Skip to main content

Search

Community arrangements for asylum seekers, refugees and stateless persons - Closed detention

Community arrangements for asylum seekers, refugees and stateless persons

Observations from visits conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission from December 2011 to May 2012



7 Closed
detention

Internal fences, Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.
Internal fences, Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.

7.1 The
impact of prolonged detention in closed immigration detention
facilities

“I used to think, when I was in Iran, that I could handle prison
here for 10 years. But it has its own psychological pressures.”

“No one wants to be a refugee. Everyone needs freedom. Why do they
keep us like this?”

“Our pain is something else. We have not come here to eat good
food or use the internet.”

“You might see things happening; see changes. But I don’t.
This is my life, this is my whole world.”

“In Australia, if you have a pet, you take your pet out at least
once a week. I haven’t had an excursion in the two years I’ve been
in detention ... I don’t even know what Australians look like.”

“Imagine you were in a hotel room and you couldn’t get out.
How would you feel? It doesn’t matter what the facilities are like. You
just want to get out.”

“Too many people die in detention. No one can give any answer, why
these people lose their life for nothing.”

“I have escaped from force and power and pressure in the Iranian
system. I cannot accept that I would be out of favour here, with the Australian
system. That is very painful.”

 

As noted above, the Commission has adopted a new approach to its detention
visiting activities. The Commission will continue to conduct short visits to
detention sites with a focus on specific issues, but is no longer able to
undertake detailed monitoring and reporting of conditions of immigration
detention.

The Commission visited Villawood IDC, Sydney IRH, Maribyrnong IDC and
Melbourne ITA in April 2012.[105] In keeping with the new approach, detailed monitoring of conditions of detention
of the kind undertaken in recent years was not conducted during these visits.
Instead, the Commission focussed on the situation of people who face prolonged
and indefinite detention in closed facilities, including refugees who have
received adverse security assessments; refugees who are of interest to
or have been charged by the APF; and stateless persons who have not been
recognised as refugees. While the human rights and wellbeing of all people in
immigration detention are of concern to the Commission, the plight of people who
face little or no prospect of release from closed detention in the foreseeable
future is of particularly serious concern.

The Commission heard resoundingly of the distress, frustration, anxiety and
despair caused by people’s ongoing and indefinite detention. For many
people with whom the Commission met, this has been compounded by witnessing so
many others move out of closed detention in relatively short timeframes, because
they have either been granted permanent protection visas or moved into community
placement under the Australian Government’s expansion of community
arrangements for asylum seekers and refugees.

Most people the Commission met with in closed facilities were at pains to
convey that the conditions of detention were of little import to them. Rather,
it was the prolonged and indefinite nature of their detention which was causing
people distress: the fact of remaining in closed detention, separated from
friends, family and other support networks, for prolonged periods of time, in
some cases with little or no prospect of release.

These visits to closed detention facilities once again reinforced the
Commission’s long-held concerns about Australia’s system of
mandatory, indefinite immigration detention.

Artwork on the bedroom door of a man in detention, Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre.
Artwork on the bedroom door of a man in detention, Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre.

7.2 Observations
relating to closed immigration detention facilities

Notwithstanding the Commission’s new approach to detention visits, some
observations about conditions of detention were made during the most recent
round of visits. Conditions of detention and the services provided to people who
are detained remain important given the range of international human rights
standards relating to people deprived of their
liberty.[106]

The Commission was pleased to observe a number of positive developments at
immigration detention facilities in Sydney and Melbourne, some of which are
representative of changes which have been made across the immigration detention
network. However, Commission staff also noted a number of areas in which further
improvement is needed. The most significant of these are outlined below.

The Commission last visited Villawood for detention monitoring purposes in
February 2011. Following this visit, a detailed report was issued containing
findings and recommendations to which DIAC provided a public
response.[107] Many of the
Commission’s observations from its most recent round of detention visits
relate to progress made against the findings and recommendations of its 2011
Villawood report.

(a) Health
and mental health service provision

Outside makeshift clinic, Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.
Outside makeshift clinic, Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.

In its 2011 Villawood report, the Commission made a series of recommendations
relating to physical and mental health services. These included that:

  • DIAC consider increasing IHMS staffing levels
  • the clinical governance framework for the delivery of mental health services
    to detainees across the immigration detention network be overhauled such that it
    is overseen by a consultant psychiatrist with whom ultimate responsibility lies
  • active outreach work be extended into accommodation areas across the
    detention network
  • DIAC require at least a minimal IHMS presence at Villawood IDC 24 hours per
    day, seven days per week
  • DIAC require at least a minimal onsite IHMS presence at Sydney
    IRH.[108]

Clinic, Melbourne Immigration Transit Accomodation.
Clinic, Melbourne Immigration Transit Accomodation.

The most
recent visit to immigration detention facilities in Sydney and Melbourne
revealed a number of positive developments in the area of health and mental
health care many of which the Commission understands have been applied across
the detention network. These include:

  • An overhaul of the clinical governance framework for the delivery of mental
    health services at Villawood IDC and across the detention network, involving the
    appointment of a psychiatrist to oversee mental health service delivery and
    provide clinical supervision. At all facilities visited, the Commission received
    positive feedback from IHMS and other staff regarding the leadership of and
    changes introduced by the new clinical director.
  • A comprehensive revision of all IHMS clinical policies, which have been
    submitted to DIAC for consideration, within the context of contract
    negotiations.
  • The intention that clinical outreach activities will commence within
    Villawood IDC once staff numbers and Serco escort arrangements have been
    confirmed, and the recent commencement of mental health group work sessions
    which the Commission was told are being well received.
  • Measures which have been taken to make IHMS services routinely available to
    people being held at Sydney IRH, and the intention for a more established
    presence is envisaged there shortly, with the construction of an onsite
    clinic.
  • Increases to IHMS’s physical and mental health staff hours at
    Villawood which have been made since the Commission’s last visit, and a
    submission that has been made to DIAC for a further staffing increase (although
    the round-the-clock IHMS presence recommended by the Commission appears not to
    be under consideration).

Consultation room, clinic, Melbourne Immigration Transit Accomodation.
Consultation room, clinic, Melbourne Immigration Transit Accomodation.

(b) Mitigation
of suicide and self-harm

The Commission made a series of recommendations towards mitigating the risk
of self-harm and suicide among people in detention in its 2011 Villawood report.
These included that DIAC ensure that a safety audit be conducted across
Villawood IDC and all other detention facilities, and that all appropriate
measures be taken to minimise the risk of suicide and
self-harm.[109]

It appears that a safety audit has not been conducted at any of the sites
visited by the Commission, nor a tool developed for the purpose of conducting
such audits across the detention network.

The Commission continues to call for safety audits to be conducted and
appropriate measures taken to mitigate the potential for further self-harm,
suicide attempts and suicide in immigration detention facilities. Such measures
should be taken urgently. Since the time of the Commission’s visit to
Villawood in February 2011, there have been a further four deaths in immigration
detention, two of which occurred at Villawood and three of which appear to have
been suicides.

(c) Staff
interactions with people in detention

Serco poster, Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre.
Serco poster, Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre.

On previous visits to immigration detention facilities, and in some detention
monitoring reports, the Commission has made observations about the interactions
between staff and people in
detention.[110] During its recent
visits, the Commission was struck by the dedication to their work and concern
for detainees exhibited by the majority of detention staff with whom it met.

The interagency management teams at Sydney and Melbourne, comprising officers
from DIAC, Serco and IHMS, appeared to have strong rapports, respectful
professional relationships and an appreciation of the challenges of each
other’s roles. Several members of operations and case management staff
were commended by their colleagues to the Commission as approachable and
effective.

While some people in detention who met with the Commission raised concerns
regarding their treatment by staff, many of those who exhibited most distress
made a point of noting that they felt that they had been treated with compassion
and respect by local management and case management staff.

This feedback resonated with the ways in which many DIAC, IHMS and Serco
staff spoke of their concerns regarding the circumstances of people in
detention. It appeared that some staff were deeply affected by the often
traumatic nature of their work, including responding to suicides and other acts
of self-harm. The Commission observed positive signs of peer support, but held
concerns for the welfare of some staff.

Some Serco officers with a background in welfare, rather than security, have
recently been employed to work with people in detention at Melbourne ITA and
Sydney IRH. The introduction of this new welfare-oriented approach to working
with detainees was raised as a positive development by staff across agencies
working in these facilities. The Commission witnessed positive interactions
between welfare-orientated Serco staff and some of the most vulnerable people
being held in immigration detention. The Commission welcomes the introduction of
this approach and encourages its expansion.

The Commission was pleased to learn that the former policy of case management
disengagement in client protest situations, including acts of self-harm such as
voluntary starvation, has been nuanced to afford local operations managers a
degree of discretion in deciding whether to intervene. On previous detention
visits the Commission observed the negative effects of the policy of
disengagement, including increased risks to staff safety and potential
aggravation of self-harm. The Commission heard from local operations and case
management staff that their early intervention in self-harm and other protest
actions will often allow them to de-escalate situations by attempting to resolve
concerns and convey their interest in securing client wellbeing within the scope
of established parameters.

(d) Redevelopment,
capital works and infrastructure

Left: kitchen, Banksia unit, Villawood Immigration Detention Centre; right: old accommodation quarters, Melbroune Immigration Transit Accomodation.
Left: kitchen, Banksia unit, Villawood Immigration Detention Centre; right: old accommodation quarters, Melbroune Immigration Transit Accomodation.

In its 2011 report on immigration detention at Villawood, the Commission
recommended that the redevelopment of Villawood IDC should be undertaken as soon
as possible. The Commission also recommended that:

  • the redevelopment include the demolition of Blaxland, the most high-security
    compound at Villawood IDC
  • DIAC ensure that people are detained in the least restrictive form of
    detention possible at the facility
  • the infrastructure concerns raised by the Commission in its 2008
    Immigration detention report
    be addressed in the redevelopment
    process.[111]

The
Commission welcomed various aspects of both completed and planned works at
Villawood observed during its most recent visit. These include:

  • The significantly improved physical environment of the Banksia unit,
    including incorporation of a women-specific observation area and self-catering
    facilities.
  • The planned use of far less evident security features in the redevelopment;
    and assurances that all detainees will be provided lockable personal storage
    space and access to kitchenettes.
  • Advice that consideration is being given to minimising or ceasing use of the
    loudspeaker system for personal paging in the new development, with reliance
    instead upon personal notifications by officers to be stationed in each
    accommodation area.

The Commission was concerned to learn that it is
still proposed to use Blaxland in its current form until the final stage of the
redevelopment. There are clearly considerable logistical and other challenges
associated with the implementation of a major, multi-year redevelopment of a
site which remains in constant use. Nevertheless, it remains the
Commission’s view that, given the harshness of the physical environment at
Blaxland, people held in that compound should be the first to be moved to
redeveloped spaces at Villawood, or be transferred to other facilities if that
is not feasible and if they are not eligible for community placement.

With respect to infrastructure, the Commission welcomes the new development
at Melbourne ITA, which offers a far more benign environment than exists in many
other immigration detention facilities. Commission staff were struck, however,
by the notable distinction between the new and old sections of Melbourne ITA. In
particular, the main accommodation quarters, which house highly vulnerable
long-term detainees, have a bleak and dilapidated appearance which is starkly at
odds with the new visitor, recreation and administrative areas. The Commission
encourages consideration of measures that could be taken to upgrade the main
accommodation quarters at Melbourne ITA.

At Sydney IRH, staff spoke highly of the recently constructed visits and
recreation area and hoped that it might generate a sense of community within the
facility. However, the people in detention with whom the Commission spoke were
distressed by the change of policy to visiting arrangements which accompanied
its opening. Previously, people were able to receive visitors in the outdoor
garage attached to their residence. For most this had already felt like a
difficult arrangement, as they wished to be able to host family and friends
within their residence. Under the new arrangements, visitors must be received in
the visits area, a more institutional, less personalised space which affords no
privacy. Several detainees at Sydney IRH told Commission staff that they felt
affronted by the change of policy, which appeared to them to be punitive and
culturally insensitive.

Left: construction works, Villawood Immigration Detention Centre; right: new visits area, Melbourne Immigration Transit Accomodation.
Left: construction works, Villawood Immigration Detention Centre; right: new visits area, Melbourne Immigration Transit Accomodation.

Despite the range of positive developments which have been made or are
proposed in relation to health care service provision in detention, the current
clinical spaces at Melbourne ITA, Maribyrnong IDC and Villawood IDC appear
entirely inadequate. At Villawood IDC, IHMS staff have been working out of
extremely constrained quarters since the destruction of their former clinic
during last year’s riots. Staff at this site did, however, appear
satisfied that the clinics which are close to completion at both Villawood IDC
and Sydney IRH will provide functional settings for their work. The Commission
heard numerous concerns about the clinical facilities at Melbourne ITA and
Maribyrnong IDC, including that there are serious spatial constraints, in terms
of both therapeutic and administrative areas; that clinical and interview spaces
are used in multi-purpose capacities to which they are not suited; and that
there is a lack of effective soundproofing. Despite these concerns, it appears
that provisions have not been made for the expansion and upgrading of clinical
facilities in the capital works program at Melbourne ITA and Maribyrnong IDC.

(e) Restrictive
places of detention

Left: downstairs, Murray unit – restrictive place of detention used for behavioural management; right: enclosed courtyard, Maygar annexe, Melbourne Immigration Transit Accomodation.
Left: downstairs, Murray unit – restrictive place of detention used for behavioural management; right: enclosed courtyard, Maygar annexe, Melbourne Immigration Transit Accomodation.

In its 2011 Villawood report, the Commission recommended that DIAC develop a
written policy setting out the decision-making process, criteria and rationale
for placing a person in the Blaxland annexe, the most restrictive part of the
highest security compound at Villawood IDC. The Commission also recommended that
the annexe not be used for managing people who have been involved in violent or
aggressive behaviour at the same time as it is being used to monitor people who
have been placed on observation because they are at risk of suicide or
self-harm.[112]

In response to this recommendation, DIAC advised the Commission that its then
draft ‘Safe use of more restrictive detention’ policy would be
reviewed by the Detention Health Advisory Group Mental Health Sub-Group, and
would assist in guiding decisions in relation to the placement of people in
restrictive places of detention across the immigration detention network,
including the Blaxland
annexe.[113]

Disappointingly, it appears that a written policy on the use of Blaxland
annexe has not been developed. During the Commission’s most recent visit,
staff at Villawood advised that they had not recent co-located in the annexe
people who have been involved in aggressive behaviour with people who are deemed
to be at risk of suicide or self-harm. However, this practice does not appear to
have been ruled out.

Further, the Commission has not been able to obtain a copy of the ‘Safe
use of more restrictive detention’ policy, in draft or final form, nor has
the Commission been able to establish whether it has ever been used. It is not
clear whether any standard written guidance exists for the use of annexes and
observation rooms across the network other than the three for which First
Assistant Secretary level approval is required on a daily basis – that is,
the Murray Unit in Villawood IDC, Zone C in Maribrynong IDC and the Support Unit
in Christmas Island IDC.

(f) Mobile
phones

External telephones, Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.
External telephones, Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.

In previous reports of visits to immigration detention sites, the Commission
has raised concerns about the policy which prohibits people who have arrived by
boat seeking asylum from having mobile telephones in detention
facilities.[114] This policy does
not apply to other groups of people in detention.

DIAC’s mobile phone policy can restrict access to communication between
people in detention and their family members and support networks; limit the
extent to which asylum seekers can hold private telephone conversations with
legal representatives or migration agents; and cause tensions between different
groups in detention. It also unnecessarily adds to the difficulties associated
with people in the community attempting to contact asylum seekers in detention.
Further, it can place additional pressure on sometimes inadequate communications
infrastructure in detention, by increasing demand for landline telephones.

During the Commission’s most recent visits, the policy of permitting
access to mobile phones only to those people in detention who did not arrive by
boat remained a source of distress and consternation. Across facilities, people
who were denied mobile phones told the Commission that the policy felt punitive.
Further, staff and management raised serious concerns about the operational
challenges which they face in implementing a two-track approach.

It remains the Commission’s view that there has not been a reasonable
justification provided for this policy and it should be reconsidered.

^Top


[105] See
note 4.
[106] See United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
(1955), at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/treatmentprisoners.htm (viewed 10 July 2012); United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
(1988), at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/bodyprinciples.htm (viewed 10 July 2012); United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles
Deprived of their Liberty
(1990), at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/res45_113.htm (viewed 10 July 2012); United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR
Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the
Detention of Asylum Seekers
(1999), at www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/detentionguidelines.pdf (viewed 7 July 2012).
[107]2011 Immigration detention at Villawood, note 24; Department of
Immigration and Citizenship, Response to the Australian Human Rights
Commission Statement on Immigration Detention in Villawood
(2011), at http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2011_villawood_response.html (viewed 10 July 2012).
[108]2011 Immigration detention at Villawood, note 24,Recommendation
10.
[109]2011 Immigration
detention at Villawood
, note 24, Recommendation
11.
[110] See, for example, 2010 Immigration detention on Christmas Island, note 63, section 18; 2011 Immigration detention at Curtin, note 24, section 9.6.
[111]2011 Immigration
detention at Villawood
, note 24, Recommendation 7. See also Australian Human
Rights Commission, Submission to the Parliamentary Committee on Public Works
on the proposed redevelopment of the Villawood Immigration Detention
Facility
(2008), at http://www.humanrights.gov.au/legal/submissions/2009/20090918_villawood_immigration.html (viewed 10 July 2012).
[112]2011 Immigration detention at Villawood, note 24, Recommendation
8.
[113] See Response to the
Australian Human Rights Commission Statement on Immigration Detention in
Villawood
, note 107, p
6.
[114] See 2010
Immigration detention in Darwin
, note 73, section 10; 2011 Immigration
detention at Villawood
, note 24, section 15; 2011 Immigration detention
at Curtin
, note 24, section 15.