVAN: In terms of these students and other new arrivals that you have, obviously, had experience of, is there a difference in the time they stay with you?
MS IADANZA: Yes. Some of these - particularly those that have never been to school before or their schooling has been limited to the religious schools are tending to spend - we would recommend that they spend up to the full 1½ years with us because they need that extra time.
MRS SULLIVAN: Is it fair then to say that that is the average time for these people? Could you give us a figure? I'm trying to do a comparison between the average that a new arrival might stay with you?
MS IADANZA: I beg your pardon. An average - if a new arrival comes and he or she has no English whatsoever, it would be 12 months.
MRS SULLIVAN: All right.
MS IADANZA: Four terms, yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: So these are - you are suggesting these stay longer?
MS IADANZA: Yes, and it would be most of them, yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: What are you attributing that longer stay to?
MS IADANZA: The previous - not having been to school, perhaps, because of the political situation back in, in this case, it's Afghanistan, that would be the main one. If they are having difficulty adjusting or have other issues to deal with, then that's not going to be conducive to learning and that could be another contributing factor. A third factor is one that I keep going back to often is their own state of mind and their attitude - like, what's the point of learning at all because of their uncertainty that they're having to deal with at the same time.
MRS SULLIVAN: Does that attitude change between 12 and 18? You have mentioned that you have got them from 12 to 18.
MS IADANZA: I think it does. I think it's more so with the older students. With the younger ones, it's not quite as evident yet.
MRS SULLIVAN: At one point, I think I'm quoting the Minister accurately, he was saying it is very difficult to individualise instruction for children who are detention centres, and my question to you really is, is it that difficult and how do you tackle that question?
MS IADANZA: Things we do when students enrol is to get more information about their previous schooling. We also assess all of our students in English, maths and general knowledge and for some students in their first language. As a result of that we then place them into what we think is the appropriate class. We can monitor the students and we do that once a term, every 10 weeks, and we move them all accordingly. Yes so it is possible and as I said we have developed programs that we think better meet their needs in response to what the teachers and they themselves have done. We also have a degree of career counselling.
MRS SULLIVAN: So could that model be implanted into a detention centre?
MS IADANZA: Absolutely, I think so.
MRS SULLIVAN: What sort of resources would it require?
MS IADANZA: Teachers - it is something that we have thought about at the school. We would like to have more contact so that if the students are going to be spending a considerable amount of time we could work together, they can use our program and our expertise and we could facilitate that. I would strongly recommend that there be bilingual people, people that can speak in their own language that would help enormously. Access to text books and program and people.
MRS SULLIVAN: Do you employ para-professionals in your program with teacher aides and so on?
MS IADANZA: Bilinguals, yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: And they are all bilingual?
MS IADANZA: Most are, yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: Can I ask you whether you have had any evidence or indication of child abuse and neglect among the students that you have had through the school?
MS IADANZA: There's been evidence that there has been something going on, I'm not qualified to sort of say what it might be. I do know - there is evidence of what I would call trauma just a very little example, after a number of students enrolled that had been in detention we had an emergency evacuation drill and a couple of these kids just disappeared. What we later found out was that must have brought back some unpleasant memories for them. Students talking to their teachers and counsellors have indicated some of the things that they have witnessed while at Woomera and they found that disturbing. I believe that there has been some evidence of some of our students being beaten.
MRS SULLIVAN: So what is your understanding of your responsibility to DIMIA if you were made aware of some of these situations.
MS IADANZA: If I was aware of abuse we would have to report it. There would be no question about that.
MRS SULLIVAN: And you understand that is to report to whom?
MS IADANZA: To FAYS.
MRS SULLIVAN: All right, so you have been given no indication that you should report it elsewhere?
MS IADANZA: No, no, while - we treat them like any other students so we follow those processes.
MRS SULLIVAN: Can I talk about cultural maintenance and also my understanding of new arrivals programs is that they have had a citizenship component for want of a better name. That in coming to Australia one of the functions of schooling is to assimilate people into the broader Australian context and provide some active and informed citizenship, can you comment on whether you deal with that issue with these young people?
MS IADANZA: Yeah, that would be part of what we do. In addition to teaching English as a second language in the subjects that they going to study we also focus on living in a multicultural society and talk about rights and responsibilities and what that means to be in Australia. We also focus on we call it, how to be a student in Australia, because for many of our students the way they have learned in their own country can be different to the way we teach in Australia. We have things like student representative council that teaches them about belonging and how to make decisions and how you can go about that.
MRS SULLIVAN: Is this new concepts for them?
MS IADANZA: Sorry, for them?
MRS SULLIVAN: Yes.
MS IADANZA: Yes it is. We have to work through them with that. Also I suppose what we call SBM, student behaviour management issues about rights and consequences. The programs that we have in the school, everything that we do has a educational component in there. It is no point in implementing expectations if the students aren't familiar with what is expected in the first place or understanding so that is locked into everything we do.
MRS SULLIVAN: I know I'm talking again in generalities.
MS IADANZA: That's okay.
MRS SULLIVAN: But have you observed behavioural differences in these students from other arrival students that you have had over the years?
MS IADANZA: No more so, I mean there are differences that come to the fore but when you've got every single student that comes from a different part of the world it is part and parcel of the way we work with them but yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: So there is nothing that you could attribute as a teacher to their experiences in the detention centres?
MS IADANZA: Possibly, the main one is their attitude. There does seem to be a difference in the attitude of those who have been in detention a long time to those students that had only spent a relatively short time. They are not quite as positive about their future outlook, there are what we call behavioural issues like at times being defiant what we would consider to be defiant and again, we would attribute that to their set of circumstances and that sense of hopelessness and what's it all about.
MRS SULLIVAN: Have you any evidence of or about their family structures and the impact of being alone or being separated from their parents might be having on their education.
MS IADANZA: Yeah, they - I think - we've got a number of students, have had and still do, who live independently and that has been of concern to us because even though in our society if you're 16 and over you're sort of considered semi-independently in the cultures that they've come from that's not the case. They live in that extended family situation and some of those are struggling in just basic daily requirements. Because of the number and our concern for them we worked with one of the support agencies in the area to have a program specifically aimed at students living independently. We looked at things like budgeting, first aid, because one of our students got scalded and ended up in hospital for a couple of nights and that does - and also cooking just basic living skills.
MRS SULLIVAN: And finally, that distinct group of what you call DIMIA students
MS IADANZA: It sounds better than in detention.
MRS SULLIVAN: are you able to comment on the support structure that surrounds them. You have mentioned for example there - some of them are in foster care situations and I'm trying to get a comparison between the support services available to them and those that might be available to children in the care of the state.
MS IADANZA: They all have a social worker who keeps an eye on them. I think because they live in a foster care and live in a home situation which is a positive thing for them but other than that there doesn't appear to be a great deal of difference. Our contact with FAYS is limited, I mean they have so many students to look after.
MRS SULLIVAN: Yes, so there is no add on factor for the reality that these are DIMIA children?
MS IADANZA: Not that I'm aware of. Certainly not from a school perspective.
MRS SULLIVAN: Thank you very much.
DR OZDOWSKI: Professor Thomas?
PROF THOMAS: Do you have any experience of students with intellectual disabilities?
MS IADANZA: We are having two, possibly three students being assessed by our NAP guidance officer. A couple of other students that we were - have been concerned about and because they were under the care of FYAS we've mentioned that to them and I know that one, possibly two I think were being assessed by a psychologist but then FAYS no longer were able to provide that service so intellectual disability straight out, no.
PROF THOMAS: Do you have any comment about the long term impact on these children because of their experience in detention centres?
MS IADANZA: I think just their set of circumstances from the way that they have left their country of origin to have got here the time in detention I think down the track there could be problems.
PROF THOMAS: You think the problems in mental health and education?
MS IADANZA: There could be problems in education, difficulty in succeeding. We have had anecdotal evidence of some of our students that have left that we thought would have - would be able to cope with a mainstream school, they're dropping out. Also psychologically as well for I'd say a significant number of unaccompanied minors, have no idea about their family and of course that is very unsettling to put it nicely.
PROF THOMAS: Thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI: Would it be preferable to use state schooling system from the moment they are taken into detention?
MS IADANZA: Would it be preferable?
DR OZDOWSKI: Preferable?
MS IADANZA: I would think so, yes. We have got our expertise both in the primary and the secondary field. As I said I would have liked to have seen more liaison or working together with people in the detention centres.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could you explain why it doesn't happen?
MS IADANZA: No, no, no idea it baffles me. We have what we like to think were professional relationships with the schools that we send our students to. I can't see why it can't be done down at the other end because we are both here to look at what we believe is best for the students from an educational perspective.
DR OZDOWSKI: Just one last small question?
MS IADANZA: Sure.
DR OZDOWSKI: For students who are not fluent in English who are Farsi speakers, would you have in classroom dictionary which could be used?
MS IADANZA: We have. They're actually difficult to come by. We don't have one for each student but they are available in the school.
DR OZDOWSKI: So a student can access during the
MS IADANZA: Yes, however, if they don't read and write in their first language it can be a difficulty.
DR OZDOWSKI: It could be difficult, yes, that's right, yes.
MS IADANZA: But we do have them.
MRS SULLIVAN: Just the DIMIA students, are there any additional restrictions from your point of view on those students, are they - are there ever events that they can't go to that other kids can go to, any distinctions made for them?
MS IADANZA: No, at the moment students that live more than 5 kilometres from the school are issued with bus tickets to come to school and to go home. With the DIMIA students because technically they are supposed to be in detention we were advised by our department not to and so the expectation is that their carers will drop them off and pick them up after school. If there is an activity outside of school as long as a teacher is willing to supervise them then they can go and there's been no teacher that has said that they don't want to take them on an excursion.
MRS SULLIVAN: Is it correct that in order to accept these students your school has been declared a place of detention?
MS IADANZA: I know that those discussions were going on.
MRS SULLIVAN: Okay.
MS IADANZA: I think we were asked from legal advice - after some legal discussions with the department whether we'd be - what did they call us - like a detention officer and it was given - offered to the staff they were made aware of what it meant for these students to be in detention it was up to the teacher to say yay or nay as I said. So far no staff member has said no. I wasn't aware that we were actually a detention centre, no.
MRS SULLIVAN: Place of detention.
MS IADANZA: Place of detention, sorry.
MRS SULLIVAN: Yes.
MS IADANZA: Mind you there would be some students that might think that occasionally.
DR OZDOWSKI: So basically the responsibilities of guardians of DIMIA students would be much higher than the responsibilities of parents of others of your students.
MS IADANZA: Yes, I would think so, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Do you have contact with guardians of the DIMIA students?
MS IADANZA: Not a lot, no, not a lot. There have been a few issues when the kids - when the students have not waited to be picked up or dropped off but no, there is not a great deal of communication or dealings with the carers.
DR OZDOWSKI: So what does it mean that the carers do not care? How would you explain it?
MS IADANZA: I don't know why it is. I have forwarded my concerns to FAYS because that's their area of responsibility and I know that they've passed on the information. They've put into place some strategies to help them but as to the why, I can't answer.
DR OZDOWSKI: What about contact with parents of other students of yours?
MS IADANZA: Limited.
DR OZDOWSKI: Similar?
MS IADANZA: Yes, similar, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: So reluctantly - regardless whether it was the DIMIA guardianship or carer or the parents the contact with the school is very limited?
MS IADANZA: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, that's possibly all I wanted to ask. Would you like to make any concluding statement?
MS IADANZA: No, that's it.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you very much for coming.
MS IADANZA: My pleasure, thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. We will have a few minutes break, there are just some formalities which needs to be attended to.
SHORT BREAK [12.00am]
RESUMED [12.05pm]
DR OZDOWSKI: We are in session again and I would like to ask Ms Rosemary Steen and Ms Julie Redman from SA Coalition for Refugee Children to come forward. Thank you. Thank you very much.
MS REDMAN: I am Ms Redman and this is Ms Steen.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, yes, yes we will come to it so could I ask you to take an oath or affirmation?
MS ROSEMARY STEEN, sworn [12.05pm] MS JULIE REDMAN, sworn SA Coalition for Refugee Children
DR OZDOWSKI: Well, thank you. I would like to ask you to give your names, address, qualifications and the capacity in which you are appearing in for the record of the proceedings, may be let us start.
MS STEEN: My name is Rosemary Steen, I live at [address removed]. I appear before the Commission as Chair of the South Australian Coalition for Refugee Children and I belong to that organisation in part as a representative from the Children and the Law Committee of the South Australian Law Society.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you.
MS REDMAN: Julie Redman of [address removed]. I'm a legal practitioner, I'm also a member of the Coalition for Refugee Children but in my capacity as Chair of the Children in the Law Committee of the Law Society of South Australia.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. I have made some rulings earlier relating to protection of privacy of individuals and especially children so I would like you to adhere to these rulings. They basically say that the identity of asylum seekers should be protected and shouldn't be disclosed here. Also I would ask you not to name third parties especially if this relates to current or former people working for ACM or DIMIA. If you would like to transfer this information to us please do it with the Secretary of the Inquiry after the hearing. I also would like to acknowledge receipt from you of two affidavits which contain individual statements and we will incorporate them into the records of this inquiry.
MS REDMAN: Thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Now, could I start perhaps with a question to you, as legal people from the submission I received from the Department of Immigration and on page 8 of that submission it said:
That under Australian Law immigration detainees have been compensated to take proceedings before a Court to determine the legality of the detention. This means that children in detention can legally challenge the detention in a Court of Law and have the same rights to challenge as all other detainees.
Could I invite your comments on the accuracy of that statement?
MS STEEN: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on that. We affirm that our Coalition's position that children do have that right and should be assisted in that process.
DR OZDOWSKI: It means that you are saying that children can go to the court and challenge the legality of their detention at present?
MS REDMAN: I think probably the statement is correct but the ability of the child to do it is nil for a number of reasons. Firstly, there would need to be some sort of a guardian, an advocate for the child.
DR OZDOWSKI: Can you speak to microphone because the people behind can't hear.
MS REDMAN: Yes. One of the major difficulties in children taking their evidence - taking their application to the Federal Court is that they need to have an advocate to do that. There are very limited resources available at the present time for children not only to have legal representation but to have an advocate that can assist them and support them throughout the process. One of the submissions that we make from our coalition is that children from the moment they arrive in the detention centres should be provided with an advocate who is able to support them and move through the whole process with them and if that also requires assistance to take the appeal processes to the Federal Court.
DR OZDOWSKI: Are you talking about unaccompanied minors or separated children or are you talking also about children who arrive in family groupings?
MS REDMAN: Right, obviously the unaccompanied minors is clearly the situation that should have an advocate but children of any age should have the ability to bring forward their own voice as is set out in the rights of the child to a Court of Law and if that - if they are in a family there is no reason why an individual child should not also have that ability.
DR OZDOWSKI: And does the current system allow either unaccompanied or accompanied children to have that voice?
MS REDMAN: I guess technically the system allows it but in reality it cannot happen.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could you say why it does not happen in reality, is it a question of money or is it a question of having appropriate people with appropriate training or are there any other reasons?
MS REDMAN: I think it is both of those, resources, lack of knowledge in the children. Because there is no advocate there supporting them through the system they of course have no knowledge that they are able to do that and one of the major issues as well is the lack of communication to children of what is going and what process they are going through, their total confusion in working through the system.
DR OZDOWSKI: What about lawyers who are assisting them, do they require any special training, in how to deal with child clients?
MS STEEN: Yes, we submit it is essential that any people having dealings and particularly their advocates, but any people having dealings with these children are appropriately trained to understand their developmental needs, their emotional needs, their cultural characteristics so that they can advocate for them effectively but also to ensure that interviews are kept to a minimum that recognises the needs of the children in that interviewing process and the potential harm that can occur to the child. So there is a great deal of support that needs to occur for the lawyers who would seek to advocate on behalf of these children. They need to understand that each interview is arduous and potentially harmful to the child.
DR OZDOWSKI: Do you have a training system available in South Australia through the Law Society or any other organisations?
MS STEEN: I think it is fair to say that nothing exists at the moment but it shouldn't be difficult with resources provided for that to be put in place.
MS REDMAN: Can I just comment on that also, there is a training program for child representatives in the Family Court which does also need improvement, it is only a 3-day program, but when you have children in this situation where psychological issues, developmental issues are even more overwhelming than they are in the Family Court, the training should be quite specific. I think, for these children and it also needs to be properly resourced and if the lawyers are going to have this training and be representing these children there should be legal aid available for them.
DR OZDOWSKI: Do you know of cases in South Australia of children, of children in family settings being separately represented by lawyers or advocates
MS REDMAN: In the immigration process?
DR OZDOWSKI: In immigration process?
MS REDMAN: No, no.
DR OZDOWSKI: No. In terms of unaccompanied minors I understand it is quite common that there is a legal support?
MS REDMAN: There is legal support from pro bono lawyers at the
DR OZDOWSKI: Pro bono.
MS REDMAN: at the present time and obviously the resources are limited and that work can only be taken on according to the availability of the lawyers who are prepared to give their time.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, could we come to the issue of guardianship and guardianship of unaccompanied minors, how do you view the current arrangements?
MS STEEN: I think it is fair to say there's a conflict of interest, is that what you are referring to?
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, well, I'm trying to find out from you what you think about it?
MS REDMAN: Yes, we have serious concerns about that. There really needs to be a separate and independent carer, guardian for the child.
DR OZDOWSKI: So you are saying that the Minister is not necessarily the appropriate guardian considering that he has got other responsibilities?
MS REDMAN: There's clearly a conflict of interest. I think I could even go further than that and say that he is not taking on the responsibilities of a guardian in the way these children are being treated in detention. If children are wards of the State and under the guardianship of the Minister here they have a lot more facilities, resources, their needs are met far more than they are at the moment while they are in detention. So there is a huge discrepancy between the way a guardian of a child of the State is treated within the State than the way they are treated in detention.
DR OZDOWSKI: How would you change the system? What kind of new elements you would put in to the system?
MS REDMAN: I think there probably needs to be a different guardian for a start than the Department of Immigration - than the Minister of Immigration.
DR OZDOWSKI: Immigration?
MS REDMAN: Yes. I think it is probably more appropriate within Children and Family Services if that is - if it has to be in the Federal system. My preference would be that it actually be the responsibility of the State. Obviously child protection is dealt within State jurisdictions and it is not appropriate really that the Federal system assumes responsibility for just a small number of children with very special needs when they don't have the systems set up to support those children when the State systems already have those facilities in place.
DR OZDOWSKI: But we heard earlier today about conflict of legislation and basically what we heard that the Federal legislation was overriding State legislation and that basically it is not an issue of parallel legislation protecting children on State and Federal level, but rather the Immigration Act with the mandatory detention overriding the State protection measures. So how would you in a way deal with that situation if you would like to put the strengths of guardianship and protection in to State hands, wouldn't it lead to dismantling of the present Federal Government policies to be active?
MS REDMAN: I mean these are not things I've thought through until you have put these things to me obviously, but I would have thought that we have other legislation where the Commonwealth Government has handed over responsibility to the States for particular areas and child protection would seem to be a very obvious one, given that at the moment our child protection systems are State based.
MS STEEN: Additionally, if it requires the dismantling of current Federal policy so be it. We would also add that in relation to the appointment of an independent guardian that guardian should be geographically proximate. It is nonsensical to have a guardian in theory only, a distant institution and the guardian - and I'm thinking here particularly of unaccompanied minors, but really in any event should a guardian who would assist the child in bringing it any complaint they may have to the Commonwealth Ombudsman or indeed to HREOC, so I think that highlights the current conflict and inappropriateness of the Federal policies.
DR OZDOWSKI: Before I will ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask question, I would like to address the issue of cruel and inhuman treatment which you addressed in your submission. You said that detention may amount to a cruel and inhuman treatment and therefore is contrary to Australia's international obligations. In particular you cited the possibility of a reduced of involvement of stimulation syndrome. The question is, what could the law do about it? Can this impose liability on the Federal Government and have there been any legal actions in this area so far?
MS STEEN: I don't know that I can answer that question. That part of our submission was prepared by Tina Dolgopol and I must say that her grasp on the specificity of your question is a lot better than mine and I would be loath to try and answer that. Julie, are you
MS REDMAN: Probably not so loath. I would have thought that it is logical that if there were children suffering in cruel and inhuman conditions which amount to criminal offences that there should be some ability prosecute, that is the tenor of your question as I understand?
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, the question was more about civil liability?
MS STEEN: Liability.
MS REDMAN: Civil liability. Well, I think that is a potential that has not yet been explored but still be a possibility in any event.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Professor?
PROF THOMAS: It has been suggested also that detention is acting as a deterrent factor, would you comment on that? Is it an effective method of deterring so that no more people will arrive in Australia?
MS STEEN: I think whether or not it is effective it is a highly improper use to put detention to and it is in breach of the UNHCR guidelines in that regard.
MS LESNIE: I wonder if I could just follow up on that question? It arises from the Department of Immigration's submission which states that releasing children and their mothers could encourage more women and children to travel to Australia unlawfully and it cites that as one reason for continuing detention of mothers and children. I was wondering whether you had an opinion about whether the motivation for detention affects its legality under internal law, in other words, effects whether it is arbitrary under international law?
MS STEEN: Yes, certainly in our submission we have addressed the UNHCR guidelines and they make it quite plain that the purpose for detention if it is to deter is an improper one, they also make it quite plain that child refugees and asylum seekers should not be in detention but the purpose of it is directly addressed by those guidelines.
MS LESNIE: So does the purpose affect its legality under international law? So if in fact the purpose of detention is to deter women and children travelling to Australia does that necessarily or is that a factor in deciding whether the detention is itself arbitrary?
MS REDMAN: I think so, yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: It is, I guess, another legal question and I am a lay person, but it relates to a duty of care. The earlier comments about guardianship and so on to me imply a duty of care and I'm just wondering if there are any legal guidelines by which one could judge whether DIMIA is fulfilling its duty of care in a legal sense in the way that the system currently operates?
MS STEEN: I suppose as Ms Redman has already addressed, she drew the analogy of the treatment of guardians, children who are subject to guardianship or is under the State system and under the State system there are very clear requirements and duties that must be fulfilled. Are you referring to
MRS SULLIVAN: Well, it is really again I suppose the hypothetical possibility of an accusation that the duty of care has not been fulfilled, in the way in which DIMIA deals with these children and young people and whether there is any redress, for example, to civil action or something like that as a result?
MS STEEN: Yes,
MRS SULLIVAN: You think there should be a wealth of evidence which would support such a claim?
MS REDMAN: Can I just make a comment on that, I mean I would probably like to take it on notice in terms of providing you with some cases but there is certainly cases that set a duty of care and particularly in child welfare matters so in terms of providing specifics on, you know, some guidelines we could probably provide you with those cases.
MRS SULLIVAN: Thanks that would be helpful and another analogy I would like to pursue for a minute is with youth detention centres, in other words, the juvenile justice framework and whether the advocacy services provided in the juvenile justice framework are adequate or comparable with what you are supporting in your submission?
MS REDMAN: Yes, well, we could provide you with that as well, we don't have that all set out in our submission but that information would be easy to provide to you.
MRS SULLIVAN: Is that the sort of thing you had in mind, I was trying to think about when you said advocates for these people, were you thinking in terms of the advocacy system for young people in the juvenile justice system or did you have another concept in mind?
MS REDMAN: No, no, it is much more - and it does not necessarily have to be a legal person, in fact, from the children that I have spoken to in Woomera and those that have been released on TPVs or still are in detention in the community, it is very obvious that a huge need is that they have a consistent person that can support them through the system throughout and probably as well as that they need the legal adviser but the way the system is set up at the moment is that there are the migration agents whose job really finishes after they have complied with the limits of their responsibility and then the child is left with a possibility that a pro bono lawyer may assist them and pick up the next stage if there is a next stage.
So not only does that child require consistency for legal support and representation but I also think they require a person, a non-legal person probably, a social worker who can support them from the very beginning of their arrival in Australia through the process and hopefully would be a continuing support person while they assimilate in to the community because the lack of continuity and the lack of support of these children is just appalling.
MS STEEN: If you think of the degree of the trauma that they have suffered in their land of origin and the journey and then in detention and then consider children that we, as a society, have identified as suffering high levels of trauma such as children who are the victims of alleged sexual abuse or serious physical abuse, great inroads have been made there to provide support people, protocols to reduce the number of interviews. Many steps have been taken to ensure that the processes are appropriate and child focused, likewise that needs to be brought to these children. Things have been gained from that jurisdiction.
DR OZDOWSKI: Ms Steen, Ms Redman, thank you very much for your evidence, if you would like to sent any additional materials in light of our conversation today you are most welcome and thank you for putting this submission in and making time in coming here.
MS STEEN: Thanks for the opportunity. Thank you. So now we will have a break until 2 o'clock.
LUNCHEON BREAK [12.30pm]
RESUMED [2.02pm]
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, so this is back in session now and I would like to invite our next witness, Mrs Hadeel Ali, please to come forward and I would like to ask you to take an oath or affirmation.
MRS HADEEL ALI, affirmed [2.03pm] Middle Eastern Community Council of SA
DR OZDOWSKI: Could I ask you to give your name, address, qualifications and capacity in which you are appearing for the record?
MRS ALI: My name is Hadeel Ali. I came from Iraq, Baghdad. I have been living here for 4 years and I'm living in [address removed] and I worked at Middle Eastern Community Council of South Australia, volunteer work.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Before we move to your evidence I would like to remind you of the following matters. The Commission believes it is important to respect the privacy of individuals and to protect children in particular, so while giving the evidence please remember that the identity of asylum seekers is not to be disclosed throughout the hearing and also that identity of third parties is not to be disclosed and this refers also to the people working currently or previously at the detention centres. The issue is that we don't like to name them because they may not have the opportunity to defend their name against the issues which may be raised. Now, if you would have later some additional things to contribute you can do it in a written form and also we've got the Secretary to our Inquiry, Ms Vanessa Leslie, who is willing to take any confidential information regarding the names and so on. So what I would like to ask you to start with, basically to explain to us what was your involvement and for how long with people either in Woomera or people who left Woomera and in particular what do you know about children who went through the process of going through the centres.
MRS ALI: Last year I worked at the Middle Eastern Community Council of South Australia and I heard sad stories from hundreds of people they left Woomera and detention centre and I heard thousand stories from Woomera. Those people already suffered and they still suffering in detention in Woomera.
DR OZDOWSKI: Do you know directly any of the people who came out of detention centres?
MRS ALI: I worked with the Iraqi people and they told me they - all the time they divided people, they divided family, I mean the wife from her husband, like that, the children.
DR OZDOWSKI: But do you know Iraqi people who were released from the detention centre?
MRS ALI: Yes, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: You know?
MRS ALI: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Do you know - how many of them do you know?
MRS ALI: Thirty or
DR OZDOWSKI: About 30?
MRS ALI: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: You know families?
MRS ALI: Families, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: So you would know children as well?
MRS ALI: Yes. Even the children - I notice the children very sad.
DR OZDOWSKI: How many children do you know?
MRS ALI: I think six, between six and 10.
DR OZDOWSKI: When did they come out of detention centre?
MRS ALI: In last August.
DR OZDOWSKI: Last August, all of them, all
MRS ALI: No, there is rule they - some people last August, some people in September, like that.
DR OZDOWSKI: I see, so they were progressively released from last August.
MRS ALI: Yes, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, please make an open statement.
MRS ALI: Yes. After that I helped those people because I feel those people desperate, they need help, they need shelter. They thought they came to - I mean to live here a better life but they told me, "We are suffering in detention centre" and some people said, "We want to return" - I mean to Iraq or something.
DR OZDOWSKI: Iraq.
MRS ALI: I said, "Please do not do like that because this is just for a short period because you came illegally. The government, they don't allow, you are jumping the queue." When I help those people I feel very sorry and because maybe I believe in mercy, in humanitarian things, I believe in human being but what I - because I notice those people suffered I said, "Why the government they doing this?" I know maybe they don't love or they don't like it when someone come as a refugee the illegal way but sometimes life puts us in a very difficult situation.
DR OZDOWSKI: You said some of them want to go back. Why do they want to go back?
MRS ALI: Because they hurt, they hurted in the detention, in Woomera Centre. Even they hurt in very - they treat people in detention in a very rude way, very tough way. Even they heard bad words. I told people, some families, "No, you are living here in Adelaide, you must look about the brighter future, forget bad things." Some people they convinced, some people travel to another estate.
DR OZDOWSKI: What do they do now in Adelaide to earn their living?
MRS ALI: They are looking for a job. No, step by step - step by step there is better but people, they told me they have TPV and little bit confused. I mean, Iraqi people they said, "We want to live here forever, why they put us in TPV?" What is the rule of TPV? Some people they ask me and really I don't know the rule. I know the rules but I don't know the federal and government when they judge or why they want to choose us but all the time I encourage people to live here because there is good people, Australia people, most Australians they believe in humanitarian, they believe in mercy. Australian people is helpful. People - some people convinced and some people say, "Yes, we don't have another choice."
DR OZDOWSKI: How many of them do work now in employment?
MRS ALI: Actually because this year I'm looking - me, I'm looking for a job and I'm finish leadership course by DOME, I didn't contact with them again but last year I interpreted to one of the Iraqi family and I went to the Legal Aid office and I notice those families suffered because they have children overseas and they want those children to enjoy the family and it's very difficult. I mean, there is rule and system and all the time I say, "Well, those people are desperate, they need help, they need shelter" but they told me, "We have a system, we have rules." I said, "Is there any exception, is there another" - I mean, because sometimes life put us in a very difficult situation. I mean, those people, they don't have any place to go. I mean, they choose Australia for a better life but they don't know - they came here - there is another sanction and there is another - I mean, they treat people in a very, very bad way.
DR OZDOWSKI: What is happening to the children, do you know? Do they go to schools or what is happening to them?
MRS ALI: Yes, some children started to go to school but I feel in children a little bit sad, a little bit unhappy, I mean, because what has happened.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, but in terms of schooling, you said some. How many of them would go to school?
MRS ALI: I think three or four. Some children very young, I mean.
DR OZDOWSKI: Too young.
MRS ALI: Yes, 3 years or 4 years.
DR OZDOWSKI: In terms of these children who are - these four children who go to school, they go primary school or secondary school?
MRS ALI: Primary school.
DR OZDOWSKI: To primary school, and how are they settling in the school?
MRS ALI: A little bit they find difficult because second language English, I mean, our language is Arabic and they find it a little bit difficult, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: What about the impact of being in detention? I assume they were some time over there and I assume they didn't have access to formal schooling as Australian kids do have, so how did it impact upon them?
MRS ALI: You mean inside the detention centre?
DR OZDOWSKI: No, outside now when they are going to school?
MRS ALI: It's good actually. They started a new life but people, they don't forget bad things, all the time they remember.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes.
MRS ALI: I mean, we are a human being and
DR OZDOWSKI: Could you give examples of bad things?
MRS ALI: They all the time - even the children, all the time the children speak the truth. They say, "They treat us in a very tough way, very difficult way." When they want toys or milk or something like that they say, "We don't have", something like that. Even sometimes - I mean, we wait, we order something or we need something, even the basic things, even if you go to a rest-room or something like that, and I said - I mean, those are human beings, they need help. They came from sanction and there is another sanction here in detention centre and when someone came like a refugee you want a beautiful life. I mean, anyone want a bright future. Why these people came to Australia? To look to a brighter future. I mean, anyone needs a beautiful life but now, I mean, step by step people know it's a little bit - I mean, because they remember the bad things but what they can do because it's very difficult, I mean. Even here it's very complicated because they came from Arabic country and must step by step.
MRS SULLIVAN: Could you explain to us why there's so much confusion about the age of children? I think one of the people this morning said it is very confusing when they come to school because they don't know their date of birth.
MRS ALI: I think because they lost I think their identity or something like that. I notice some children very confused because English is second language. It is not like - I mean, I speak Arabic and English and some people aren't educated people, their parents, but they want their children to go to schools, but I think children, they learn very quick, very fast and people here are very helpful. I mean, they help children and they understand.
DR OZDOWSKI: Is there anything else you would like to add?
MRS ALI: No, I just want to say something. I mean, the children and women, every - those people, innocent people, it's very difficult when you put people in detention. I'm sorry to say that but this is uncivilised way to treat people. We know they came from, I mean, illegal way, they came from - the government already they reject those people, but we must give people a chance to prove: are those people good or not. We can judge about the people or against it, all those people, they came from - saying: those people are bad. All the time I notice ..... control and I came from Iraq, Baghdad. I mean, maybe this is private but I'm fasting 10 months and I lost 10 kilograms from my weight because 1,000,000 Iraqi child died and this number is increasing. People ask me in the street, what the sanction, they don't know. Sanction no food, no medicines and life very difficult. We gave oil or petrol free and we take food and people came here to Australia because there is sanction. They didn't know there is another sanction in detention and that's it. Thank you very much to let me speak.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you, Ms Ali, thank you. Now, we have Ms Colleen Fitzpatrick here, could you please come forward. I see there is another person with you, please come forward. Thank you very much for your submission into the Inquiry and I would like to start with saying that part of the meeting is to test the evidence we have received so we would like to ask you some questions about that and we will be also trying to elicit information which could be helpful to the Inquiry. I would like to ask you now to take an oath or affirmation.
JULIA ANAF, affirmed [2.16pm] COLLEEN FITZPATRICK, sworn Luthern Community Care
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you very much. Now, could I ask you to give your names, addresses, qualifications and capacity in which you are appearing here for the purpose of the record.
MS FITZPATRICK: My name is Colleen Fitzpatrick. I live at [address removed]. I'm the Director of Lutheran Community Care which is located in Blair Athol.
MS ANAF: My name is Julia Anaf. I live at [address removed] and I'm on placement at Lutheran Community Care.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you very much. Can I ask you now to make your opening statement?
MS FITZPATRICK: Lutheran Community Care is located in an area with a high refugee population. Nine of the 12 homes that refugees are able to stay in for 4 weeks once they have come out of Woomera are located in that area. It is also worth noting that in our local community we have refugees with permanent status as well as those who are on temporary protection visas. We see many people from both of these groups as they have so little when they come to live in our community. The Blair Athol area, there is a high level of transient population, a high level of poverty, low levels of education, a high rate of people with mental illness and unemployment and a high incidence of single parent families as well as a fairly high crime rate.
We entered into preparing the submission for the Inquiry confident that we could gather good information from people who use our services. This confidence was quickly shattered when the question was discussed with three male representatives of the local Islamic community. We spoke about not identifying those to whom we wished to gather information but this was not acceptable. We also asked whether we could speak with people in their own religious group with the men of the family present and this was initially reluctantly agreed to but then this permission was later withdrawn. When we tried to contact the gentleman he didn't return our phone calls. So a large part of our submission to the Inquiry is the focus on the fear within the community that we saw, that people were unwilling to talk with us, to share their stories, even though we were talking about not knowing their names, not knowing their addresses, not knowing identifying information and this is something
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, but could you maybe explore a bit further the issue of your experience with TPV community. I would ask that you have more experience than just refusal of telephone calls, for the record, if you could say the extent of your experience.
MS FITZPATRICK: Yes. We provide emergency assistance to people in the local community so individuals and families can come to us to receive assistance with food and paying their day-to-day bills. So every week we would see several families or individuals who are on TPVs come in for assistance as well as - we have contact with a network of people throughout our church and through the local community who also have some contact and are befriending refugees.
DR OZDOWSKI: Do you have direct contact with refugee children?
MS FITZPATRICK: I personally don't but the people within our organisation do.
DR OZDOWSKI: They do have it. Now, you started saying that possibly the person didn't like to talk to you, it was a concern about the well-being of that person, there was a possibility of a threat or something like that. Could you maybe tell me a bit more about that?
MS FITZPATRICK: Yes. The communication was difficult because of the lack of understanding of the English language but we - and Julia who was at the meeting we were attending, we tried to explain in several ways that we wanted to gather information about what had happened to children in the detention centres. It was almost like a veil was drawn, they did not want to disclose that to us, yes, that they were fearful of what might happen.
DR OZDOWSKI: How do you know it was fear rather than, say, cultural issue or maybe linguistic issue? How do you make that assessment?
MS ANAF: I think it is difficult to make that assessment but when we were speaking to the people initially the man said I could speak to women in his community, in their community, but then changed his mind. I don't really know why, why that happened. I suggested it was fear but it could be, as you say, a cultural difference as well.
DR OZDOWSKI: Did they indicate to you maybe because they are on TPVs they don't like to go on the record or something like that?
MS ANAF: They didn't say that in as many words.
DR OZDOWSKI: They didn't?
MS ANAF: No.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, looking to your submission, you are talking about an attachment disorder. Could you perhaps describe a bit what it is all about?
MS FITZPATRICK: In the past I've worked extensively with children who are in foster care and who have moved around to a number of foster homes and have seen the effects of multiple losses and what that does to children and the effects of moving so many times when they are unable to develop trust or they become overly compliant as a result of that. That is my concern when we hear the stories of the people who are coming to us for assistance, is that the number of losses have been extensive. We have people who have left their homeland, they have left members of their families, they've left all of their possessions, their culture, their language, their neighbourhood, everything, they have had to leave that behind. The concern that we have is that there is no ability within our community to allow the children to talk about that or to address some of those issues.
Certainly the children who we see coming into Lutheran Community Care for assistance with their families are very compliant. They are better behaved than the children from the non-refugee families. They also are - I think the previous speaker was speaking about the lack of toys, for example, and when they see toys their eyes light up and we make a point of giving the children toys but they've obviously been deprived of play things or of things that are pleasurable for children. With the attachment disorder, those are my concerns, that there have been these many losses. They have gone into a situation where these losses aren't addressed and they still aren't being addressed. We don't have the resources within our community to address the torture, the trauma and the losses that children have experienced.
DR OZDOWSKI: Ms Fitzpatrick, how prevalent is that issue of the attachment disorder? Does it impact on every child?
MS FITZPATRICK: Well, again because we are only - we provide short-term assistance to children, we are not able to measure that but certainly the compliant behaviour which can be one indicator of that is there.
DR OZDOWSKI: Are there any indicators of the disorder?
MS FITZPATRICK: It's very difficult to gauge. I would be happy to speak with my staff who are seeing refugee children to get further information about that and to submit that in writing if that is acceptable. Again, the language barrier is really a difficult one as well and how do we know what is because it is in a strange environment, but we could certainly talk about that.
DR OZDOWSKI: Your submission also mentioned that children can be used as pawns by detention centre personnel to try and get parents to stop protest or hunger strikes. Could you perhaps let us know a bit more about that? I think it was on page 3.
MS FITZPATRICK: This was a concern that was based in the information that it isn't based on the contact that we have had directly with them but it was concerns that have been raised as we consider what is coming out in the media and also what we have heard from the lawyers who have been visiting Woomera and the association of major community organisations have presented a paper which you are hearing about at tomorrow's hearing. So that is where that is based.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay. Now, you also were talking about children being used as interpreters. Is it happening when they are coming to your organisation?
MS FITZPATRICK: Yes. Very often they are placed in the role of interpreters. So they will come into the organisation, they will come to the counter and because their parents have such little English the children are having to act as interpreters for their parents as appointments are made and then once again as they are asking for assistance or if they are going to, if they are receiving clothing or household goods, once again the children are having to interpret for their parents and to act as the interpreters between both lots of adults.
DR OZDOWSKI: And it is your direct experience, you have seen it happening?
MS FITZPATRICK: Yes, yes, I've seen that.
DR OZDOWSKI: Perhaps the last thing I would like to ask is the issue of provision of religious support for people of Islamic faith. Do you have any knowledge of it, how it is organised and how community supports the religious needs of people who are released?
MS FITZPATRICK: I have contact with the Muslim Women's Association and through that I'm aware of the mosque that is located in our area and I know also that there is a local Islamic group in the Kilburn/Blair Athol area as well that people are involved and they are providing the support. We know that the Islamic Women's Association are having trouble meeting the demands that are being placed on them for practical needs as well and we work closely with them.
DR OZDOWSKI: In what way is the Islamic Women's Association supporting refugees?
MS FITZPATRICK: I know that they are providing clothes, baby clothes, toys, that sort of really practical assistance, as well as wanting to provide community education. We've got a group of Christian women and Muslim women working together and I guess they are supporting each other and speaking out within the community as well.
DR OZDOWSKI: Are there any members of your church who came through the detention centres or who converted on the way?
MS FITZPATRICK: I believe that there are some.
DR OZDOWSKI: There are some?
MS FITZPATRICK: Yes, that there are some.
DR OZDOWSKI: But you don't have direct experience of that?
MS FITZPATRICK: People within my organisation do, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes?
MS FITZPATRICK: Yes, I think I've referred to one in the case studies in my paper there.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, thank you. Dr Sullivan?
MRS SULLIVAN: You have mentioned that people come to you for assistance, for financial assistance, clothing and food. Do they come for any other purpose or any other kind of assistance? I'm thinking in the counselling area or the health area, education?
MS FITZPATRICK: When they arrive in our area their needs are of the most basic and so they are really coming to us for that very basic assistance, for household goods and for setting up their homes and we are providing a friendship network where we can as well to provide some of those social, you know, some social contacts within the community.
MRS SULLIVAN: Are there any support services specifically for children, young people, that you are aware of?
MS FITZPATRICK: Well, there are Child and Youth Health within our area but they are not ones that we are providing directly. We are providing - there's sort of an ad hoc group of people who are forming friendships and a bit of mentoring for people but that seems to be happening more with people who are on - because we have a significant group of African people who are on permanent visas and because they are more comfortable with the Christian religion we have more to do with them as well as working with people on temporary protection visas.
MRS SULLIVAN: I was really trying to get a feel for what NGO support is available as distinct from government support.
MS FITZPATRICK: It is very difficult to - we are providing the assistance that we can and we have an idea of working with, providing these friendship groups for example or friends for people but you need infrastructure to provide that and there are no resources to provide that infrastructure and so we are looking to the Australian Refugee Association who have somebody for one day a week to recruit and train volunteers to be friends to people but there's not a lot you can do on a 12 month grant for one day a week's work.
MRS SULLIVAN: What is the source of that grant, are you aware?
MS FITZPATRICK: That grant is from Community Benefit SA but that whole lack of resourcing for the area of work that we can do is enormously frustrating. The state government provides some limited support but as you are aware it is not backed up by the commonwealth government support either.
MRS SULLIVAN: Yes, thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI: Professor Thomas?
PROF THOMAS: These families when they came out of detention centres, they came and sort of got your assistance and so on. So how long does this kind of communication exist? Do they keep in touch with you for a long time or just a short time and then they move on?
MS FITZPATRICK: Again it is a resourcing issue and we are not able to help people ad infinitum. So we say that we will help people three times and then that is in a way a limit to what we can give them but some people do keep coming back but it is very few because again it is another system and there's not a lot of reward in them keeping coming back and so we are trying more to work with our local community and that is why the local churches in the area are trying to work together to provide other ways for us to provide that support or I guess to educate the community. Our community really needs to be educated about welcoming people.
PROF THOMAS: The local church, you mean the local Lutheran Church or just any
MS FITZPATRICK: No, the other. There's quite a few other churches, other denominations within the community and we are all working together but that is just starting as well so we've got all of the sorting out how to do it, how we can work together.
PROF THOMAS: Yes. So do many people sort of come back to the church, I mean on the friendship basis, not to ask for anything, just to keep in touch and - -
MS FITZPATRICK: There are some friendships starting to happen because the church - I don't live in that local community but the people who are in that local community are starting to open their homes but it is a slow process because there's been so much vilification of refugees in the press.
PROF THOMAS: Thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI: What do you think would be a long-term impact on this attachment disorder and also vilification, as you said, in the press?
MS FITZPATRICK: Well, from what we have seen has happened in foster care situations that if people can't attach to other people, if they can't form functional relationships with other people at an early age it is very difficult to overcome that at a later age. So people become isolated and when they are isolated they are more vulnerable and I think they are more prone to mental illnesses, to depression. They are not able to reach out to other people and to cope with life crises. That often the only things that mean anything to them can be material things, so people lose their value and they feel that the word owes them a living rather than they can contribute to society and victims can become perpetrators.
DR OZDOWSKI: Perhaps the last question. What would you see as alternatives to the present model of mandatory detention and how eventually your community could be a part of such alternatives?
MS FITZPATRICK: Ideally of course in an ideal world I would hope that there would not need to be detention centres but if we are to have detention centres then I believe there needs to be more openness there, that non-government organisations need to be able to go in there and talk to the people in the detention centres that we can start to foster some, you know, to help people understand our culture and that we can understand their culture better, that there can be respectful relationships built and so that the transition process is much easier.
To me it seems very disrespectful and lacking in dignity the way that we are conducting this process now and that there is a lot of opportunity for us to be able to welcome people to our land and to listen to their stories and to help them to come to terms with their stories and with what has happened to them so that they can become fully participating members of the community. I mean many of our people have come as refugees one way or another and we weren't treated like that.
DR OZDOWSKI: You suggested that some form of detention would be okay. So I'm just trying to find out here what elements of that fairness would we - what kind of detention would be acceptable to your community?
MS FITZPATRICK: Yes, very short term. There needs to be checks and balances in place to protect the national interest but what we have is inhuman and prisons aren't the answer and razor wire isn't the answer.
DR OZDOWSKI: So for what purposes detention could be justified?
MS FITZPATRICK: I guess to undertake - can I just think about that for a minute?
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, please, yes.
MS FITZPATRICK: Yes, it does seem a long process and I believe that we have the right to know who is coming to our country.
DR OZDOWSKI: So to establish identity.
MS FITZPATRICK: To establish identity, yes, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Any other grounds for the short-term or purposes
MS FITZPATRICK: Or short
DR OZDOWSKI: Purposes for short term?
MS FITZPATRICK: Well, I guess as I said as a protection to the country. Are there any matters that we need to take into consideration in protecting our people but we need to be giving
DR OZDOWSKI: But not as a deterrent.
MS FITZPATRICK: Not as a deterrent, no, no.
DR OZDOWSKI: Well, any other issues you would like to raise?
MS FITZPATRICK: Yes, just one that I would briefly like to raise and that is something that is causing us concern and I can see that again that this could impact on the children who have come through the detention process, that we are seeing a real tension arising between the people who are here on permanent visas and those on temporary protection visas and the people on permanent visas are very angry that people on temporary protection visas have jumped the queue. People that we see have been in detention camps overseas for 17 years, some of them, and they cannot understand how people can just arrive here and it is a concern to us that if there's not - again it is the whole bit of I guess community education and not respecting where the other has come from.
DR OZDOWSKI: So you are comparing now a group of refugees who are in some kind of camps overseas or awaiting resettlement with people who came on the boats?
MS FITZPATRICK: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: But how would you solve that tension because it is possibly not an issue of education.
MS FITZPATRICK: Well, I think it is partly of education and again the way that the media portrays the people who are coming and being detained, that they are seen as bad and they are just the bad part of their story or the bad things that they have done are portrayed always and they are very different backgrounds that people have come from and each needs refuge, each needs a safe place but there is this huge gap that we see and we do what we can to address that but it is something that really does concern us and to see that played out in a school yard for example could be very concerning.
DR OZDOWSKI: Any other questions? No? So thank you very much for your submission and for your evidence and now we will take a short break. Yes, we will take a short break but we will then have a closed session so I will have to ask everyone to leave the room. There will be tomorrow between 9 and 12.30 another public hearing with an open session so you are invited to come tomorrow if you are interested but the rest of today's evidence will be taken in camera. So thank you for your participation.
AFTERNOON TEA [2.45pm]
(Note: The next section of the transcript is evidence given by officers from the Department of Human Services. This evidence was given to the Inquiry in camera. Subsequently, permission was given for this evidence to be made public.)
CONTINUED FROM PUBLIC HEARING
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, I would formally like to begin this hearing in camera, for the Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention. My name is Sev Ozdowski and I am the Human Rights Commissioner. I have two colleagues with me, two Assistant Commissioners. On my right hand is Dr Trang Thomas, who is Professor of Psychology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and on my left is Mrs Robin Sullivan, who is Queensland's Children's Commissioner. I would like to say that all the evidence gathered here will remain confidential. No copies of transcript will be available, except with your agreement, and we will send you the copies of the transcript for correction.
Thank you very much for your evidence, for your submission, which you provided on behalf of the Government. The role of this hearing is to test the evidence provided in the submission and also to ask you additional questions to better understand how the system works. Now, I would like you to make an oath or affirmation.
MS KATRINA McNEIL,
sworn [3.19pm]
MS MONICA LEAHY, affirmed
Department of Human Services
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, I would like to ask you to state for the record your names, addresses, qualifications and the capacity in which you appear here today.
MS LEAHY: My name is Monica Leahy. I'm Project Officer for New Arrivals and Refugees in the Department of Human Services, [address removed]. I am appearing here today as a co author of the Department of Human Services' submission.
DR OZDOWSKI: And?
MS McNEIL: I'm Katrina McNeil. I'm an employee of the Department of Human Services, [address removed]. I work for the Family and Youth Services Division of the Department of Human Services, and since 2000, I've been undertaking child protection investigations within the Woomera detention centre.
DR OZDOWSKI: Allow me to start with a question about why you decided to appear in camera and, perhaps, I will say that this kind of evidence is of much lesser use to us and mainly because we can't use it in the report. We can't attribute to you. We can only use it for some kind of a broader understanding and from my point of view, it is difficult to understand how the State Government may have chosen to go in camera when we are getting witnesses risking personal livelihood appearing in public.
MS LEAHY: All I can say is that we are public servants and we're under instruction from the Department that we work for. Any change to confidentiality provisions would need to be negotiated with Minister Stephanie Key, who is Minister for Community Services.
DR OZDOWSKI: So what you are saying is that the Minister may be willing to entertain a request from the Commission to put part of the evidence or the whole of the evidence in the public domain after she has read it?
MS LEAHY: I can't speak for the Minister but I would suggest making an approach to her would be the way to get any changes to the confidentiality provisions.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, thank you very much for that one. Now, what I would like to ask you, maybe, before we come to more specific issues is if you could both make an opening statement, and what I would be especially interested in is to learn more about your direct involvement with refugees from whatever place - it could be Woomera, Port Hedland, and so on - and also your indirect involvement in your capacity as Government officials. So I would like to know really what do you know first hand and what is your expertise?
MS LEAHY: For me, I essentially coordinate services for people on temporary protection visas who are released to Adelaide from Port Hedland, Derby and from Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centres. I work very closely with Family and Youth Services, with the South Australian Housing Trust, and with the Migrant Health Service or the Health Commission. Well, sorry, health provision in this State so
DR OZDOWSKI: Do you
MS McNEIL: I also provide advice, when required, to the Mental Health Unit.
DR OZDOWSKI: Do you also work with the Department of Education? Your coordination would involve possibly also
MS LEAHY: Department of Human Services convenes a temporary protection visa holders inter agency group, of which the Department of Education, Training and Employment has a representative. Because I am - on a personal level, I do provide some expertise to the Department because I'm a teacher on leave without pay but that has nothing to do with my Department of Human Services work.
DR OZDOWSKI: So you would be more focusing on settlement needs and Human Services needs with the exception, possibly, of education and employment because employment would be more a Federal issue?
MS LEAHY: Yes, that is the case although the Office of Employment and Youth also has a delegate on the inter agency group in South Australia, and they have developed a number of programs for temporary protection visa holders.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay.
PROF THOMAS: Do you know many of TPVs of many refugees personally, did you meet with them personally?
MS LEAHY: I've met probably a thousand.
PROF THOMAS: A thousand.
MS LEAHY: Yes.
PROF THOMAS: In person? But did you talk to them? Do you know a bit about their problems and what they are experiencing?
MS LEAHY: Yes, I would say I have at least fifty who are personal friends but that is not part of my employment
PROF THOMAS: Yes.
MS LEAHY: it is personal activities.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you very much. Now, Ms McNeil?
MS McNEIL: As I explained before, I have been involved in the child protection investigations within the Centre so the information I'm presenting today was obtained either directly by my conversations with children, families or the unaccompanied humanitarian minors or that of my colleagues that have also attended the centre and undertaken a child protection investigation.
DR OZDOWSKI: So maybe what I would propose is maybe let us start with child protection issues because it is a narrower issue and then we will come to the other issues. So in that way, Ms Leahy, you can rest a bit easier now for the moment.
MS LEAHY: Yes. It is nice not to be in the front line.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, coming to child protection issues, are you talking about sexual harassment or are you talking about a whole range of issues?
MS McNEIL: A whole range of issues. At the moment the Children's Protection Act of 1993 provides this state government authority with the power to investigate and assess child protection concerns that meet the mandate for investigation like it would in any other part of the community. So physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and self harming behaviours.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay. Now, let us take as an example Woomera. It is federal territory so I understand there needs to be some kind of a federal notification or some kind of notification before you can act. Could you explain to me how it works?
MS McNEIL: Sure. Under section 11 I believe of the Children's Protection Act all employees at Woomera Detention Centre are mandated notifiers, so like in the general community, teachers, doctors, lawyers, those employees if they have reasonable suspicion that a child is being abused must notify our department. The notifications are then assessed as to whether they meet the mandate for FAYS intervention. We investigate, make assessments. The Children's Protection Act, our powers under the Children's Protection Act stop there if you are working through a process and then we make recommendations to DIMIA about what things might need to be put in place to protect the children.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, in terms of people who can notify you, you are saying they are basically ACM employees?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Regardless of position.
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Plus possibly DIMIA officials. What about for example a lawyer who is visiting somebody?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: And is learning something?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Or what about the person living in Adelaide who received a telephone from somebody. So basically everyone can notify you?
MS McNEIL: Anyone in the community
DR OZDOWSKI: Can notify.
MS McNEIL: can make a notification to our child abuse report line which is what we have in South Australia. Some people by law must notify and I believe lawyers that are working in a capacity of representatives of children are mandated notifiers.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, when you receive that notification if I understand correctly, you make an assessment and go back to DIMIA and you would tell them: well forget about it, there's no substance to it, or it looks like a possible, or what do you tell them?
MS McNEIL: No, we don't say forget about it, there's no substance to it. We make an assessment of whether it meets the criteria for an investigation and if that is the case then our staff will attend the centre to make further inquiries. If that line is that it has not reached the legal mandate for child abuse we would be talking with ACM and DIMIA staff on site about the things that perhaps they could put in place in a preventative way.
DR OZDOWSKI: So what criteria do you use to assess whether it is an issue for further investigation?
MS McNEIL: Basically rightly or wrongly the same criteria we would use in the general community. So you'd have to a likelihood of continued harm, immediate risk and also we would collate something that initially came in, might be a very vague concern. So we get a notification from one person, very vague. Then 2 days later somebody else notifies and adds a bit more to the jigsaw puzzle. So the case builds up.
DR OZDOWSKI: Would it be possible to get for our records your criteria?
MS McNEIL: Yes, I would say that
DR OZDOWSKI: So could you
MS McNEIL: our child protection policy would be available to you.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay. So could I ask you to take that one on notice please?
MS McNEIL: Sure, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, then after you have made your assessment there are two possible or maybe three outcomes.
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: But the two key outcomes were that you decide that investigation is warranted and the other one that possibly it is not warranted but some better practice could be put in place. If I understand what they are saying, if you decide that some better practice could be put in place you will talk to DIMIA or ACM and tell them: well listen, lift up your game because here there are some problems. Would you have a
MS McNEIL: Yes, we would be making comments around what family support should perhaps be put in place.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes. Would you send them a letter or would you just ring them over the phone and talk with them?
MS McNEIL: It would depend on the circumstances, what things have occurred in the past.
DR OZDOWSKI: What is the more usual practice, to pick up a phone or rather to send them a formal assessment?
MS McNEIL: Formal, if an investigation occurs.
DR OZDOWSKI: Formal. Now, coming to the possibility of investigation being conducted, you need to go to DIMIA and you tell them: well we think there is something there, we would like to look or it would be good to look into it.
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: And what does DIMIA is do then?
MS McNEIL: DIMIA under our memorandum of understanding allows permission to officers of Family and Youth Services into the Centre. Initially in 2000 there was debates about whether officers had to be present in the interviews with the families and children. They are not present so we have
DR OZDOWSKI: DIMIA officials you mean?
MS McNEIL: DIMIA officials or ACM officials are not present during our interviews so Family and Youth Services staff, usually two, will interview children separately with the parents' consent or family groupings and children and we also interview ACM staff that may be involved so psychological staff, counselling staff, the education staff on site, to get a full assessment of what is happening.
DR OZDOWSKI: Certainly and then you will produce a report?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: And what would happen with that report?
MS McNEIL: The report via our executive director goes to DIMIA state authorities and then to DIMIA Canberra authorities.
DR OZDOWSKI: So you send two envelopes, yes, with the report?
MS McNEIL: Yes, two copies of the same report.
DR OZDOWSKI: ACM also?
MS McNEIL: ACM and DIMIA on site staff are provided with verbal feedback before our investigation teams leave at the end of any given day. However they do not put in place any of our recommendations until they hear from their Canberra office.
DR OZDOWSKI: Do they receive a copy of your report?
MS McNEIL: They do.
DR OZDOWSKI: So there are three reports or four reports?
MS McNEIL: Yes, but it goes around. Yes, I don't hand them the report.
DR OZDOWSKI: So where do you send it directly?
MS McNEIL: And it goes to the Executive Director of Social Justice and Country Division in DHS who then sends it to state or commonwealth DIMIA and then they send that exact same copy down.
DR OZDOWSKI: Down. I see, so it does not go from you, it goes around.
MS McNEIL: No, only verbal report if there's immediate safety risks that need to be attended to so people are removed from a risky environment into another compound or some cases we've had where young people have been hospitalised immediately.
DR OZDOWSKI: And the implementation of the report is then in the hands of DIMIA or ACM?
MS McNEIL: DIMIA have responsibility for the children within the Centre and implementing any recommendations that FAYS make.
DR OZDOWSKI: Would they advise you how they implemented your recommendation?
MS McNEIL: As an investigative worker I'm not often advised. We don't have a team based at Woomera so they come from the city or our Port Augusta office so directly I may not be advised but Family and Youth Services through the Executive Director are advised about whether those recommendations have been agreed to and implemented or whether they have been discounted or something different happens.
DR OZDOWSKI: Would you have a power to go back again to the Centre and to check whether it is implemented or how it is implemented?
MS McNEIL: We certainly have the ability to re-attend the Centre and do follow-up if that is what you are talking about.
DR OZDOWSKI: You do?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: I've finished with process. If you are interested in any further detail relating to the process you may come - I will come to the substance in a moment.
MRS SULLIVAN: Yes, I've just got one with process. As part of that investigation you may determine that a criminal act occurred. Where and how do police get involved and what kind of police get involved?
MS McNEIL: Thank you bringing that up. Actually I probably should have explained that. At the point of notification the South Australian state system has a criteria that we call extra-familial abuse and that means that alleged abuse of a child from someone outside of the direct family unit is classed as extra-familial. On receipt of notification of that Family and Youth Services must notify the police authorities. Sometimes at Woomera we have done joint investigations involving the Wakefield Street Child Exploitation Unit.
MRS SULLIVAN: This is state police?
MS McNEIL: State police. Other times the Port Augusta CIB have been involved. If there is allegations against ACM employees or DIMIA employees the federal police would undertake those investigations. Does that answer your question?
MRS SULLIVAN: In a sense. Let us imagine the allegation was about a DIMIA or ACM official, then the contact that you would have made with the state police, you made with the state police
MS McNEIL: They would refer it
MRS SULLIVAN: you make with AFP at that point?
MS McNEIL: No, the state police would refer it to the federal police as would we. So there would be two referrals.
MRS SULLIVAN: Okay. So the AFP would be there right from the beginning in that case?
MS McNEIL: Yes, and Family and Youth Services would not have a role in that investigation.
MRS SULLIVAN: Right. So let us keep with the state police for a minute. Imagine that they did believe there was a case to be answered, does that then go through the state legal system?
MS McNEIL: As I understand, yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: Are you aware of cases that have gone through the state legal system?
MS McNEIL: None that I'm aware of.
MRS SULLIVAN: Are you implying there's no extra-familial abuse?
MS McNEIL: No. I'm implying that I'm not aware of them, that have gone through the criminal legal system.
MRS SULLIVAN: Yes. Would it be difficult to answer my question, in other words is the data available from somewhere else?
MS McNEIL: No, no, I do not know of cases that have reached the courts yet.
MRS SULLIVAN: But the police would have records that would indicate whether there are any in train.
MS McNEIL: They certainly would, yes, and the other thing I just want to clarify
MRS SULLIVAN: Yes.
MS McNEIL: We are only involved in notifications of children under 18 so the police would also have information if there was any sexual or physical assaults involving persons over the age of 18 by employees or even between people residing in the centre.
MRS SULLIVAN: And is there a protocol for those cases, are you aware, between the police and DIMIA?
MS McNEIL: I'm not aware of the details but there is a protocol.
MRS SULLIVAN: Right, thanks.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Professor Thomas?
MS LESNIE: Sorry, can I just ask one thing? Does it happen that you get more than one notification in relation to a single child? I mean two things by that. First of all in relation to the one incident, would you get a notification from various sources?
MS McNEIL: Yes, we would.
MS LESNIE: Does that happen often?
MS McNEIL: More frequently in at least the last 12 months.
MS LESNIE: And what are the sources of those notifications usually?
MS McNEIL: Okay. The Children's Protection Act gives protection to notifiers and so I'm not allowed to give any identifying information.
MS LESNIE: No, not names but like teachers or DIMIA officials or
MS McNEIL: Yes, that is still identifying information because of the closeness of the centre.
MS LESNIE: Okay. Would it be both ACM and DIMIA staff that would call you?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
MS LESNIE: Okay. Then the second part of that question is: have you had cases where in respect of one child there have been several notifications of different incidents?
MS McNEIL: Re-notification rates?
MS LESNIE: Yes, but different incidents to do with the same child.
MS McNEIL: Yes.
MS LESNIE: Okay. Does that change the reaction that you would have in relation to the incidents, if there's a recurring incidence with one child, does it change anything?
MS McNEIL: It certainly changes our assessment. The greater number of notifications you would receive about any child in any family increases our view of the risk to that child of continuing harm. Is that what
MS LESNIE: Yes.
MS McNEIL: Am I allowed to make a point going on from that?
MS LESNIE: Sure, go ahead.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, please.
MS McNEIL: Sorry, this is all new to me. What I wanted to say is that between January and June this year the notification rate has risen hugely. We've had 130 notifications just in that period of time. Now, as you would all know, the numbers of families in the Centre have certainly decreased since 2000 so that gives you some idea of what the re-notification rate must be like and to
DR OZDOWSKI: Could you give us a number for the previous years so we could have compared it?
MS McNEIL: For the, sorry?
DR OZDOWSKI: For the previous year. You said 140 something in the half a year now.
MS McNEIL: I said 130 notifications between January and June so it is as of Friday.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes. So what was in the previous year, whole year?
MS McNEIL: I think that is actually in our submission.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay.
MS McNEIL: Yes, but I don't - I can find it.
DR OZDOWSKI: You don't remember it. No, okay.
MS McNEIL: But in answer to your other question, 92 of those 130 met our mandate for an investigative approach, 41 involved families and 21 involved unaccompanied minors. So if you do the maths that gives you some degree of what must be the re-notification rate.
MS LESNIE: That is a lot of cases for you to - - -
MS McNEIL: Huge, absolutely huge.
MS LESNIE: Do you investigate every one of them? Do you go to the Centre for every one of them?
MS McNEIL: Personally I don't.
MS LESNIE: No, but your unit.
MS McNEIL: We have a group of workers that do, as I said, 92 notifications since January and June.
MS LESNIE: So there's no notification that gets left uninvestigated if it meets its threshold?
MS McNEIL: No, not at this time.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, what I would like to come to now is the subject matters and could we start with your legislation. Could you let me know what kind of categories of child abuse are mentioned in your legislation and let us start with sexual abuse, it is the most obvious.
MS McNEIL: The legislation gives a broad definition to any form of sexual abuse, physical abuse or neglect of a child.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay.
MS McNEIL: Threats
MRS SULLIVAN: Emotional abuse?
MS McNEIL: Yes, neglect [Ms McNeil was not able to complete her sentence. She intended to say, "The Children's Protection Act does include emotional abuse and all abuse has and emotional element."]
MRS SULLIVAN: Neglect is emotional abuse.
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, when you look at all cases which are notified to you and if you would like to divide them into these three categories: sexual, physical and neglect, how it would go in ..... interest more or less.
MS McNEIL: The majority of numbers have been around the self harming behaviour which again either comes under physical abuse if the way in which the notification is received alleges that an adult person has inflicted the harm on the child during the activities such as the lip stitching times or the hunger strikes, then under the neglect it would be around parents not taking protective action, or it is alleged that parents are not taking protective action in relation to young people and their suicide attempts or their own self-harming, slashing of skin and drinking shampoo and other self-harming activity. So they would be the majority of our notifications. There have been very few sexual abuse notifications and I would say only 10 per cent would be in relation to physical abuse allegations of children at the hands of their parents.
DR OZDOWSKI: If you were to go to a broader Australian community, South Australian community, and you would find a child of, say, 10 or 12 and not attending school, self-harming, displaying signs of enormous pressure and so on, what would you do as an organisation?
MS McNEIL: All of those factors, it certainly would meet the criteria for us to investigate. What we do have in South Australia is links, so Family and Youth Services is seen as the case managers, so as a case manager of that particular case we would be looking at setting up things in place with the Education Department, with Mental Health Services, to provide support to the child and the family and they're the kinds of recommendations that we do make to DIMIA when we send off our report. The difficulty is that within the centre those links and the arrangements that we have outside the centre with - agencies with expertise aren't there to implement those sorts of things.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, if a child in the South Australian community does not go to school what would you do?
MS McNEIL: We have a protocol with the Department of Education, Employment and Training and they have their own attendance officers and so it would be a joint process that they would take responsibility. There would be, you know, an assessment done generally. The attendance officers and guidance counsellors within the Education Department would undertake those assessments and they would be looking at alternative education programs for the young person. If there are behavioural issues, other issues, they would really take the lead responsibility on the education side of things and that is .....
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, but you possibly would follow it up and
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: the outcome you would try to achieve is that the child will go to school and possibly would even go as far, if the neglect of the child is substantial, you would look for alternative accommodation for a child and so on.
MS McNEIL: There's two legislative things that I probably should mention here. Under the Education Act they have the power to take parents who don't send their children to school to Court to do that, so that would be the very first option that the Education Department would look at. In our Children's Protection Act there is a provision under a family care meeting which then could lead, once that occurred, if there was no resolution from a family care meeting outcome, to Youth Court action. In my 8 years in FAYS I've never seen it happen though.
DR OZDOWSKI: Looking at the evidence from Woomera at least on the basis of what I have seen so far, I could form a view that basically all children in Woomera would fit very well under your Act.
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: It looks to me that all children of Woomera are in one or the other form, either neglected or physically abused or having to face some other circumstances which would be unacceptable to your Department and broader community. Did you address that issue on that generic level with the Department of Immigration?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: So you advised them that basically whatever is happening in Woomera to children is breaching all State legislation.
MS McNEIL: I don't know that they would be the words that we used but
DR OZDOWSKI: But it was more or less this sense.
MS McNEIL: in the reports that have gone up to DIMIA it has been made clear that our view is that all children are at risk.
DR OZDOWSKI: Now, what was the response?
MS McNEIL: As I understand it, there's still negotiations occurring around our recommendations and alternative detention arrangements for children with DIMIA and our Department.
DR OZDOWSKI: You see, this is a very important piece of information from my point of view and we have got a confidential hearing. Could you advise me on any other way I could get this information so I could put it into public domain?
MS McNEIL: I don't know.
MS LEAHY: I think Minister Key in a media statement 6 to 8 weeks ago certainly made that point herself.
DR OZDOWSKI: So she was in a way reflecting in the media statement
MS LEAHY: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: your department's advice to DIMIA basically what is happening to kids breaching the state legislation.
MS LEAHY: I don't think she said it was breaching the state legislation but she certainly said that - and I don't have the newspaper clipping or her media release in front of me, but I believe she used the word "intolerable".
DR OZDOWSKI: Would you be willing to release that piece of correspondence between you and DIMIA to the Commission?
MS LEAHY: Again as a public servant my advice is that we are not able to release that to you.
MS LESNIE: Could I ask you a question? If your department has found that the conditions generally are intolerable or whatever the actual word used, how do you make recommendations on individual cases? Perhaps I should re-phrase it. What recommendations do you make on individual cases in the context of the detention environment and do you believe that those are effective recommendations to solving the problem?
MS McNEIL: That is very broad and general.
MS LESNIE: Okay, so take an example of a child that goes on hunger strike and the reason for their hunger strike is that they want freedom. What advice would you give to DIMIA to solve that problem?
MS McNEIL: Many of the recommendations we send to DIMIA include broad recommendations for changes not just for this child but a range of families, particularly when we are involved in the protest situations. So the kinds of recommendations we make in that broad level are around service provision, services to families that are family support services. Things around, better communication systems within the centre about visa applications, why there is delays, those sorts of things. The individual circumstance ones are more about when it is clearly a case of an individual child at risk and short-term strategies need to be put in place to basically keep that child safe.
MRS SULLIVAN: In the broader community those short-term strategies might be a short-term placement away from a particular environment which is causing the child to be at risk, do you ever make that recommendation?
MS McNEIL: As I said, the Children's Protection Act legislation, it stops at the power to investigate, so we can't utilise our legislation like we can with the rest of the community to go to the Youth Court of South Australia and get the Court to grant removal of a child.
MRS SULLIVAN: No, I realise that, it was just whether you can - you can still advise.
MS McNEIL: I just want to be clear about that.
MRS SULLIVAN: Yes.
MS McNEIL: In relation to the events of January and February this year, through negotiations we did manage to make strong recommendations and the unaccompanied minors were released into alternative detention environments within the South Australian community, so we have done that and done that successfully for those children who did not have families in the centre.
MRS SULLIVAN: Have you done it for children who do have families in the centre?
MS McNEIL: We have made recommendations for temporary removal of children into a hospital facility, be that a mental health facility like Glenside or be that the Woomera Hospital or the Port Augusta Hospital, for further psychiatric assessment or for medical treatment in relation to their health. We have not recommended that a child be separated from their family on any occasion.
MRS SULLIVAN: Is this unusual?
MS McNEIL: No. It is our view that the children - it would be more distressing for the children to be removed from their family which indirectly - I guess our assessments are not coming out as abuse confirmed as such. Our assessments are coming out that there are extenuating factors such as the parents' own mental health, depression, trauma and the environment that are impacting on the allegations and that if things were put in place to support that family and things changed in the centre, that would reduce the risk to the child.
DR OZDOWSKI: If parents of a child would advise you that because of the range of reasons, maybe their mental health or some other reasons, it is better for a child to be removed and to be kept outside the detention centre, would you support parents?
MS McNEIL: Again it would depend on our assessment of what the risk was. If there was an immediate safety risk to the child because of a parent's inability to function or in a case, let us say, that there was a psychosis or a situation where a parent was not functioning in a way that supports in the centre could not keep that child safe, then we would recommend it.
DR OZDOWSKI: Are you talking only about physical safety of a child?
MS McNEIL: Physical and emotional safety, yes. It is a difficult balance.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, okay, physical appears to me on the basis of what you are saying, that the parent would be likely to harm a child you are willing to remove the child, yes, but the issue of mental health, it is much more
MS McNEIL: Well, we would be willing to recommend.
DR OZDOWSKI: the removal, release of a child?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: However, when parents would just abuse or neglect a child without hitting him then basically you would possibly recommend that the child stays still with the family. Am I correct
MS McNEIL: If support could be put in place within the centre.
MS LESNIE: What sort of supports would you recommend in that - in a circumstance where you have parents that are depressed, don't feel capable of taking on that parenting role?
MS McNEIL: The recommendations we have made is that whole families are released from the centre to have further assessments from people like our Child Protection Services, through Women's and Children's Hospital and Flinders Medical Centre, so instead of the children just being released for those assessments the whole family needs to participate in that and our recommendations are very clear that centre staff should not be undertaking those further assessments. In other cases we have
MS LESNIE: Why shouldn't centre staff be doing that?
MS McNEIL: They are under-staffed, I believe, in my contacts with centre staff, that they are doing the very best that they can, but as far as ongoing case management services, continuity, they have 6-week contracts and they are in and out and if you are actually talking about mental health issues, research and experience would tell you that there needs to be some consistency, there needs to be some continuity before those things can be addressed.
MS LESNIE: So when you say you are recommending release of whole families for external assessments, you are not recommending that they go and visit the hospital, you are recommending that they stay out for a prolonged period of time so that they can get consistent assessments from an external doctor?
MS McNEIL: Mm. Yes.
MS LESNIE: Have those recommendations ever been implemented?
MS McNEIL: No.
MS LESNIE: Can you summarise the types of recommendations that you have made which have a lower rate of implementation than others?
MS McNEIL: Yes. The lower rate ones are the ones that are broader than immediate safety. Immediate safety recommendations are implemented on most occasions. It is the broader recommendations which include external people with expertise such as STTARS [Survivors of Torture and Trauma Assistance and Rehabilitation Service] being involved to provide counselling, the broader assessments and mental health involvement of external agencies, programming around recreation activities, vocational education, employment and training within the centre for both adults and young people to, I guess, fill their days. Again broader recommendations around parenting support and education, broader recommendations about transition into the community planning such as: this is how you apply for a job; this is how you find where a car is in the newspaper if you need to purchase one on your release; life skills.
MR HUNYOR: Could I ask you, you have said that there has been an increase in the number of notifications in the last 6 months to 130. What do you attribute that to, that significant escalation in notifications?
MS McNEIL: Three, three reasons. The longer young people and families are staying in detention we have observed a marked deterioration in their mental health but also in the physical health of the children, that is very concerning. So the families that remain in the centre have, as far as I know, I don't think there's been any new arrivals at least in the last 3 months, but the families that remain in the centre have been in the centre for 12 to 18 months. The second factor is that there is a culture that has developed in the centre that if you threat to harm yourself or your children or if you do indeed self-harm you are more likely to be released.
DR OZDOWSKI: You talk about Woomera specifically in terms of culture
MS McNEIL: Yes, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: not about necessarily
MS McNEIL: Yes, Woomera specifically. My personal belief about where that comes from is the lack of communication strategy in the centre. People who released temporarily to hospital may not return. That may well be because they have got a TPV but it may well be because they have actually been transferred to another centre in Australia. However, the message that that sends to the families residing in Woomera is not clear. The third reason that the mandate of notification responsibilities of staff at Woomera has become commonplace. All the arguments that we came across in 2000 are now null and void and it is now part of ACM policy and they have altered their contracts that had the stuff around the confidentiality clause changed to make it very clear and as I understand there's actually repercussions for ACM staff for not notifying.
MR HUNYOR: So you are saying that in 2000
MS McNEIL: There was debates about that.
MR HUNYOR: And it was inadequate.
MS McNEIL: Mm.
MR HUNYOR: To what extent to you think the failure to heed the broader recommendations that you were talking about just before I asked the question, to what extent has the failure to heed those recommendations increased the rates of child abuse?
MS McNEIL: Alleged child abuse.
MR HUNYOR: Alleged child abuse.
MS McNEIL: Hugely. Hugely.
MR HUNYOR: So if the broader recommendations that you have been giving to ACM and DIMIA had been followed, your evidence is that the incidence of child abuse and alleged child abuse would have decreased significantly?
MS McNEIL: Definitely.
MR HUNYOR: Thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI: What is the penalty for the failure of the notifier to deliver appropriate action?
MS McNEIL: To deliver appropriate or to notify
DR OZDOWSKI: To take, to take - to notify, sorry.
MS McNEIL: $3000 or 3 months in gaol, I think. The legislation would tell you that [correct to $2500 or 3 months in gaol - Ms McNeil's error].
DR OZDOWSKI: Has any action been taken by state authorities in a case where notification was not made?
MS McNEIL: Not that I'm aware of.
DR OZDOWSKI: A situation where notification should have been made and wasn't made?
MS McNEIL: Not that there would be a specific person we could identify to take action against.
MS LESNIE: Have detainees, other detainees, notified you of incidents directly ever?
MS McNEIL: Again I can't answer that question because it identifies - it gives you identifying factors of notifiers. It is not just the name that I can give you, I can't actually
MS LESNIE: I guess what I'm trying to find - okay, let me ask you a different question.
MS McNEIL: Members of the community have, yes.
MS LESNIE: Okay. In your opinion do people inside Woomera have - detainees inside Woomera have sufficient information to know that they can contact you if they suspect that there has been some neglect or abuse?
MS McNEIL: That is a better way of putting it, thank you.
MS LESNIE: That's all right.
MS McNEIL: We have ensured that pamphlets with that phone number are distributed within the centre. The counselling staff and other staff in the centre are certainly clear and detainees are allowed access to phone calls - to make those calls if they choose to do so. I don't believe though that the people residing in the centre would feel comfortable in doing that.
MRS SULLIVAN: Is there also information available to children and young people about self reporting?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: That is different information, it is child friendly information as distinct from the pamphlet you referred to earlier?
MS McNEIL: There's no child friendly pamphlet but given - I would say Family and Youth Services has probably spoken to just about every child in the centre. They are aware
MRS SULLIVAN: Would they have
MS McNEIL: and that number is left with them.
MRS SULLIVAN: So do they also get some kind of protective behaviours training - the children I'm talking about now.
MS McNEIL: No. That has not been implemented.
MRS SULLIVAN: Has that been one of your recommendations?
MS McNEIL: We have on occasion made recommendations around programming like that.
MRS SULLIVAN: So that sort of programming is available for children in the broader community?
MS McNEIL: It is, yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: Who normally delivers it in South Australia?
MS McNEIL: A range of agencies. Education Department runs one through schools and there are a number of non-government agencies that provide that training. Family and Youth Services does not.
MRS SULLIVAN: So you could theoretically pick up a package and implement it in a detention centre environment?
MS McNEIL: ACM or DIMIA could if they chose to.
MRS SULLIVAN: But your understanding is they haven't chosen to do that.
MS McNEIL: No, they have not.
DR OZDOWSKI: As a matter of fact we didn't see - we have spent the last few days in Woomera and we didn't see any posters or pamphlets about your organisation so maybe it is just
MS McNEIL: They were distributed.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, it was distributed directly to detainees?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
MS LESNIE: Were they distributed in their own language, in Farsi or Arabic?
MS McNEIL: No, that is the interesting thing, no. Interesting that, isn't it. Our publicity department in the Department of Human Services
DR OZDOWSKI: Are working on it.
MS McNEIL: does not produce them in that language at this time.
PROF THOMAS: When you receive a notification, how effective is your investigation considering the language barrier, cultural barrier, climate of fear?
MS McNEIL: Yes. We pay and bring up our own interpreters where possible so that they are not ACM or DIMIA employees for that very reason, so that people are feeling safe. There are occasions that we have utilised interpreters on site and that is around the work load and numbers of people we would interview in the number of days that we were there, but we have paid through ABC, is it?
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, ABC, yes.
MS McNEIL: ABC interpreters with us and our Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors program has social work and youth work staff that are also accredited interpreters that we utilise when we're conducting the investigations.
DR OZDOWSKI: It is interesting that you are using the ABC and not the government's supply.
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: But anyhow. Now, what I would propose is maybe to move to the other part of the argument, so let us maybe finalise the question here because Ms Leahy is I see clearly upset as we are not asking her any questions.
MS LEAHY: I'm quite happy, very happy.
DR OZDOWSKI: So maybe last round for Ms McNeil.
MR HUNYOR: I do have just one more question.
MS McNEIL: Sure.
MR HUNYOR: There seem to be three stages where there is cooperation between your department and either DIMIA or ACM in investigating and that is at the notification stage, at the stage of cooperating in terms of the investigation and then in terms of the recommendations. I think you have said in terms of your recommendations that in terms of broader recommendations it has been unsatisfactory but the specific recommendations have been okay. In terms of notification it used to be inadequate, it now is adequate. What about cooperation with investigations? Have you found that DIMIA and ACM are cooperative in terms of your ability to investigate matters when you choose to do so?
MS McNEIL: On the on-site, and I can only say Woomera specific, the on-site DIMIA staff and ACM staff have given us their full cooperation and full support. I actually can't question that, particularly this year. It is my view that the on-site staff are under absolutely huge stress and there will always be, you know, in any agency some bad apples, if I can say that, but on site we have been given full cooperation and a great deal of support and respect as an agency.
MR HUNYOR: Are you saying on site by way of qualifying it in terms of on site they are good, off site there is interference, or are you just saying that is your experience, that is all you have experience with.
MS McNEIL: That is my experience, on site.
MR HUNYOR: Okay.
MS LESNIE: Could I - just a quick follow-up from that. Have you noticed any difference in cooperation where the allegation of abuse or neglect has been by an ACM or DIMIA staff member?
MS McNEIL: As I said, we have not undertaken investigations involving
MS LESNIE: The police does that.
MS McNEIL: Yes.
MS LESNIE: So you wouldn't even speak to the child about the abuse?
MS McNEIL: No.
MS LESNIE: Okay.
DR OZDOWSKI: So in a way you would only investigate if there is a detainee or parent detainee, who has inflicted harm on a child.
MS McNEIL: Alleged harm.
DR OZDOWSKI: Alleged, yes, but you wouldn't look into an issue if you were notified that ACM guard or DIMIA officer did something?
MS McNEIL: No, that would be referred to SAPOL, the state police.
MRS SULLIVAN: Can I just clarify you said you don't speak to the child?
MS McNEIL: Not involving extra familial abuse.
MRS SULLIVAN: Is that the way you normally operate in the broader community?
MS McNEIL: Yes, yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: So in what cases in the broader community do you in fact talk to the child?
MS McNEIL: Intra familial abuse. So someone in a parental role is what Family and Youth Services are involved in. Any extra familial abuse in this state involves SAPOL. If a child is over the age of 7 the sexual assault unit or child exploitation unit officer who is specifically trained interviews the children and young people in this state. If they are under 7 our Child Protection Services at Women's and Children's Hospital or Flinders Medical Centre undertake the forensic interviewing of those children.
MRS SULLIVAN: So just for the record, what if any differences are there in terms of child consultation in the model that you use at Woomera and the model that is used in the broader community? Are there any differences?
MS McNEIL: What do you mean by child consultation?
MRS SULLIVAN: Well, you are saying the forensic interview is done by hospital staff in the broader community. I guess what I'm trying to ask is is that also done in this circumstance as well? I'm trying to see whether you have just transplanted the model from the broader community into the detention centre and if not, what the differences are?
MS McNEIL: Yeah, there have been occasions of sexual abuse notifications that are extra-familial that Child Protection Services have been involved and the children have been released from the centre to be interviewed by Child Protection Services staff.
MRS SULLIVAN: So really it is the same model?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
MRS SULLIVAN: Thank you.
DR OZDOWSKI: Any other question on this subject? No. Well, thank you very much for this excellent evidence and straight talking. Unfortunately, legally and I regret it, we can't use it in the - it would be much better if we could be able to use it. Now, Ms Leahy, may be let us start with a general question about memorandum of understanding.
MS LEAHY: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: What difference does it make to have or not to have it? You will possibly still remember the times before you didn't have a memorandum of understanding?
MS LEAHY: Yes, as Katrina alluded to in 2000 and then before there was a memorandum of understanding in place, it was very much a developing process of how investigations would occur and also how - whether reports had to be made I mean there was some dispute and not a nasty dispute but there was question early on in the piece where there are State Legislation applied with a Commonwealth facility and so since the memorandum of understanding has been in place and even before it was in place, you know, when it was being drafted the processes were quite clear and there is much more - much easier communication and cooperation.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could I ask you about unaccompanied minors? Basically after we started the Inquiry many of them were released here into South Australia, what
MS LEAHY: Can I just say they haven't actually been released, they are still in detention.
DR OZDOWSKI: Exactly, it is what I'm trying to find out if you could describe how the system works?
MS LEAHY: Katrina may be better at this.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay.
MS LEAHY: Essentially the carers are declared officers, the place where they live, the school where they attend, the principal of the school where they attend school, are all declared officers for the purposes of the Migration Act, but Katrina might have more details.
DR OZDOWSKI: We will come to that in a second, just to check on the age. If a child is an unaccompanied minor and they are released when he or she is say 17 what is happening when the child turned an adult at the age of 18 is it going to be sent back to Woomera or how does it work?
MS LEAHY: I don't think we've gotten to that stage yet but
MS McNEIL: The agreement in relation to the unaccompanied minors would be that they would be released into the community until their application processing was determined.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, so if it is taking longer
MS McNEIL: They are still in the stage of processing and we have not yet experienced of the people that are living in community detention, as we call it, any response where they have been denied their application as yet. So some are still going through processing, when that happens I would assume there will be a great debate and people are thinking about that already but that protocol is not worked out yet.
DR OZDOWSKI: No, okay. So there is a young person of, say 16 years old, released from Woomera who is unaccompanied, what happens physically? The person is possibly is put into a car and brought to Adelaide? How does guardianship change hands from the Minister to the State Government?
MS McNEIL: Yes, the young people are bussed out generally in groups in - with our Family and Youth Services, youth workers supporting them and interpreters on the bus. The foster placements that they are placed in, are with registered foster parents of an assessment process, they are undertaken an assessment process to reduce risks, so police checks like other carers in this state would be.
DR OZDOWSKI: Do you have just a standard list of potential carers?
MS McNEIL: No, the carers have been recruited from the Middle Eastern community.
DR OZDOWSKI: Especially for this purpose?
MS McNEIL: For this specific purpose. Yeah, and they receive training and support throughout their caring time. So they are specific carers for the purposes of care of unaccompanied humanitarian minors.
DR OZDOWSKI: Including financial support from you?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: So their home is also declared to be a detention area?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: What about the guard, the ACM officer, so are they allocated?
MS McNEIL: No.
DR OZDOWSKI: No. So the home would be declared, also the school?
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: What about other movement of a young person? If a young person decides to go to cinema?
MS McNEIL: Yeah, the foster parents are declared officers and the staff that are working with the young people are declared officers. So for the young people to go anywhere they must have one of the declared officers present with them and so in any particular child circumstances there would be probably a minimum of ten people that are the declared officers.
MRS SULLIVAN: What about vocation on training placements or work experience or real live work, what happens in those circumstances?
MS McNEIL: At the moment Family and Youth Services and the Education Department are working together around alternative education programs. Many of the young people that have been released from the centre have not had adequate education during the time of their stay at Woomera and there is differing degrees of education that they received in their country of origin. So at the moment the focus of the programming for these young people is very different to mainstream schooling for a lot of the people that don't have a handle on English. So the focus could be around English stuff, it might be around the life skills stuff. It might be around the transition to the community, it could include some of the vocational training and education but at the
DR OZDOWSKI: Yeah, you had possibly also some kids released on TPV into the community.
MS McNEIL: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: So what is the routine for them?
MS McNEIL: Again, if they're under 18 so the same protocol with the Department of Education would have occurred and they have been supported into mainstream schooling once those initial assessments about whether they would fit
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, but a change of school does not need to be declared to be
MS McNEIL: No, sorry, I thought you were still talking about that question. Yeah, no, if the school - if you've got a TPV then you have whatever the rules and regulations are for all TPV holders.
DR OZDOWSKI: But you still would be responsible for finding surrogate family and for providing services and so on?
MS McNEIL: Yeah, or the - and that is where Monica's worked with the Housing Trust comes in for some of the older adolescents.
MS LEAHY: Yeah, the type of care that the unaccompanied minors who are TPV holders gets is dependent on their age as it would be with any child who is a Guardian of the Minister child in South Australia and depending on the level of independence, 17 year olds for example pretty much all live independently and the South Australian Housing Trust provides them with subsidised accommodation but they still have support from a social worker and mentorship team. At 15, 16 they tend to live in group housing situations so there would be one adult and maybe four minors living together and anything under that they are in alternative care placements placed with a family, a foster family.
DR OZDOWSKI: Is the Commonwealth paying you for looking after the young .....
MS LEAHY: Yes. They are not 100 per cent of our expenses.
DR OZDOWSKI: So the memorandum of understanding dealt with the issue of cost and covered part of it?
MS LEAHY: The memorandum of understanding on unaccompanied minors and cost recovery is not yet signed. At present we have about 50 per cent cost recovery.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay.
MRS SULLIVAN: Can they access SAAP services for example in the way that other young people who are out of home are looking for out of home shelter do?
MS LEAHY: At present they haven't needed to because with an integrated department like we have the Housing Trust and Family and Youth Services are the same department and so the Inner Adelaide office of the South Australian Housing Trust works very closely with the social work team for the unaccompanied minors and it is a matter of letting them know that we've got this kid who needs a flat - it would be good if they were near such and such child and it's all negotiated that way but they're given a service very similar to SAAP funded services.
MRS SULLIVAN: Are they queue jumpers in terms of housing?
MS LEAHY: I don't think I should answer that. No, they're not because they are put under the same - the same - they are put through the same test and criteria as anyone else in their situation.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, it is emergency accommodation criteria.
MS LEAHY: The leases are short term leases, they're written for 6 months but at the end of that 6 months there has to be an assessment of whether they continue.
MRS SULLIVAN: Perhaps I should have put it in another way, have you got adequate housing, adequate emergency housing to cater for I guess an unexpected group of people?
MS LEAHY: Possibly there would be a delay if we were told there were thirty unaccompanied minors coming in one week there would be a delay but they've utilised a number of properties from the Immigration SA program for example which are Housing Trust properties that are set aside for STNI immigrants, that is State Territory Nominated Immigrants.
MRS SULLIVAN: So you are able to cater for them within the existing infrastructure was really
MS LEAHY: Yeah, while the - while we are not getting a full quota of people through the Immigration SA program we've had a bit of flexibility where we can trade properties and that's the same provision we've made for families who have come out of Woomera with children on TPVs.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yeah, we will need to finish because we have over-run our time. It is fantastic to talk with you. Perhaps the last question from me at least is regarding the issue of these people who have disabilities. Did you have especially families with children with disabilities released into your community?
MS LEAHY: Yes, we have, we've had a number of children with hearing impairments, we've had a number of children who have been assessed by the Department of Education Training and Employment as having intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities. We've also had one child with unexplained paraplegia and he was in Woomera Detention Centre for some months before he was sent to Adelaide for assessment. I know he was granted a TPV while he was in the Women's and Children's Hospital.
DR OZDOWSKI: We saw some really terrible cases of keeping children with intellectual disability for periods of up to two years in some other detention centres with no access to any specialised services. Do you have experience of similar cases in this state where children were kept in Woomera for a relatively long period of time without access to proper medical, physio and other services?
MS LEAHY: Probably not without quoting specific cases. Certainly assessments of disabilities for children are done by the Department of Education Training and Employment in South Australia and they have guidance officers only after release and we are not told as a matter of course about children in the centre who have disabilities and that - I mean this is a personal view point that is likely to be because there is no assessment made.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, exactly it is same.
MS LEAHY: I have been notified upon release of some children who will need immediate assessment by guidance officers and I then refer that information to education.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yeah, but - any final questions?
MS LESNIE: I do and I'm conscious of time running out but I would like at least your quick view on the way unaccompanied minors are cared for in detention. The DIMIA submission describes a case management strategy and the appointment of a DIMIA manager as the delegated guardian for unaccompanied minors. I was wondering whether you had had any experience with unaccompanied minors in detention and any comments about the effectiveness of that guardianship arrangement. Could you also compare the qualifications and role that the guardian plays inside detention with those that a guardian plays when a child is released or moved to a foster family in the community?
MS LEAHY: The unaccompanied minors will tell you that they don't know who [name removed] is and he is the DIMIA manager at the centre and they have a very close relationship with the social work and mentorship team through Family and Youth Services and that's basically all we could say in our capacity.
MS LESNIE: All right, well, I'll ask the question slightly differently. Do you believe that the case management strategy designed by ACM to look after unaccompanied minors works to protect unaccompanied minors in detention?
MS LEAHY: No.
MS LESNIE: Can you give three reasons why it is not working?
MS McNEIL: Again I'd go back to the under resourced nature of the staff that can specifically give time and attention to minors in detention. The range of services that are actually offered to people residing that are family friendly assist parents to be parents and to protect their children don't exist so for young people outside the centre the case management as far as access equity and all those things we believe in works better.
MS LESNIE: So is it fair to say that it is not the policy that is the problem it's the qualifications of the people in the detention centre that implement that policy?
MS McNEIL: I wouldn't say qualifications because I don't know all their qualifications but certainly the number of staff available and the expertise
MS LEAHY: And the rotation of staff. I mean the staff are often there for such short periods that any sort of forming of a relationship is very difficult and these kids are generally untrusting to start with and I think that - the turnover of staff possibly impacts on it as well.
MS McNEIL: But when you said policy what did you mean what policy because I might want to clarify that?
MS LESNIE: Well, in the Department of Immigration's submission they outline a detailed policy which involves weekly meetings to discuss the progress the child where - almost daily engagement with the child's case management planning, reporting all that sort of - all these safeguards that are intended to ensure that the unaccompanied minor stays on track.
MS McNEIL: Yeah, so their program to support minors in detention?
MS LESNIE: Right.
MS McNEIL: Got it.
PROF THOMAS: Can I take one question?
DR OZDOWSKI: Yeah, but last one of these.
PROF THOMAS: Yes. How successful is this system of you having the - you know, foster carers looking after these children in detention because they are usually probably quite difficult children to start with, how easy is it to recruit these people and having their home called detention, do you think the system works, do they stay - they go from foster to foster care?
MS McNEIL: It is probably too early to tell as far as the community detention situation but what I must say is that the middle eastern community has just been fantastic and we have had no problems recruiting wonderful, wonderful people who are patient and skilled and the supports arthe representatives of the Department of Human Services for their excellent evidence and especially thank you to Ms McNeil and thank you Ms Leahy for coming forward and delivering this evidence, thank you.e in place for them so it hasn't been an issue yet, it may be if the numbers grow.
DR OZDOWSKI: Allow me now once again to record my regrets that this evidence was taken in camera and thank you very much to
MS McNEIL: Thank you for the opportunity.
MS LEAHY: Thank you.
Last Updated 9 January 2003.
