Transcript of Hearing - SYDNEYTuesday 3 DECEMBER 2002, 9.05 AM
Please note: This is an edited transcript.
Commissioners:
- Dr S. OZDOWSKI, Commissioner
- Dr T. THOMAS, Assistant Commissioner
- Ms P. MOORE, Executive Officer
Continued from 2.12.02
DR OZDOWSKI: Welcome to everyone. I think there is no need again to administer the oath or affirmation. As with yesterday, we will do it only in the case of new witnesses coming, but please understand that the principles associated with the oath or affirmation do stand up. Also, I would like to ask witnesses in order to finish on time, that they will focus on questions and try to answer, and to reply as directly as possible. Okay, could I ask Mr Wigney to start asking questions, and my understanding is that we are starting with the issue of family and family relations.
MR WIGNEY: Yes, Mr Commissioner. We are dealing with the issue of families today. Now, I'm not sure who the appropriate witnesses from the Department are in relation to that, or to whom I should primarily direct my questions. I don't know whether Mr Bromwich can assist in that regard or Mr Walker.
DR OZDOWSKI: Mr Bromwich?
MR BROMWICH: Sorry, Commissioner, I am just getting some instructions. Commissioner, I have been asked if we could have - I regret any delay but I have been asked if we could have 5 minutes. The only reason for that, Commissioner, is that Ms Godwin not being well, it has only come to notice very recently. We just need to sort out who is going to be best to put forward on this issue because we had intended that it would be, of course, Ms Godwin. If we could just have a few minutes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, fine, but 5 minutes only, please.
MR BROMWICH: Yes, thank you.
MR WIGNEY: Before we adjourn, could I just make one point? In due course this morning after we deal with some of the more fundamental propositions, we will be coming to some family case studies that I think we have notified the Department of so they can prepare themselves for questioning in relation to those particular case studies. I note that they largely relate to families who have been detained in the Woomera facility, and I note from the documentation that, at least for part of the time, Mr Frencham - I trust I'm pronouncing that correctly - was the Department Manager at that facility.
It may be, at least for the case studies, he be an appropriate witness in relation to those questions.
MR BROMWICH: I appreciate that indication.
DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, so we are adjourned for 5 minutes only.
SHORT BREAK [9.10am]
RESUMES [9.15am]
DR OZDOWSKI: Mr Bromwich, are we ready?MR BROMWICH: I believe so, Commissioner. There's two things I would like to raise. One is that I am now informed that while Ms Godwin may be able to attend later in the day to assist, she is really not well enough to be giving evidence today. That may change but, as presently advised, I don't anticipate that to be the case. The second thing is that a good deal of what we spent our time on yesterday was dealing with was wide ranging and general propositions. There isn't really an officer of the Department who is in a position to give evidence, if that is the right word, on such wide ranging general propositions.
In any event, they don't, with respect, seem to advance things very far. These witnesses are better in a position to answer questions about what is and what has taken place in relation to aspects of children in immigration detention, so that those two cautionary notes are in a form of what we are able to do from the Department's perspective today.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Mr Wigney, can you adjust your questioning to focus, as the counsel for DIMIA indicated, on more practical issues?
MR WIGNEY: Well, I certainly intend, as I foreshadowed, to go specifically to case studies in due course this morning.
DR OZDOWSKI: Which the Department was provided with?
MR WIGNEY: Yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: The difficulty is this, Mr Commissioner, that as you are aware, the Department's submissions contain some fundamental proposition about submissions in relation to families, and in particular to the proposition that it is in the best interests of children to be with their families, that families - that is, the parents - must be in detention and ergo, children must be in detention. Now, that is a proposition that we seek to challenge, and I seek to challenge it in questioning this morning in general terms firstly, and then by way of example in the case studies. Now, I don't - I mean, this is a public hearing.
Senior officers of the Department are here. I cannot see why they cannot address those fundamental propositions. They are, presumably, aware of the Department's submissions and the Department's arguments in that regard.
DR OZDOWSKI: Fine, so please continue your line of questioning, and if there are any questions you can't answer, we will take it on notice and hopefully, when Ms Godwin is back we will put the questions again to her. Mr Wigney, please go on?
MR WIGNEY: Should I direct questions to Ms McPaul or to Mr Walker?
MS McPAUL: I guess it really depends a little on what particular area of question you want to ask.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could you speak to the microphone because otherwise, we are having problems recording it please.
MR BROMWICH: Commissioner, I've just received some instructions, and those instructions are these. Given, in particular, what Mr Wigney has just said, I'm instructed to seek an adjournment of the hearing until Ms Godwin is well, given a determination in particular to press on with practical considerations - with general propositions, and the Secretary of the Department has indicated that he is prepared to speak to you if need be by telephone about why it is that he seeks this adjournment. That is what I'm instructed to seek.
DR OZDOWSKI: Mr Wigney?
MR WIGNEY: Ms McPaul, who presently sits at the witness table, is presently the Assistant Secretary of the Unauthorised Arrivals and Detention Services section of the Department. Now, to many of you, she is a Senior Officer with responsibilities directly in this area. What is more, and I can hand this correspondence up in due course if need be, she has been - even putting aside the fact that the Department has now been put on notice about the particular case studies that I intend to address - it would appear from documents in our possession that Ms McPaul has been and is fully briefed in relation to these issues.
In any event, I cannot see any reason whatsoever why she is not an appropriate person to whom I can direct questions about, firstly, the fundamental propositions that are in the Department's submissions and, secondly, in relation to the specific case studies that I will come to in due course.
MR BROMWICH: The answer to that, Commissioner, is shortly this. My friend is taking this as being a static situation, that is, the arrangements that are in place now and the position held now applied back over time. Ms Godwin is the person who has knowledge over time of what has happened. If my friend wishes to ask questions about the here and now, then what he is putting may well be correct. If, as I apprehend, he is talking about questions ranging back over a number of years, then that proposition starts to fall away.
DR OZDOWSKI: Well, I'm not willing to postpone the hearing. The hearing has been postponed a number of times. The Department of Immigration indicated - chose its own witnesses and indicated by letter that the witnesses are proper witnesses, so we will continue. If the Secretary of the Department wishes to talk to me, I will be available during lunch time to talk with him.
MR BROMWICH: I just need to note on the record our concern that, in effect, this has been forced on - not due to any prevarication on the part of the Department but because a senior officer best able to handle the questions is ill, and I am just noting that on the record.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you.
MR WIGNEY: There is another thing I want to take up in terms of Mr Bromwich's submission about going back in time. I understand that Mr Greg Kelly is also here and that Ms McPaul effectively, and I may be wrong about this and the Department will, no doubt, correct me if I am but Mr Kelly was previously in the position now occupied by Ms McPaul so between the two of them, they would have the continuous high position in this very area that we are exploring this morning. I don't know whether Mr Kelly chooses to give evidence about these things.
MR KELLY: Commissioner, I have not been in the position that Ms McPaul currently is in at the moment.
DR OZDOWSKI: But, I think, before you speak, if you could come forward so we can administer the affirmation, please.
MR BROMWICH: Mr Kelly is not - as Mr Kelly has just said, he was not in the position previously that Ms McPaul is in so my friend's proposition on that is incorrect. He is not a person who can be put forward in substitution in the manner suggested.
DR OZDOWSKI: Is Mr Kelly's name on the list of Departmental officers provided as potential witnesses?
MR WIGNEY: He is, yes.
DR OZDOWSKI: I didn't hear it.
MR WIGNEY: He was and is on that list, and what is more, it would appear from the documentation in relation to these case studies and some other documents that we have, that he also had some responsibilities in these very areas at the relevant time.
DR OZDOWSKI: Are you proposing that he enters the witness stand?
MR BROMWICH: I suppose it is really a matter for the Department whether they choose to want him to sit at the witness table and take the oath and answer questions.
DR OZDOWSKI: Well, Mr Bromwich, why cannot Mr Kelly come to the witness table?
MR BROMWICH: As with most of this, Commissioner, we have only the most sketch plan idea of what the questions are going to be about. We are not really informed as to what the questions are going to be. I am not in a position to say that a particular person necessarily will or won't be able to answer a question because I don't know what they are. If you insist on his presence obviously he can be there.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, I ask him to join the witness table.
MR WIGNEY: Well, perhaps we can do it this way ---
MR BROMWICH: It is in the nature of an inquisition, Commissioner.
MR WIGNEY: That is a ridiculous submission, with respect. Perhaps if we can do it this way it will alleviate Mr Bromwich's heightened concerns. We can deal specifically with the case studies. As I understand it both Ms McPaul and others have been directly involved in the events as they happen and as I have already indicated the Department has been specifically put on notice that we intended to ask questions about these case studies and there can't really be any ready excuse as to why these officers or at least someone from the Department could not address them this morning.
MR BROMWICH: I have no further comment to make.
DR OZDOWSKI: I ask Mr Kelly to join the table.
GREG KELLY, [9.23am]
DIRECTOR, DETENTION MANAGEMENT SECTION
DR OZDOWSKI: Mr Wigney, if you would start your questioning.
MR WIGNEY: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. I might just perhaps start by ensuring that - to address these case studies we put together some folders of documents and I will just ensure that copies of those folders are provided to the Department officers if they have not already and to Mr Bromwich. Mr Rushton, of course, as well. I am sorry.
Now, can I just say this before we commence addressing the first of the case studies in this folder that, of course, having regard to the general directions as to confidentiality no names will be mentioned. In the event that I unfortunately blurt out a name by accident can I just ask the Commissioner to perhaps remind members of the public or the media that are here that the names ought not be published beyond this room if, in fact, I do let one of them slip.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, the confidentiality orders stand as I announced them yesterday and before.
MR WIGNEY: I think as I take you through this folder and perhaps I will, for relevant purposes, I will address my questions to Ms McPaul and if she chooses to refer the questions on so be it but it is probably better that I direct my questions to, at least, one person specifically at the outset. Would you excuse me for a minute? Excuse me, sir, I am sorry. Perhaps - Mr Hunyor suggested that Ms McPaul may be perhaps more familiar with the second of the case studies so we perhaps might start with that first. That is behind the tab halfway through the folder.
DR OZDOWSKI: It is case study B, yes.
MR WIGNEY: Sorry, case study D.
DR OZDOWSKI: D.
MR WIGNEY: Yes, just to be clear the other case studies relate to children with disabilities that we are dealing with separately. So this on the - the list that has been provided it is case study D. I will just wait until everyone has turned up the relevant documents. Now, if I can just - now, this particular case study concerns a family of three comprised of a father, a mother and a child, a boy, of the age of 12. Now, if I can just ask you, Ms McPaul, to accept from us for present purposes that the basic chronology in relation to this family is that they arrived at and were detained at the Woomera detention facility in April 2001.
Just to put us in the - and the other part of the basic chronology is that in late August 2001 the mother and son were moved to the Woomera Residential Housing Project Facility. So that is about - a few months - four months or so after they first arrived at the detention facility. Then - and I think we will come to some specific documents in due course that demonstrate this but that in - on the - shortly after 25 May or towards the end of May of this year the mother and son returned back to the Woomera detention facility and I will come to the reasons for that in due course as we go through the documents.
Now, you will see that the - you have been provided with a bundle of documents and I will take you through these documents one by one. Just to - so that you know where I am going this bundle seems to have been numbered by document rather than page number and the particular document references are those that, at least on my copy, are in a large circle on the top right-hand corner of the document. Now, you are aware, are you not, that the Commission has - excuse me -
The Commission, as we discussed yesterday, have served various notices on the Department to produce documents in relation to various topics and you are aware, are you not, that one of those notices required the Department to produce all relevant documents in relation to this particular family?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I'm aware of that.
MR WIGNEY: Right. So in accordance with the evidence yesterday it would follow from that that the Department has conducted all relevant inquiries and produced all documents that it can in relation to this family and its circumstances?
MR BROMWICH: Well, can I just note in answering a question like that it needs to be noted that such documents as meet that description and fell within the notice would have been provided not - not something that fell outside the notice. I'm not saying that the notice does not encompass the full scope of what is being asked, but I just don't know.
DR OZDOWSKI: But it is obvious, isn't it?
MR WIGNEY: Perhaps if I just put that on the record. The notice required all incident reports and medical reports and I won't mention the names, regarding the family. All correspondence between the Department or ACM, or Family and Youth Services, that is the State body, and reports passing between those entities. All documents relating to the implementation by the Department or ACM of any recommendations made by Family and Youth Services. All documents relating to the progress of the family at the residential housing project.
All documents relating to the reasons for which the mother and son returned to the Woomera Detention facility from the residential housing project. So the notice was fairly broad in scope, you would agree, in relation to documents relating to this family and their detention?
MS McPAUL: It's my understanding that the Department did provide whatever documents fell within the scope of the notice that we were able to identify then.
MR WIGNEY: Thank you. Now, as I said in the broad chronology it would appear the mother and son returned to the detention facility in May of this year. The first document I want to take you to which has been produced by the Department, is a document which is document 1 in this bundle and if you go to the 5th page of the document it is dated 10 May this year. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I can see the date.
MR WIGNEY: And it would appear to be a document created by two officers of Family and Youth Services from the Crisis Response and Child Abuse Service, do you see that on the last page?
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: Addressed to the Acting Director, Country Region, of the Family and Youth Services and it is directed specifically to this family. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: And in terms of its content one can see from it that the first two paragraphs on the page deal with, it would appear, specific notifications that the Family and Youth Services have received in relation to this family. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: The first one deals with a situation where the child learned about his father's hanging attempt some time previously and the mother found the son in the house threatening to kill himself. Do you see that, and there's a further description of the son's activities?
MS McPAUL: I - I have that on the document here.
MR WIGNEY: I'm sorry?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I have that on the document here.
MR WIGNEY: Then the second incident again refers to the father being found hanging from a tree by bed sheets, that is presumably in the Woomera facility itself, okay? Do you see that? Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that's here on the ---
MR WIGNEY: You are familiar with this ---
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: ---particular case, aren't you?
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: Now, the balance of the document deals with the investigation by the Family and Youth Services in relation to this family and you will see at the top of page 2 that the authors of the document interviewed a number of people including the psychologist [name removed], in fact, I think she is a doctor and she's a psychiatrist who is an ACM staff officer. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I'm sure that we have the same document.
MR WIGNEY: I'm sorry?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I'm sure that we do have the same document.
MR WIGNEY: Yes, good. I'm pleased about that. Now, what I want to take you to firstly, is under the first - or the second subheading on page 2 and you will see that [name removed], she is the ACM psychiatrist, describing the family as disintegrating and the father as seriously depressed. Do you see that?
MR BROMWICH: Can I just correct that, it is first a psychologist, not psychiatrist, there's a distinction.
MR WIGNEY: Well, I think when we come to it in a moment we will see that she, in fact, is a doctor and she is a psychiatrist but Mr Bromwich is quite correct, it does say 'psychologist'.
MR BROMWICH: Well, we are going off what the document said, that is what the questions ---
MR WIGNEY: You see that [name removed], the ACM officer, described here as a psychologist, described to these officers the family as 'disintegrating' and the father being 'seriously depressed'.
Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I can see that.
MR WIGNEY: He is falling apart and indeed he has spent some time under observation in a secure cell within the medical centre. Can you tell us what the secure cell in the medical centre is please?
MS McPAUL: I think what we have here is a term being used by someone from another agency. That's not necessarily terminology or common usage that the Department would apply to medical observation.
MR WIGNEY: Well, are you able to assist us as to what this person, who is an ACM psychologist, would be describing when she refers to the secure cell?
MS McPAUL: I think it just needs to be put in context that as part of our duty of care to all detainees medical services are provided at detention facilities including at Woomera and in the medical centre there are different arrangements that might be available to assist various detainees with health issues as they may arise and as you would expect there may be individual rooms where people can be treated and observed, if need be.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could you speak to microphone closer, if I can't hear you here possible other people can't hear you as well.
MR WIGNEY: I take it you have been to the Woomera Medical Centre?
MS McPAUL: I have.
MR WIGNEY: Well, what do you think is being referred to here as the secure cell? Can you describe to us exactly what it is?
MS McPAUL: As a - sure, as I said, there's a number different parts to the medical centre there and there are a number of individual rooms that can be used to treat various detainees at different times and as part of that there is a facility to be able to observe the detainee through a window on the door.
MR WIGNEY: Is the detainee restrained in there or is the room padded, or can you give us some more detail please?
MS McPAUL: Well, I can't comment on the specific circumstances of every case, of course, but it wouldn't necessarily be assumed that a detainee would be restrained, they're there for medical treatment. The rooms are quite simple with a bed and I guess, as I've said a door with a window where people can be observed if they need to be.
MR WIGNEY: Now, if you could go over the page, I think on that balance of that page is a reference to the officers' interview with the mother in this family and reference to her being 'increasingly distressed and tearful', but perhaps more relevantly if we go over to the next page, it is page 3 of the document we have the officers' interview with the child. Do you see that subheading there?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I can see that.
MR WIGNEY: And I don't want to obviously take you to all of it but amongst other things it is recorded in the third paragraph that the son spoke of having 'many worries' and 'he is worried about his father and upset that he cannot talk to him anymore' - do you see that? The first line of the third paragraph?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I can see that.
MR WIGNEY: Now, to put this in context at this stage we have the father at the detention facility in Woomera and we have the son and the mother at the residential housing project, right?
MS McPAUL: I believe so.
MR WIGNEY: And we will come to this in more detail in due course, but under the present guidelines or conditions of accommodation at the Woomera Residential Housing Project, fathers are not allowed, is that correct?
MS McPAUL: There are a number of criteria for participation in the residential housing projects and at the present time fathers would not be permitted, it's for women and children and other special needs cases. One of the reasons why fathers are not participating in the housing project, of course, comes back to the issue of culturally appropriate accommodation for the women and children who volunteer to be part of that and as I understand it the ability for certain women and children to participate is contingent on their other family members being satisfied that they are in a suitable environment which would also include not being in the presence of other older male children and men who are not part of their family unit.
DR OZDOWSKI: Are you saying that it is normal for the culture that people are coming from that in normal circumstances older sons and fathers are living separately from women and children?
MS McPAUL: What I'm saying is that in order for women to volunteer to participate in that project it was our understanding that - that voluntary participation was more likely to be gained if they were certain that the environment that they were going to be in was one that would be suitable from their point of view.
DR OZDOWSKI: But this possibly relates to the issue of available housing, that they need to share to share houses, that they are not living in separate accommodation, therefore possibly you can't keep family together, am I correct about it?
MS McPAUL: Look, I think that probably wasn't one of the original concerns, it was before I joined this part of the Department but I think that the infrastructure available is only one of a number of factors that we would have been taking into account.
DR OZDOWSKI: What other factors were taken into consideration when deciding to split families and still allow women to stay in the housing project and to keep men in the detention centre?
MS McPAUL: Commissioner, there are a number of factors that are also taken into account in the context of the housing project itself. As you may know, it is a low security environment, you've been there yourself and you've observed that. It is surrounded by just a normal colorbond kind of fence. So in making the operational decisions about who might participate in that project there are a number of different factors that we would take into account. As I said, participation in the project was voluntary so we needed to be able to encourage women and children to come forward to participate. Secondly, I guess, we also needed to have regard to the security aspects of all members of the family and I think it would be - my understanding is that it is more likely that women and children would be adequately accommodated in that less secure environment than some other family members that they may also have with them.
DR OZDOWSKI: So when you talk about security aspects you are implying that there is a risk of absconding of men?
MS McPAUL: That is one of the considerations.
DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you.
MR WIGNEY: Can I just - I was going to come back and deal specifically with criteria for the Woomera housing project in due course, but let us pick up on a few of the points you have just raised. The first point that you raised as being a reasonable rationale or principle behind not having fathers at the Woomera housing project was that it was necessary to provide culturally appropriate living arrangements, and I think that is a phrase that is used in the DIMIA submissions as well. What do you mean by 'culturally appropriate living arrangements'? Do you suggest that in some cultures it is not normal for fathers to reside with their families?
MS McPAUL: I think what I was trying to refer to is the expectation that members of one family would be able to live in a culturally appropriate environment without any suggestion that there would be inappropriate interaction with males who are not of that part of that family group. So I'm not suggesting that it is inappropriate for family members to be together, rather that families need to be certain that whatever living arrangements are in place for them will be something that they are comfortable with personally.
MR WIGNEY: Sorry, you mean that there may be some concern about inappropriate interaction with fathers of one family with the children in another, is that what you are saying?
MR WALKER: If I can just make a point here. The things that you need to put in context with the Woomera Detention - alternative detention arrangements in the trial is that there are also sensitivities within the local Woomera community as well that have to be taken into account as well as the safety and well-being of the participants. So that our responsibility, our duty of care, covered situations of making alternative arrangements that protected the individuals who participated, both from any animosity within the local community as well. And we had to work with the local community so there were certain parameters that were devised. The important part of that was that the males were not included, so it had to be a safe environment for the women and children.
MR WIGNEY: Thank you, Mr Walker, I will come back to your separate point about the concerns of the local community in a moment, but I was asking Ms McPaul who used the phrase 'culturally appropriate living arrangements,' what she meant by it and my question was: do you mean by it that there was concern that there may be inappropriate interaction between the father of one family with children in another family, is that what the concern is?
MS McPAUL: Look, I don't know that there is much more I can add to what I've already said. You know, what we were looking for was an environment in which the voluntary participants from the centre, the voluntary women and children participants from the centre, would feel that they could come forward to participate in a project where they knew that their particular living arrangements would be adequate for the needs of themselves and of their whole family.
MR WIGNEY: Are you suggesting by that answer that some of the women and children who participated in this project did not want fathers or males from other families over 12 to be in the residential unit, is that what you are saying?
MS McPAUL: As I understand it, when we were originally working through the arrangements that might be possible for the scheme this was one of the areas of concern raised by the families in the centre before any suggestion of participation was made.
MR WIGNEY: I see. Did you record those concerns, that is the concerns raised by the families, who were the first proposed participants in this scheme, did you record their concerns in a document, or a minute, or a report, or a recommendation, or anything?
MS McPAUL: Look, I guess, Mr Wigney, some of the things that you are asking about the specifics of that are prior to my joining this part of the Department and might be best addressed to Ms Godwin, but I can say that in general, it is my understanding, that there was consultation with the detainees and others in the establishment of the project and you might also be aware that we did seek and obtain an exemption from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner for inclusion of boys older than 12 and males from exclusion from participation in the project, and my understanding that that was on the basis of these sorts of issues that we are discussing now, about who would be able to participate and on what basis they would feel that they could come forward to volunteer for the project.
MR WIGNEY: Well, can you take it on notice, please, that the Commission would like to see any document, be it a minute, report, a recommendation, which records the concerns that you have just referred to, that is, the concerns of the participants in this scheme, that they didn't want the males, or the fathers to be there. Can you take it on notice that we would like to see that document, if it exists, or any such document.
MS McPAUL: We can certainly take on notice to provide you with anything that we may have that goes to that question.
DR OZDOWSKI: Are you really saying that the families were saying they would like to be split?
MS McPAUL: Commissioner, what I'm saying is, it is my understanding that for - as I have said previously - that for the women and children to feel that they could volunteer to be in the project, that the parameters that we have talked about were some of the ones that were discussed at that time.
MR WIGNEY: Ms McPaul, in the Woomera detention facility itself, there is - now at least - and as I understand it at least from some time in late 2001, a separate family compound, is that right? That is, a compound where families are detained?
MS McPAUL: It is my understanding that that is not the case. We have a particular family compound at the Baxter Immigration Detention facility.
MR WIGNEY: Well, there are still some families that are residing at Woomera now, this day, is that right?
MS McPAUL: There are some families there, that is correct.
MR WIGNEY: Well, can you tell us please the circumstances in which those families are housed now please? Are they housed along with the general detainee population, or are they in a separate compound, or how are they housed?
MR KELLY: Mr Wigney, there are a number of families still remaining in the Woomera IRPC. Some of those families are obviously in the residential housing project, with their partners still in the centre itself. In terms of those families that are still in the centre, they are accommodated in quite large compounds. There are other single adult males within those compounds. They have been offered the opportunity of transfer from that centre to the new facility at Baxter. They have chosen not to accept, or take up that opportunity of the move to a centre where they would be in a family oriented compound.
MR WIGNEY: Thank you. So putting aside for the moment those families - well, I think you said that there were some families there where other members of the family are in the residential housing project, that would mean however that only the fathers and the boys over 12 are in the detention centre, right?
MR KELLY: That is correct.
MR WIGNEY: In relation to the other families, they are in you say large compounds and in those compounds there are also detained, or housed, single male detainees, right?
MR KELLY: Yes. I'm not confident of the exact breakdown at the moment, but I could take that on notice and provide you with the information in due course.
MR WIGNEY: So some mothers and daughters are housed in circumstances where they are also in a compound with a number of single males, is that right?
MR KELLY: Yes, they have their own accommodation, have their own accommodation units and access to their own ablutions. As I said, they have been offered the opportunity of transfer to another facility - those - that offer has been documented as well as has been the refusal of those families to take up those offers.
MR WIGNEY: Yes, we will come back to that in a moment, but you referred to accommodation units, I think in the documents they are generally referred to as 'dongas' is that correct?
MS McPAUL: That is a colloquial term for them.
MR WIGNEY: I'm sorry?
MS McPAUL: That is a colloquial term for them.
MR WIGNEY: Well, that is the term the Department uses to describe these units as well, correct?
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: And for those like myself who haven't had the pleasure to see a donga, that is a demountable unit, is it not?
MS McPAUL: It is a demount - a large - yes, a demountable building with, as I understand it, a living area and a bedroom compartment.
MR KELLY: Could I just clarify that component, please. There are in the Woomera centre - Ms Godwin mentioned yesterday that there were, effectively, two elements to that centre, an older main compound which used demountable accommodation, and two much newer compounds which have prefabricated combination units. They are not in the style of demountables as are in the older compound, or which would be predominantly used, say, for, on mining sites.
MR WIGNEY: There are still some families in the older main compound, right?
MR KELLY: No.
MS McPAUL: No.
MR WIGNEY: They are all in the newer ---
MR KELLY: That is correct ---
MR WIGNEY: ---compounds with the prefabricated housing, is that right?
MR KELLY: That is correct. There haven't - the main compound has not been used for quite some time.
MR WIGNEY: And when did these prefabricated units come into being at Woomera?
MR KELLY: I would have to take that on notice, I don't know the specific date, but they've certainly been there for probably well over 12 months to my knowledge.
MR WIGNEY: Well, in June of this year some representatives from the Commission went to Woomera and observed that families were residing in the dongas and that more than one family unit were residing in these dongas, often just separated by a curtain. Now, that was a situation back in June of this year, wasn't it?
MR KELLY: That is correct.
MR WIGNEY: Indeed, you were there present when the Commission officers attended on that occasion, right?
MR KELLY: That is correct.
MR WIGNEY: And so we have more than one family unit in a donga - and that presumably includes the father, right - fathers?
MR KELLY: That is quite possible, yes.
MR WIGNEY: And also quite possible that it includes sons over the age of 12, they also not being eligible for the Woomera Residential Housing ---
MR KELLY: That is possible, although when the Commission visited the Centre at that particular time, because there were very few people in the Centre, there were a number of families who, in fact, had a whole accommodation unit to themselves with no other people there.
MR WIGNEY: Tell me, in relation to these families that resided in the dongas, particularly those where they were shared with another family, did the females that were residing in these circumstances consider that they were culturally appropriate living arrangements, to use your words?
MR KELLY: I can't answer that, I can't speak for those families. It's inappropriate for me to speak for those families.
MR WIGNEY: Well, you see, what has just been told to us is that some of the participants in a Residential Housing Project were concerned that males - that is fathers and children - male children over the age of 12 and 13 - not be accommodated at the Residential Housing Project, because of concerns perhaps of inappropriate interaction, or other security matters, and yet at the detention facility itself, not only did we have the fathers and sons residing with the families often in shared accommodation, but we also had single males in the same compound. Now, how do you explain that?
MR BROMWICH: I don't actually understand - I object to that question - explain what? The question does not make sense.
DR OZDOWSKI: I understand the question very well. Please continue, it is about the cultural sensitivities which were referred ---
MR BROMWICH: Well, the question will get the quality of the answer it deserves, it does not make any sense as a question.
DR OZDOWSKI: Please, answer the question.
MS McPAUL: Can you clarify it for me just a little so that I can be more specific for you?
MR WIGNEY: Yes. You have said that some of the participants in the Residential Housing Scheme told the Department that they would perhaps prefer to reside in this project, the Residential Housing, without males over the age of 12 or 13. The words you used initially were 'culturally appropriate living arrangements', right?
MS McPAUL: I believe so, yes.
MR WIGNEY: Well, there are women and girls residing in families back in the Woomera detention facility in circumstances where they are living in very close quarters with males over the age of 12, both sons in families, fathers and single males, right?
MS McPAUL: It is my understanding that there would be whole family groups living in the Centre, that is correct.
MR WIGNEY: At close quarters, right?
MS McPAUL: Well, in some circumstances, possibly but as we have explained that varies depending on the number of people in the Centre.
MR WIGNEY: I see. I asked the question before whether the families were concerned about whether that was a 'culturally appropriate living arrangement' and Mr Kelly said he couldn't speak on behalf of the families. Let me ask you this: does the Department regard the accommodation of the families in the detention facility, that is, families living at close quarters and often with single males in the same compound, as 'culturally appropriate living arrangements'?
MS McPAUL: I think there is a distinction to be made between a number of different family groups and possibly single men living in a compound environment to having a number of women and children living together in the same house without the other male members of their family present.
MR WALKER: I think it is also important to put some context, once again, to this trial. It was looking at appropriate arrangements for women and children. One of the Government's parameters was that men would not be included. So in fact, it was voluntary participation by women and children in an alternative detention arrangement if they felt that that was more appropriate to their circumstances.
MR WIGNEY: Yes, Mr Walker, but what we are seeking to do here is explore the Government's parameter. That is, why it was decided that men ought not participate in the scheme. That is what we are exploring. You understand that.
MR WALKER: Well, you will have to ask the Government. I am afraid I can't help you. I was not involved in the framing of the guidelines. What I say is they were the parameters within which the trial was proposed.
MR WIGNEY: I see. So this isn't something that the Department had any particular input in? That is, who was able to participate in the scheme? This was something that was simply imposed on the Department by someone in the Government, is that what you are saying?
MR WALKER: What I am saying is the Department provides advice to the Government but the Government makes decisions and we implement the decisions within the statutory framework.
MR WIGNEY: Well, who made this decision? That is, who made the decision that men would not be able to participate in this scheme? The Department or the Government?
MR WALKER: It is the Government.
MR WIGNEY: I see. Did the Government make this decision before the or after the intended first participants in this scheme expressed their concerns about 'culturally appropriate living arrangements'?
MS McPAUL: Mr Wigney, that is a question that is difficult for those of us at the table to answer I think.
MR WIGNEY: Why?
MS McPAUL: We weren't involved in that original - we weren't involved in the Department in this area of work at the time that those original decisions were made. Ms Godwin may be able to assist you with that.
MR WIGNEY: Can I take up - before we get back to the documents - one of Mr Walker's points that he raised. That is, concerns expressed in the local community. Where those concerns ever reduced to writing in a way that we, that is the Commission, can examine it?
MR WALKER: I am afraid I wasn't involved in the actual establishment of the scheme or advising of it so I am not aware of whether it was, once again ---
MR WIGNEY: Well ---
MS McPAUL: Again, it is something that was before my direct involvement in the program. However, it is my understanding that there was some extensive community consultation including some participation by the Minister in that process.
MR WIGNEY: Well, can you take that question on notice and you can take on notice that the Commission would very much like to see all relevant documents which record or report on how it came to be that males were to be excluded from this project? That obviously must be all the documents in the Department's possession including, for example, documents that record any concerns expressed in the local community. Can you undertake, please, to produce those documents to the Commission if they exist?
MR BROMWICH: Can I note at that point that necessarily that request can't extend to material that stands within the hands of Government as opposed to the Department?
MR WIGNEY: I thought I made it clear that it was only documents in the possession of the Department.
MR BROMWICH: Just making it clear on the record.
MR WIGNEY: I thought I did. In any event, we will come back to other aspects of the residential housing scheme in due course but we went off on that tangent because in the first document I was taking you to the son of this particular family in the case study had expressed his concerns or 'worries' I think is the word, about the fact that he had been - he is not able to talk with his father any more, right? That is because his father was back in Woomera detention facility and he is in the Residential Housing Project.
MS McPAUL: I think it might be helpful to put in context some of the arrangements that operate between the Residential Housing Project and the Centre. I think, Commissioner, as you were aware when we were both at the Housing Project a little while ago there were regular and spontaneous requests from the detainees to travel back to the Centre for one reason or another and that is facilitated and was being facilitated at that time. So it is my understanding that it is certainly possible for Housing Project participants to travel to the Centre whenever they need to or would like to. So it is my understanding that all the participants including the members of this family would have had that opportunity available to them.
MR WIGNEY: I see. I am sorry.
DR OZDOWSKI: Can I ask you a question because from my visit over there I got a slightly different understanding of the situation and I understand that there is some mechanism in place which may discourage women, wives, going to the compound to meet the husbands. One of them, as I understand, was the issue of finances. Could I ask you how much per day a person is getting for living expenses for food, all expenses, if a person is living in the Housing Project?
MS McPAUL: Just before I go on to answer that I am not quite sure how that relates to the question of whether people could travel backwards and forwards.
DR OZDOWSKI: I will come to it in a moment if you could answer first that question.
MS McPAUL: Commissioner, I can get someone to check and tell you the specific amount. It is a small amount per person per day aggregated for a family unit.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, I was told that it was $6 per person per day for food.
MS McPAUL: It is in that order but I will get someone to check for you.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes. Then I was also told that if a woman decides to go to the detention centre and spend a night with her husband then the $6 will be deducted from her allowance, is that correct?
MS McPAUL: Again, I would need to check the specifics of that for you.
DR OZDOWSKI: Could you please check it because my understanding was that it was one of the key issues which were inhibiting women from going to meet their husbands in the compound.
MS McPAUL: What I can say is that if a woman or family members decided to join the rest of the family in the compound that they would have meals and other activities provided for them in the compound so there would be no requirement for them to have a separate meal allowance allocated to them which they would otherwise use in the housing project. So it is not a question of having both entitlements. It would be one or the other.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, thank you.
MR WIGNEY: Before I ask you some questions about the visiting arrangements that you just referred to I think I had intended to ask you one more question. I would ask you whether the Department was of the view that the conditions in which families resided at the detention facility that we have discussed in evidence was regarded by the Department as 'culturally appropriate' and I think you in your answer referred to the fact that there's a distinction between the facility and the residential housing project. I wonder if you could tell us, please, what that distinction is and what that means in relation to the question I asked you, that is whether the Department has a view about the appropriateness of the living arrangements at the facility.
MS McPAUL: I think in my previous answer I alluded to the fact that in the compound there were entire family groups whereas the living arrangements in the housing project required a number of families to live in a particular house but without the male members of their family present so that my understanding was that that was the element that differentiated those two living arrangements.
MR WIGNEY: Yes, but what we are trying to explore here is why. Why is it the situation that it is not considered 'culturally appropriate living arrangements' to have fathers and sons at a residential housing project yet it is back in the detention facility? That is the question.
MS McPAUL: I think that is probably a question best directed to the detainees themselves. As Mr Kelly said, I can't speak on their behalf, I guess I'm ---
MR WIGNEY: I'm asking you the Department's view, Ms McPaul. In the Department's view why is it not 'culturally appropriate' to have fathers and sons in the residential housing project yet it is back in the detention facility? I'm not asking what the detainees think, I'm asking you what is the Department's view?
MR BROMWICH: Well, I object to the question to this extent, Commissioner. It has already been made clear that the way in which the alternative housing facility was set up was a matter of government direction and necessarily the two arrangements are quite different, one which has been identified which is family units together with other males perhaps being in proximity, versus women and children together not wanting other males outside of their family unit to be present and they are two quite different situations, one of which is arrived at by government policy and it is unfair of this witness to be asked to, in effect, back door justify government policy.
DR OZDOWSKI: The Department in its submission used the words 'it is culturally inappropriate' so it was very much a departmental submission and therefore I see the counsel assisting is asking about the document which was provided by the Department and asking to explain to departmental officers why they use that phrase in departmental documents provided to this Inquiry.
MR BROMWICH: Yes, Commissioner, but there's a difference between asking why that phrase was used in relation to the Housing Project which has already been dealt with and what is now being asked, which is a comparison between that and the arrangements within - with families within the detention facility when that very difference is one that is arrived at by government policy and it is a back door way of trying to have a departmental officer justify government policy and that is unfair. It is not the role of a departmental officer.
DR OZDOWSKI: Counsel assisting, yes, I think if we could move on, I think, yes, we could focus on the departmental policies but possibly the departmental officers cannot respond what was in the Government's mind when they were given marching orders, so to say.
MR WIGNEY: I see. So just before we leave that topic we now - the position now is, is it, that it was a government decision that fathers and sons not be permitted in this project, not a departmental decision, is that what you are saying? That was the basis of your counsel's objection.
MS McPAUL: I think I've already indicated that that question might be one that is more appropriate for Ms Godwin given that I was not part of the division at the time that that was actually being - that piece of work was being undertaken. I've explained to the best of my abilities my understanding of that circumstance already.
MR WIGNEY: You have - getting back to - I think you referred to the fact that the participants in the Residential Housing Project were able to go back to the detention facility and visit the fathers and sons, as it were, right?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that's correct.
MR WIGNEY: How often were they permitted to do that?
MS McPAUL: It's my understanding that individuals may visit the centre at any time providing they have made a request to the staff at the Housing Project and providing that there is no operational reason at the centre that would preclude that happening.
MR WIGNEY: How long were they permitted to remain back in the detention facility?
MS McPAUL: As long as they would like to.
MR WIGNEY: Are they able to, for example, have a meal with the fathers and sons?
MS McPAUL: Absolutely, yes.
MR WIGNEY: The situation was and still is, is it not, that the male sons and the fathers are not able to go to the Residential Housing Project and visit their families?
MS McPAUL: No, that's not correct.
MR WIGNEY: Are you saying that that is allowed at this point in time?
MS McPAUL: There have been a small number of occasions when there have been visits by other family members to the Housing Project.
MR WIGNEY: A small number of occasions. How many?
MS McPAUL: Look, I would have to take that on notice to give you an exact number. It's my understanding that they have visited on more than one occasion during the day at the centre.
MR WIGNEY: Can I ask that you be shown this document? Now, that is a document that has been provided to the Commission by the Department and if you turn to have a look at the front page I think there's some information that has been provided by the Department and also provision of a document which is headed Fact Sheet, 83, the Woomera Alternative Detention Arrangements for Women and Children Project. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR BROMWICH: Sorry, I have just been provided it so I can see what is being referred to. Would it be possible for me to have a copy? We did write and ask to be advised which documents were going to be referred to and we were told that copies would be - plenty of copies would be available.
MR WIGNEY: Well, they are the Department's documents actually but we've got ---
MR BROMWICH: Yes, but we've provided 50 volumes of documents, Mr Wigney.
MR WIGNEY: In any event, we will arrange for copies in due course. On the right-hand column of this page there's a sub-heading, Visits. In the second paragraph it is recorded that detainees from the IRPC, that is the Woomera detention facility, are not able to visit the Project. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Mr Wigney, you might be aware that this particular document is dated 3 August 2001 and there are later versions of this fact sheet and - which will show what I just advised you is consistent with the current fact sheet.
MR WIGNEY: Well, this fact sheet was provided to the Commission by the Department last week.
MS McPAUL: This is an earlier version, that is correct. These fact sheets are updated from time to time and I believe we also advised you that documents that were already publicly available on our web site would not be reproduced to you.
MR WIGNEY: I'm just trying to understand why in answer to a notice that the Commission has served on the Department you gave us a fact sheet that was on your evidence out of date.
MS McPAUL: I believe the reason this particular fact sheet was provided was that it contained information regarding the criteria at the time for participation in the Housing Project and it was current at the time that the Housing Project was established last year and it was in response to the specifics of that particular notice.
MR WIGNEY: Do you know or are you speculating that there is a fact sheet in relation to this project in existence now that records that detainees from the facility are able to visit the Woomera housing project?
MS McPAUL: There is a later version of the fact sheet. I would need to check the exact wording of it.
MR WIGNEY: Well, is it policy that at this stage that the detainees from the detention facility are able to visit the project or is that just dealt with on an ad hoc or case-by-case basis?
MS GREAVES: I think, Mr Wigney, these sorts of issues have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. We have to operate within the legislation which is legislation which requires the Department to keep people in detention. So questions of moving people from place to place and to a more - an environment where there is less security always have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. That is our responsibility as public servants implementing the legislation.
MR WIGNEY: All I'm asking is whether it is now part of the general policy that detainees are able to visit the facility or not. I'm sorry, able to attend the Residential Project or not.
MS McPAUL: It is my understanding that it is possible for them to do that on a case-by-case basis and that it has occurred on more than one occasion in the past few months.
MR WIGNEY: Okay. Now, sorry, we haven't got very far through this case study yet, we are still on document 1. Let us just move on. As I said, we went off on to that tangent because of the record in this document of the son expressing his worries about - and upset about the fact that he can't talk to his father. Can I just take you some other parts of this document, please? You will see that still on page 3 of the document we have the authors recording an interview with [name removed] who is an ACM psychiatric nurse, do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I can see that.
MR WIGNEY: He refers at the bottom of the page to the fact that the father is 'deeply depressed' and if you go over to the next page, the third paragraph on the page, [name removed], the psychiatric nurse makes some reference to his observations about the son. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Who is making the observation?
MR WIGNEY: [Name removed] who is the ACM psychiatric nurse.
MS McPAUL: This is on page 3? On page 4, yes.
MR WIGNEY: Now, we will come back to [psychiatric nurse]'s assessment in due course but you will see then there is a major sub-heading on the page, Assessment of Allegations, and that records the assessment of these officers from Family and Youth Services to the effect that the child in this family is exhibiting clear signs of severe stress, sleep talking, nightmares, sleep-walking, indicated deep-seated trauma. The current stressors of detention and his parents' depression are clearly causing the son extreme distress, making his attempts to self-harm more likely to be emotionally-based, not behaviourally-based as purported by the Psychiatric Nurse.
That is referring to [the psychiatric nurse]'s assessment. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that's here.
MR WIGNEY: Then you will see at the bottom of the page a recommendation that the Port Augusta CAMHS - I think that is the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service - that is, again a state service, South Australia, 'be contacted to ascertain if they can provide a consistent counsellor', with consistent being emphasised, 'who can provide regular contact' with the son 'in an attempt to establish some sense of trust before proceeding to therapeutic counselling.' If you then go over to the next page, again the authors of this document refer with some emphasis to the fact that 'consistency is critical'. Now, one of the questions I have for you is this: is it the situation that counsellors at the Woomera centre who deal with these sorts of issues are on a six-week rotation basis?
MS McPAUL: Yes, look, I think the questions about specifics of employment are a matter for ACM.
MR WIGNEY: I'm sorry, I missed that.
MS McPAUL: Sorry, I said I think the specifics of questions relating to employment with ACM are a matter for ACM.
MR WIGNEY: You are an Assistant Secretary in this area that deals with detention, are you not?
MS McPAUL: The staffing arrangements for the provision of the outsourced detention services are a matter for the company.
MR WIGNEY: Well, what about Mr Kelly who, as I understand it, had some role in relation to Woomera? Does he know?
MR KELLY: I think the question has been asked and answered, Mr Wigney.
MR WIGNEY: Well, I don't know the answer. I'm asking a simple question. Are the counsellors at Woomera detention facility now or in the past on a six-week rotation basis? Do you know?
MR KELLY: I don't know of every counsellor or the employment of every staff member within Woomera. I know that ACM as a company have encouraged many of their staff to take up lengthy contracts to live and work in the Woomera facility but I couldn't honestly say to you that every staff member is like that or whether some staff members are on short duration contracts. I think the question that was asked was: do you know? The question has been answered: no, we don't know and we think the question should be posed to ACM.
MR WIGNEY: You monitor ACM's provision of services, don't you, you being the Department?
MR KELLY: Yes, it's outcome-generated, as Ms Godwin mentioned yesterday, not input.
MR WIGNEY: Are you seriously suggesting that you as the monitors of the service provided by ACM don't know a simple fact such as whether counsellors employed at the facilities are or are not employed on a six-week rotation basis?
MS McPAUL: That is not what we're saying. What we're saying is that we have some understanding but if you - you have access today to the specifics from the company directly and that may be the best source of confirming the particulars that you're asking.
MR WIGNEY: Well, I don't know whether it is appropriate at this stage to ask if Mr Rushton is able to assist in that regard or whether ---
MR RUSHTON: I'm sure we can assist. I will just have to get some instructions as to the precise ---
DR OZDOWSKI: Possibly - can't we return to this question closer to the end of that session. I will allocate some time for ACM to respond to this part of your question.
MR WIGNEY: Very well. The next document we have in this case study you will see is a page or two further on. It is circled number 2 and you will see that it is a document, minute or memorandum on ACM letterhead, its author being [name removed], the registered psychiatric nurse, do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I have that document.
MR WIGNEY: It is addressed to [name removed] who is in fact - and this becomes apparent in due course - the Department Deputy Manager at the Woomera facility at that time, right?
MS McPAUL: That's correct.
MR WIGNEY: Now, the subject of this particular memorandum is the father and his family again, do you see that, the subject?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I do.
MR WIGNEY: Indeed, what the author of this document has done is to include some information about each of the family members and in particular their mental state. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I believe that's here.
MR WIGNEY: Just dealing firstly with the father who is dealt with firstly in this document, you will see about seven lines down it is recorded in a sentence by the author of this document that the mental state of the father has deteriorated dramatically in the past month. He was generally a happy man who is devoted to his family. His wife and son have been living in community housing for some eight months now and he misses them very much even though he feels that they are better off there.
Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that's on the first page.
MR WIGNEY: Recording, I think you would agree, that the father is exhibiting some signs of distress about his separation from his family?
MR BROMWICH: Well, that connection is not there in the document, with respect. My friend is making that connection but that is not what is in the document.
MR WIGNEY: Over the page there's a title, Summary. Still dealing with the father, there's a reference to 'abject depression with continual suicidal ideation' and then this reference - I won't use the name, of course:
The father is a proud man who finds it degrading that he has no control over his family's future and he now views his existence as futile.
Right?
MS McPAUL: I think it would be important to put in context the situation for this particular family which, as I understand it, does have a degree of agency that they could exercise in the circumstance.
MR WIGNEY: I'm sorry?
MS McPAUL: I said I think that we need to put in context the situation for this family which is that they do have a degree of agency that they can exercise in this context. As I understand it, this family has the ability to make a choice to return to their country of origin and that is certainly within the control of the family to make that decision.
MR WIGNEY: We might come back to that in a moment because that raises a number of issues but in any event at this stage they are in detention and this document is dated May and at this stage, as I understand it, there was still an outstanding appeal, so can we please deal with the chronology as we go. You see there there's a reference to the fact that the father has expressed and the assessment of this psychiatric nurse is that he finds it degrading that he now has no control over his family's future and he now views his existence as futile. It is plain from this assessment, is it not, that the separation of this father from his family is causing the father stress and mental problems?
MR BROMWICH: Well, I object to that again. That is what my friend is reading into the document but it is not taking into account the total situation and in particular - and I don't know one way or the other -but it is silent as to the visa processing status of this family. To isolate it as being due to detention only may or may not be correct but the document does not say that and you are suggesting it does.
MR WIGNEY: We are talking here about children in immigration detention. I just see it at this stage and I'm not suggesting that it is relevant in any event but at this stage, that is at May, there was still an outstanding appeal afoot.
MR BROMWICH: In other words, he had failed in his determination and he had been found not to be a refugee and that could equally account for the lack of control over his family's future.
MR WIGNEY: Well, Mr Bromwich can take an oath and give some evidence if he really wishes to do so.
MR BROMWICH: Well, you are putting a proposition from a document that does not stand in the face of the document and it is unfair to put to a witness that a document says something that it simply does not and you know that from any ---
MR WIGNEY: The document says this, does it not, Ms McPaul:
..... is a proud man who finds it degrading that he has no control over his family's future and he now views his existence as futile.
Right?
MS McPAUL: That's what the document states.
MR WIGNEY: The next assessment by this psychiatric nurse talks about the mother and I want to take you to just simply one passage and it is the last sentence of the psychiatric nurse's summary and it records this, does it not:
It is obvious that the continued separation from her husband and the behavioural problems of her son is having an adverse effect on her.
Right?
MS McPAUL: Again that's what the document states.
MR WIGNEY: Recording that in this psychiatric nurse's view the separation of this woman from her husband, being a separation as a result of her being in the Residential Housing Project, is having an adverse effect on her, right?
MS McPAUL: I'm not sure that's what the document actually states.
MR WIGNEY: I see. Next we have the psychiatric nurse dealing with the son and I just want to take you to one passage there under the summary. Well, I will read the whole summary:
The son often presents as a very angry young man who is very worried about what is happening to his parents. His behaviours are such that he is trying to assert his inner strength but it is obvious that he is not coping with the breakdown in the family life.
Then over the page we have the psychiatric nurse's family summary:
The family is a typical family, whose bonds are being broken by continued separation, resulting in a disintegration of the functioning of the family unit.
Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: That's what's written here, yes.
MR WIGNEY: The recommendation of this psychiatric nurse recorded at least in the last sentence:
It would be reasonable to suggest that the answer to these problems is a positive response to their bridging visa application.
See that?
MS McPAUL: That's written here.
MR WIGNEY: If it wasn't obvious before it is obvious now, is it not, that this psychiatric nurse's assessment is that the separation of the father from his wife and child is causing considerable distress and breakdown in family relationship?
MS McPAUL: Well, it appears that the nurse has indicated some views here, yes.
MR WIGNEY: Now, that is as at 20 May. We have a week later, the next document, document number 3. I should indicate at this stage, regarding the reference to a bridging visa, I will come back to bridging visas in due course. The next document, document 3, is an Incident Report of 27 May and that has been created by an officer of ACM, right?
MS McPAUL: Sorry, the date, 27 May?
MR WIGNEY: Yes.
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: Now, at this stage it would appear, and just take a moment to look at the document if you wish, that the father is still in the detention facility at Woomera and the mother and son are still accommodated in the Residential Housing Project. That appears in the second paragraph under Background.
MS McPAUL: Yes, that's what's stated here.
MR WIGNEY: Just in general terms, what this document records is particular incidents first involving the mother slashing herself with a razor blade and also recording an incident where the father had attempted to hang himself, do you see that?
MS McPAUL: That's the subsequent two paragraphs you're referring to?
MR WIGNEY: Yes. Take your time to read the document. You will see on the second page of that document under Action/Recommendations, the last - well there is a reference there to the entire family ought continue to receive counselling and regular visits from the psychologist, but the last dot point it that the psychologist has recommended that the mother and son 'be returned from the Housing Project to be permanently accommodated in the November compound' at the detention facility, right?
MS McPAUL: It does state that here, yes.
MR WIGNEY: Can you just tell us what the November compound is?
MS McPAUL: It's one of the accommodation compounds at the Woomera IRPC.
MR WIGNEY: Is it one in the old part of the facility or the new part of the facility?
MS McPAUL: It's in the new part.
MR WIGNEY: Thank you. Trying to move through these documents as quickly as possible, the next document we have is another Incident Report the following day, again created by an officer of ACM, and this one is reporting an incident whereby the son now, and I remind you the son is aged 12, has been observed to have slashed his forearm with a razor.
MS McPAUL: That's - where are we looking, page 2 of that document?
MR WIGNEY: Yes.
MR BROMWICH: Well, I object to the use of the word 'slashed'. That is not accurate. When one goes back to the previous document that is not accurate either.
MS McPAUL: I think it says 'allegedly cut himself'.
MR WIGNEY: Let us just say 'cut' then.
MR BROMWICH: Well, the word is 'superficial injury' in the previous document.
MR WIGNEY: He has cut himself with a razor blade, has he not?
MS McPAUL: Are we looking on the 28th or the 27th now, Mr Wigney?
MR WIGNEY: Yes, document number 4, under the narrative:
The son was brought up to the medical clinic with his mother by Detention Officers.
And just a ---
MS McPAUL: Yes, it states here that he 'allegedly cut himself with a razor'.
MR WIGNEY: It also records that the incident has now been reported to FAYS, that is Family and Youth Services, right?
MS McPAUL: That would be the normal practice.
MR WIGNEY: Now, the next document is - that is document number 5 - a document written by the Deputy Manager at the Woomera detention facility on 29 May, it is a facsimile message, to a doctor. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: This document - and take your time to read it if needs be - is a request by that Deputy Manager for the doctor to provide some information so that an assessment can be made as to a bridging visa for the detainees, that is, the family that we are talking about, right?
MS McPAUL: That is correct.
MR WIGNEY: You will see that the document indicates that a report from ACM has been annexed and that ACM have indicated that:
this family may have conditions that cannot be cared for within a detention environment.
Right?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that is what is written here.
MR WIGNEY: And it has asked this doctor to provide an assessment for the purpose of seeing whether a bridging visa may be appropriate to be issued in relation to this family, right?
MS McPAUL: That is what is written here, yes.
MR WIGNEY: Well, it would appear, Ms McPaul, that we haven't received - that is the Commission - has not received any documents indicating any response to this facsimile message by the relevant doctor. Are you able to offer an explanation for that? Are you aware of whether there ever was a response?
MS McPAUL: I'm not personally aware, no.
MR WIGNEY: If there was a response, might we expect that the Commission would have received it in answer to the notice?
MS McPAUL: If the Department had that document and it fell within the scope of the notice, we have certainly done our best to provide everything that we had available.
MR WIGNEY: So you are not able to offer any indication, one way or another, about whether a response ever was received by the Department from this doctor in relation to this assessment, relating to a bridging visa, is that right? You don't know one way or another?
MS McPAUL: I would need to check for you, but it is my understanding that the Department has done a thorough search and provided you with all documents relevant to the notice.
MR WIGNEY: Well, you might just take that question on notice as well and attempt to ascertain for us, please, whether there ever has been a response to that ---
MS McPAUL: To this particular Inquiry on 29 May?
MR WIGNEY: Yes, whether the doctor referred to in that facsimile message ever responded to this request. Now, the next document, document number 6, is a report from the Family and Youth Services - take your time to look at it if you wish - but it would appear to be - you recall from the earlier incident report we referred to relating to the son cutting himself with a razor blade, that the Family and Youth Services were contacted, this would appear to be a Family and Youth Services report in relation to that incident and its investigations.
MS McPAUL: Which other document are you relating that to?
MR WIGNEY: Well, if you go back to document number ---
MS McPAUL: The one dated - number 3.
MR WIGNEY: Number 4, it is the incident report, referring to the son cutting himself with a razor. The incident being reported to FAYS, that is Family and Youth Services, and you will see in the first paragraph of document number 6, which is a report by FAYS, referring to that incident on 27 May. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I guess, I'm a little confused because the dates in the second document, the 6th, relate to the 27th. Whereas, the document number 4, relates to issues that happened on the 28th, as I understand it.
MR WIGNEY: Well, it may in fact relate to the notification that was received in relation to the incident report which is document number 3, but in any event it does refer to an incident - whether the date is a day out or not does not really matter, it seems - but an incident where the son appears to have cut himself with a razor and it also refers in the same paragraph to the fact that the mother also cut her arm on 26 May, and the father made another suicide hanging attempt on 27 May as well. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that is here.
MR WIGNEY: Then, indeed, there is also a report of another incident here, where the son is reported to have - and this time the word 'slashed' is used:
slashed his forearm in several places.
MS McPAUL: Yes, that is in inverted commas.
MR WIGNEY: Yes. Now, it would appear that he officers from the Family and Youth Services who authored - or the officer who authored this document - interviewed certain persons and formed an assessment, that assessment being set out on page 2 of the document, do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Are we referring to the paragraph at the bottom of the page?
MR WIGNEY: At the bottom of the page.
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: It refers to the fact that:
The son is the only child in a family where both parents are severely depressed and unable to parent him. Consequently, he has taken on the role of the 'man of the family' and mother's 'protector'. He displays this by being (often) rude, arrogant and 'bossy' with adults.
It refers to the fact that:
This generally means that he is not well liked by staff
Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that is written here.
MR WIGNEY: Then, over the page there is a further assessment of the child, and it has referred to the fact that, in this officer's assessment:
He is at ongoing risk of self-harm and his parents are unable to support and help him.
And a recommendation:
that there be an urgent and comprehensive assessment by a Child Psychiatrist.
Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that is here.
MR WIGNEY: Right, that is 6 June. Yes. I'm sorry, I had meant also to refer you in this document to the second paragraph in the recommendation by the officer from Family and Youth Services:
it is recommended that this child and at least one parent be released from detention - on a bridging visa - in order to facilitate this child's ability to be engaged by a counsellor or therapist. Whilst in the detention environment this child has lost all trust in the adults associated with the Woomera Centre.
MS McPAUL: You were referring to the last paragraph, I think, Mr Wigney?
MR WIGNEY: Yes.
MS McPAUL: Yes, that is here.
MR WIGNEY: Now, the next document we have in this bundle ---
DR OZDOWSKI: We will have a break at 11 o'clock, but continue until 11 o'clock.
MR WIGNEY: The next document we have is a minute from the Department authored by the DIMIA - the Department Deputy Manager at the Woomera detention centre and it is dated 7 June on the second page, do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that is [name removed].
MR WIGNEY: It is again referring specifically to the medical and psychiatric assessments of the members of the family that we have been discussing, do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Well, it also refers to some other detainees as well.
MR WIGNEY: Yes, it does. It then records the Department Deputy Manager as saying this that:
In all cases -
I'm sorry, it is addressed to the ACM Health Services Manager, and refers to the fact that:
In all cases, your staff's -
that is ACM staff's -
reports on the abovenamed have indicated that the detainee (or a detainee/number of detainees in the family) have medical and/or psychiatric conditions which cannot be adequately cared for within the detention environment.
Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that is the paragraph under the list of names.
MR WIGNEY: That is right, and it is requesting to assist in the Department's assessment of management options of those - or these detainees - including the family that we have been discussing, requesting the ACM Health Services Manager to:
provide some reports detailing the precise medical and/or psychological conditions and the treatment needed, treatment currently being provided and the like.
Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that is here.
MR WIGNEY: Again, along a similar vein we have the next document, document number 8 of the same date. We have another minute again from the Department Deputy Business Manager at Woomera detention facility, addressed to various officers from ACM, requesting a priority referral to the child and adolescent mental health service for psychiatric assessment of the son. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: Next, we have a document, being a letter, or a minute, from the registered psychologist employed by ACM, it would appear at the Woomera detention facility and it is dated 18 June 2002. Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes.
MR WIGNEY: The subject being again the family that is the subject of this case study that we are going through, right? You will see that this particular officer has reviewed the reports and in terms of updated information she refers to the fact that:
the family has further deteriorated as a unit and individual self-harming behaviour has increased.
If one goes over to the second page, we now have this psychologist's assessment. It records, amongst other things does it not that:
The father is showing acute symptoms of Chronic Stress Disorder with Major Depressive Disorder.
Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: The father, are we speaking about?
MR WIGNEY: Yes.
MS McPAUL: I'm sorry, just what were you asking me to refer to?
MR WIGNEY: The ACM registered psychologist has recorded his condition as at this date, that is 18 June 2002, as:
Showing acute symptoms of Chronic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.
Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, I can see that.
MR WIGNEY: The mother is reported as having:
Major Depressive Disorder.
Do you see that? And then the son is reported as being:
completely dysfunctional for his age and experiences bouts of depression and uncontrollable rage. Although he believes that he is fulfilling the correct role in the family, the stresses for a young boy to represent the family under these circumstances is pushing him into extreme and dangerous behaviours.
Then there is a reference to the fact that:
Previous intervention has been on-going counselling, psychological intervention, medication and time out of hospital -
I'm sorry -
time out in hospital.
And then there is this reference:
The severe family breakdown parallelling the psychological breakdown of the father, plus the growing concerns regarding the son's role, needs to be addressed in an environment in which stronger psychological and community interventions can occur. The son in particular, requires input which is more appropriate to a child his age, which is outside of the role which he has acquired at the detention centre.
Do you see that?
MS McPAUL: Yes, that is here.
MR WIGNEY: Can I suggest this to you, that what the registered psychologist is effectively reporting here, is that she is unable to address the problems of this family in the detention facility because the detention facility itself is the very cause of these psychological problems? What do you say about that?
MR BROMWICH: Well, I object to the question, it is not a fair question available on the documents, it just isn't. The connection is not anywhere in the documents, it is not to be found in the documents. The fact that these things are occurring does not justify the cause and effect or conclusion that stands within that question.
MR WIGNEY: I don't think it much matters.
DR OZDOWSKI: Yes. I disagree with your statement to me, the statement is clearly saying that the family needs to be out of detention in order that the psychological and psychiatric problems could be addressed.
MR BROMWICH: That is within the document, Commissioner. With respect, what my friend asked was not within the document. There is a difference between the document indicating that there may be a need to be outside of the detention centre for treatment and saying the detention centre is the cause of the problem, and that is what my friend has put and that is not what is within the document.
MR WIGNEY: I'm not - I am asking the officer what her views are about being someone that is familiar with this case ---
MR BROMWICH: Close.
MR WIGNEY: ---at the time and as a result of having been put on notice that we were going to deal with this case study. Whether that is her opinion, having read this document, that that is what the officer is in effect saying, now, that is a permissible question.
MR BROMWICH: The question that is being put is that this document indicates that the detention is the cause of the illness. The document does no such thing. It is an unfair question. It is not fairly available from the document and it should not be asked.
MR WIGNEY: I think the document speaks for itself, in any event, I will move on because there are others that make it even more plain. The next document is document number 10. We have now an involvement of a doctor at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, that is a - well, I won't name the doctor - it is a letter dated 27 June 2002, do you see that?
MS McPAUL: 27 June, yes, that is the date on this document.
MR WIGNEY: I won't take you to too much detail in this document but it seems to deal specifically with the father in this family, right?
MS McPAUL: Broadly I think, yes.
MR WIGNEY: It is suggesting, or rather referring him to Brentwood in order to have a psychiatric assessment. Are you able to assist us as to what 'Brentwood' is?
MS McPAUL: Look, we would need to confirm for you, but we understand that may be part of the Glenside Medical Facility.
MR WIGNEY: The letter also records the fact that ---
MR BROMWICH: If I could assist. The heading of the letter would indicate what it is. It is addressed to The Assessing Doctor, Brentwood Intensive Care, Glenside Campus.
MR WIGNEY: It would seem to be some sort of psychiatric unit in the hospital?
MR BROMWICH: Well, it is a mental health service, if you look at the heading of the document.
MR WIGNEY: In any event, I just want to take you to one passage in this letter, if I may. It is in the second paragraph, and if you just read that to yourself for the moment, please. I will use the precise words in the document, or Mr Bromwich will object:
She -that is the mother - and staff are also very concerned about the 12-year-old son who has become increasingly disturbed as he sees his father become more withdrawn and bizarre.
MS McPAUL: That is the wording of the document.
Site navigation
Change font size: 
