Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

Human Rights navigation


Click here to return to the Submission Index

Submission to National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from

Diversity Directions Inc.

We must face up to our humanitarian responsibilities to accept refugee children and their families. We must take them out of the immigration detention centres and welcome them into the community where they can play, learn and grow. At least then when our children look back on this time and ask us what we did to stand up for refugee kids, we can say we gave them their childhood." (Calvert, 2001).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Diversity Directions Inc Management Team:

INTRODUCTION

About Diversity Directions Inc
 Diversity Directions is the only specialised organisation in South Australia that advocates and works with children (0-13 years), families and communities of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds to enhance their participation and equality of access in childcare services. Diversity Directions is an incorporated not for profit, statewide community-based organisation established in 1986. The organisation's vision is summarised as Leadership in the provision of culturally relevant child care and community services.

Experience and expertise relevant for this HREOC submission
 Diversity Directions has strong links to South Australian, interstate and national early childhood education and childcare associations, particularly those working with children and families of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. In its advocacy role, Diversity Directions has sent submissions to government/non-government agencies and has been consulted on research projects and policy development. These include Best Practice Principles for Multicultural Child Care, the Managing Diversity Project (Family Day Care); the JET DFaCS Peak Body Children's Issues and the Commonwealth Child Care Advisory Council Child Care Beyond 2000.

Diversity Directions is proud of its achievements in promoting human rights. This includes resources that have been translated into various languages, such as its Living in Harmony Project video and booklet: Let's Play Fair: a Guide to Helping Young Children Tackle Prejudice and a pamphlet for parents Helping Young Children Tackle Prejudice. In 2001, Diversity Directions achieved the national 'Community Learning Leader' Award from Adult Learning Australia.

Since 2001, Diversity Directions has been working with various advocacy and lobbying groups to support the release of children detainees aged from birth to 18 years held in immigration detention centres in Australia, and particularly Woomera in South Australia. Some of these groups include the South Australian Coalition for Refugee Children, of which Diversity Directions is an inaugural member, World Organisation for Early Childhood Education -OMEP (Australia) and Red Cross (SA) through its Temporary Protection Visa Project.

Diversity Directions has primary source contact with two asylum seeker families with young children recently released from Woomera through its bilingual Cultural Support Workers (CSWs). These CSWs assist with the settling in of these children into their respective childcare services and providing information and reassurance to the parents. An interview with one family is included in this submission

Diversity Directions has secondary source contact and information about child asylum seekers and/or their parent(s), through

GENERAL POSITION STATEMENT BY DIVERSITY DIRECTIONS
 Diversity Directions affirms that children are entitled to the provision of the necessities of a decent life; protection from all forms of violence and exploitation, neglect and cruel or inhumane treatment; and participation in the decisions that affect them and in the life of their community (The three main categories contained in United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child - UNCROC).

Diversity Directions believes that:

FOCUS OF THIS SUBMISSION
 The following HREOC Terms of Reference provide the framework for this submission:

CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The number of children in immigration detention in Australia
 Between 1989 and June 1997, 763 children and 75 babies were born in immigration detention centres and spent up to four years in immigration detention centres.

As at 7 September 2001 in Australia, there were 751 children in immigration detention of whom 640 were accompanied and 111 were unaccompanied. [4]

On 7 September 2001, in the South Australian Woomera Immigration Detention Centre, there were 331 children of whom 58 were unaccompanied. 178 of these children were male children (54 unaccompanied) and 153 were female children
(4 unaccompanied). [5]

The HREOC background papers state that in Australia in November 2001, there were 582 children in detention, 53 of them unaccompanied.

In 2000/2001, 1103 children were held in immigration detention centres in Australia of a total number of 8401 detainees. [6]

As at 1 February 2002, in Woomera Immigration Detention Centre, there were 13 unaccompanied minors in detention and 9 unaccompanied minors placed into alternative care of the South Australian Department of Human Services provided through Family and Youth Services. Of these children, there is one unaccompanied minor issued with a bridging visa placed in foster care in the community. There were about 90 unaccompanied children between 8 years and 18 years released into the community from Woomera Immigration Detention Centre during 2001, most of them being boys and predominantly Afghani. Of these children, 15 live in one house with adult supervision through Anglicare. Children up to 16 years are in foster care with 16 to 18 year olds in independent living in rental accommodation with rent paid from their Centrelink allowance of about $130 per week. [7]

As at 2 February 2002, DIMIA reports that in Australia, there are 141 female children in detention .[8]

Inquiries by the National Ethnic Disability Alliance with the DIMIA indicate that approximately 4 per cent of children in detention have a disability. Types of disabilities represented include: cerebral palsy, hearing impairment, vision impairment, acute dwarfism, trauma, Perthes disease, cardiac, asthmatic and genetic disabilities .[9]

Processing times
 From DIMIA's Annual Report (2000-2001) [10] , a significant reduction in processing times was achieved, without compromising the visa processes, through streamlining.

At the 30 June 2000, there were 2,075 unauthorised boat arrivals in detention awaiting decisions from the department on protection visa applications with the average application taking 106 days.

By 30 June 2001, there were 1,460 unauthorised boat arrivals in detention waiting a decision and the average age of their applications was 45 days.

A recent study published in the Medical Journal of Australia by Iraqi medical practitioner, Aamer Sultan, himself a detainee, found that the average detention period at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre was six months. For 33 long-term detainees studied by Sultan, the average detention period was 2.1 years. [11]

REFUGEE RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
 Child-specific forms of human rights violations must be taken into consideration when determining refugee status. Children may have the same grounds for being recognised as refugees as adults. They might also have experienced violations of child rights, which fall within the scope of the Refugee Convention. These include forced recruitment into armies, female genital mutilation, forced labour, forced prostitution and other sexual exploitation, and forced marriage. A proper assessment
should be conducted for refugee status in cases where there are reasons to believe that such violations have taken place. (Silove, Stel & Mollica, 2001)

The United Kingdom's Human Rights Act model should be examined and adapted to the Australian version of Common Law and constitutional requirements. The United Kingdom has, as Australia has not, embraced a human rights culture. Britain enacted the Human Rights Act in 1998. For the first time in a Common Law country, public authorities are required to comply with international human rights obligations as a matter of law.

There is no remedy for a breach of the UNCRC rights within Australia. It has not been implemented through a federal statute -as for example; the Race Discrimination Act 1975 implemented the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racism. We have no bill of rights or Human Rights Act. Nevertheless, the Common Law can be interpreted having regard to our international human rights obligations.
(Rayner, 2001, p.4).

It is important that children seeking asylum have their own qualified legal representation, especially unaccompanied children, and that this representation is skilled in the use of interpreters, is culturally aware and assists the child to participate in the decision-making process.
Kate Halvorsen, Senior Policy Adviser, UNHCR Separated Children in Europe Program, observed that although most countries recognise the need for separated children to receive legal advice on asylum applications, legal representatives are not routinely appointed. In some states they are only appointed at the appeals stage:

The quality of legal representation is a central concern. Sometimes lawyers are appointed who have no prior experience in representing a separated child's case. They may not know how to communicate with a child, how to elicit relevant information or even the specific guidelines and rights of children in asylum procedures. More special training and awareness - raising needs to be done among lawyers who represent separated children. (Halvorsen, p.3)

CULTURE AND IDENTITY

Right to identity

Biculturalism

Children in immigration detention can undergo a negative effect when bicultural conflict occurs, making it difficult for children who do not see themselves as belonging to either culture (Canino et al in Barnett, 2001).

Biculturalism is a complex matter and can have a negative or positive effect on the development of young children depending on how they are perceived and treated by significant others around them. The self is constructed and deconstructed according to this reality. This can lead to culture shock when children are confronted by others
different from themselves, as well as confronting themselves. This can be very stressful for the child and even more so for children in detention.

Child immigration detainees are bicultural in that they are individuals learning to function in two distinct sociocultural environments. These two environments are that of their ethnic origin (their primary culture) and that of the Australian immigration detention centre and, on release, that of the dominant mainstream culture of Australian society.

Keeping children in a negative isolated environment is detrimental to the developmental of healthy biculturalism.

Having access to the wider cultural-religious community, and family support mechanisms, counteract any culture shock or stress when outside in the dominant mainstream culture.

Children are generally aware of ethnic and cultural differences between three and four years of age. Their ethnic reference group orientation begins to emerge between four and eight years of age. Therefore, children in detention, who do not receive much cultural input from their parents, from other adults and peer-groups, and are not encouraged to practise their culture, may develop a very confused idea of who they are - their self-identity.

Ebbeck and Dyer conclude that

Children of ethnic minority groups living in two cultures, have the same needs
of most children, however, they have, in addition 'special needs' which must
be catered for…
(Ebbeck & Dyer,1989)

Loss of identity

Another issue that may also contribute to a child's loss of identity is loss of nationality rights. Children born to asylum-seekers or Temporary Protection Visa Holders in Australia do not have the right to be registered after birth and so do not gain Australian nationality.

In detention, confusion can be perpetuated with incidences such as detention authorities referring to children (and adults) by an identity number, and detainees' names being Anglicised.

Barbara Rogalla, a registered nurse who worked at the Woomera Immigration detention centre in 2000, reported "children wear identity tags with a number and are addressed by that number." (Australian Children's Right News, 2001, p.1)

Preservation of culture, religion and language

As members of minority groups in detention, children should be able to practise and preserve those cultural rituals and routines that are as close as possible to the cultural norms that their families engaged in before entering detention.

Observers who have visited Woomera Immigration Detention Centre note that there is hardly any attempt in the limited daily program of activities for children and families to include their various cultural aspects. It is left to the families to provide support with scarce resources and lack of motivation through depression.

Detention, by its institutional nature must severely reduce the opportunities for families to practise their culture and religion because they simply do not have access to like communities, places of worship, rituals and activities of cultural significance. (Powrie, 2002, p.7).

Religion

Sabian Mundaian child detainees reported ongoing discrimination At Woomera Immigration Detention Centre from non Sabian children. This was a significant and ongoing issue for all children of this faith. In one case, the colocation of Sabians and Muslims in one hut was identified as causing distress. The continued exposure of
children to the religious tensions that prompted their families to flee their home countries has significant impact on these children.
(Hassan, 2002, p.2).

Spiritual support and pastoral care is available at the request of detainees and provided voluntarily by a Christian priest and nun. An area is set aside as a mosque for those of the Muslim faith. (Redman, 2002).

Language

Language is an important part of child development. As Clarke (1992, pp.5-6) notes

Language does not develop in a vacuum, but in a variety of social contexts… Children acquire language in meaningful interactions with others…
Sources of language for children will vary depending on cultural and social factors… Acceptance of their culture and language affects the ability of children to develop positive feelings about their language and family background.

Child asylum seekers, like other bi/multilingual speakers, need to be able to develop and practise their language(s) to develop fluency and understanding, especially to communicate their needs and express their identity.

Smolicz confirms language has a special role as an identity formation:

The special role of language not only as a bridge which furthers communication with others, but also as an identity-maker, and as a core value which symbolises a person's belonging to one particular community.

During the time that detainee children are in immigration detention centres, there may be pressure to conform to the centre's culture and to acquire English as a second language before they are developmentally ready. This pressure may continue on release into the community as TPVs, in the new dominant culture outside the centres.

During an inspection of Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre, it was noted that "...children were being acculturated into the Australian way of life and had very little awareness of their own culture and language..."
(HREOC, 1998, in Pittaway et al, 2001, p.178).

Trish Highfield, a Mothercraft Nurse and child care worker, reported "Loudspeakers are constant in the life of children in Australia's immigration detention centres. Monotonous, harsh, reverberating words in a language that most do not understand." (Highfield in Australian Children's Right News, 2001, p.10).

Communication through expression of cultural values through traditional arts, crafts, music, oral story-telling and other forms of expression are important for children and their families to maintain social cohesion and self-esteem. This contributes to a healthy, holistic view of self and one's place in the world.

It would appear that child detainees at Woomera Immigration Detention centre are not given opportunities to express themselves through their culture within the limited activities program there.

Cultural aspects of food and nutrition
 Observers from the SA Coalition for Refugee Children who have visited Woomera Immigration Detention Centre have reported the following:

At Woomera Immigration Detention Centre, the guards allow requests for some types of food that would be part of detainees' cultural diet but this is regarded as a privilege rather than a normal occurrence.

Child detainees' food is prepared by strangers, not by parents, queued for and eaten on schedule or not eaten at all. Meals are provided by detainees with cooking experience and served in the hall en masse. No refrigeration is available in the living quarters so no food can be kept.

Special needs - culture and language instruction
 A child's culture is passed primarily through the family with language considered to be a powerful way of conveying culture. (Swiniarski, 1999)

It is through the language(s) children speak that they form their sense of identity and community and belonging.

Teresa Hutchins (1996) notes that social referencing refers to the way in which young children make judgements about their own safety by watching the interaction between strangers and their parents. If the stranger and the parents are warm and friendly to each other, the child feels reassured and is more likely to regard the stranger as a friend. If the child senses some uneasiness or even fear or antagonism between the parents and the stranger, the child is likely to feel very anxious and insecure….This process, however, is often much more difficult when the children, parents, caregivers. ..do not share a common language and where the children and families concerned have already experienced traumatic separations."

Children in detention are not going to be reassured when relationships between guards and their parents are that of captor and prisoner and there are language difficulties.

Cultural understanding of family
 The concept of the nuclear family (mother, father, children) as the significant family unit is a western construct that excludes the notion of the extended family. Many of these relationships are culturally prescribed and in many cultures 'dependency' does not stop when a child reaches 18 years of age. Refugees that have lost all family members may make new links with significant others who are of special importance to that refugee.

However, for family reunion, Australia's humanitarian program defines family as spouse and dependent children (under 18), which does not take into account a refugee's deep psychological need for family reunification. (Refugee Council of Australia. July 2001).

Cultural aspects pertaining to gender
 An observer from the South Australian Coalition for Refugee Children, who has visited Woomera Immigration Detention Centre, reported that women detainees are having to conform to behaviours that are perhaps not practised in the home country, for example, wearing of the burkar (the long enveloping garment worn by Muslim women); the close confinement of both genders and the lack of understanding by guards of the subtleties of cultural mores. Hassan (2002, p.3) observed "Female adolescents from the Sabian Mundaian religion report feeling afraid of sexual assault."

A major concern identified in the literature review of the research paper The Experience of Refugee Children in Detention (Pittaway et al, 2001), is the necessity for individuals to exist in a 'confined community' with a large mix of sexes, cultures and ages combined with high tension and stress level.

HEALTH INCLUDING MENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Developmental harm
 For a child to grow and develop normally, there are certain factors that are recognised as critical for the healthy emotional and social development of children.

The accumulative effects of institutional living in detention undermines detainee parents' capacity to nurture their infants and young children, disrupts the development of secure attachment relationships and compromises the parents' capacity to care for their children. This can also lead to long-term dysfunctional behaviour for children in their later years.

Dr Annie Sparrow, a Perth paediatrician who worked at Woomera this year, said she had examined a child born in detention. "I met him in August and he was six months old," she said. When I went back in January, he as still there with his family and he was barely able to crawl. He was showing all the signs of a year's worth of environmental deprivation. It is hard to convey the despair I felt when I saw this infant that had not had the proper stimulation...it was inhumane.
 (Debelle & Skelton, 2002).

An accumulation of risk factors that threaten a child can diminish the child's capacity to cope and lead to developmental harm. Child asylum seekers already have experienced trauma through fleeing to Australia and then experience further trauma during detention.

Resilient children are competent children... Such children have, in one way or another, experienced being treated with respect. That is how Australia should treat the children in our immigration detention centres... The borders we need to protect are around civil society, not our island continent. (Rayner, 2001, p.10).

The Australian Early Childhood Association's Working Position on Resiliency (2001) posits that studies on resiliency have looked at factors which seem to separate out the children who do well from the others from those who, with the same risk factors, have but less positive outcomes.

Both resilience and risk are compounded as the number of contributing factors increases.

Table 1 Factors supporting the development of resilience in young children

The Australian Early Childhood Association's Working Position on Resiliency (2001)

The following factors have been found to support the development of resilience in young children and should be encouraged and supported by early childhood educators.

It would be very difficult to achieve these factors for rehabilitation while children and their families were still in the immigration detention centres, particularly if the detention period is lengthy.

There may be more chance of rehabilitation if the children are placed in a supportive and culturally appropriate environment with their families (or significant others if the children are unaccompanied minors) out in the community.

The risk increases when several adverse factors occur together.

Four or more of these predictors at age two, lead to the most serious learning and behaviour problems at age eighteen.

Table 2 Risk factors -key predictors of poor outcomes for children

The Australian Early Childhood Association's Working Position on Resiliency (2001)

Risk factors
 Key Predictors of Poor Outcomes for Children
 The overwhelming amount of evidence supports the following factors as generally putting children at risk of not being able to adapt to the demands of living as they grow through childhood into young adulthood.

Caregiving environment:

Biological

Behavioural

Cumulative stressful life events

For children detained in immigration detention centres, there would appear to be a high risk factor and therefore a negative impact on their future development.

THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH IMMIGRANT CHILDREN ARE DETAINED

In October 1999, a legislative amendment was proclaimed by the Australian Government to prevent individuals from bringing their families to Australia after they are granted refugee status. There are now more children in detention centres.

"As a direct consequence, more men now arrive with their families by boat, so that children arrive in ever increasing numbers".
(The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Joint Standing Committee on Immigration September 2000, p.86)

In their findings from a research project using anecdotal evidence from people working in direct contact with unaccompanied children and children of families in detention in Australia, Maksimovic & Pittaway (2001) found that:

There was widespread concern in the community that children are being detained in an environment that is counterproductive to their well-being. The facilities, resources, inadequate training of Australian Correctional Management (ACM) staff and the issue of incarceration itself were re-emerging themes throughout the research. However, a major concern identified throughout the literature review and with several of the key service providers is the ability for individuals to exist in a confined 'community' where there is a large mix of cultures, ages and sexes combined with the unrelieved atmosphere of tension and high levels of stress...

The conditions which children are forced to live during their detainment would appear to be detrimental to their development.
(Maksimovic & Pittaway, 2001, p.27)

The Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman' report into immigration detention centres referred to conditions in some of these centres as like those in our prisons and recommended that alternative accommodation be found for women and children. (Wheatley, 2001)

Isolation of some immigration detention centres

Another concern is remoteness of immigration detention centres that are isolated from urban areas. This is seen to be a barrier to meeting children's basic needs of health care, nutrition, education, nurturing environment, cultural development (religious, language, customs, rituals).

Jana Mason (2002) notes that:

Some of the organizations with official access to the detention centres told USCR that in practice their access was quite limited, particularly to the remote centres, given the high travel costs. One NGO with a major focus on detention said that its staff had never been to Woomera or Curtin because 'it's just too expensive.' In addition, they said, the procedures and logistics mean that rarely, if ever, could an unannounced visit occur.
(Mason, 2002, p.24)

Comparison with Kosovar refugee experience

There is a striking difference between the current Woomera facilities and services and those provided to the Kosovar refugee children and families based at army facilities at Greenacres, South Australia.

Australia has twice provided temporary safe haven to the Kosovars (about 4,000 admitted between May and June 1999) and East Timorese (about 1800 in September 1999) under a special category of visa consisting of two subclasses: Kosovar Safe Haven and Humanitarian Stay. This category was to give safe haven to certain people displaced from their homelands by violence. Under this visa category, applicants signed a declaration that they agreed to temporary safe haven for a limited period and would leave when requested. This was a departure from previous asylum and temporary protection policies.

One of Diversity Directions' Cultural Support Workers was employed to support the Kosovar children at Greenacres. The Kosovars had a playgroup, child care for children whose parents were learning English, a bilingual school program for primary and secondary school children, early childhood play centre for children 0-5 years and their families, trauma support and individual counselling and regular debriefing sessions. The Kosovars received coordinated and responsive services whilst in Australia unlike the detainees at Woomera. There was close coordination and contact between the Kosovars and the community.

As Priscilla Clarke notes (1999): "In order to support the children and families from Kosovar, it was essential to provide a safe and nurturing early childhood environment and for the staff employed to be sensitive, gentle and non-judgemental. Such support will be critical in the process of rebuilding each child's sense of self-esteem and trust."

Conditions at Woomera Immigration Detention Centre

Woomera Immigration Detention Centre, a former army barracks, had its first intake of detainees in December 1999 with over 20 babies born there and at least one child has spent the entire 8 months of its life in detention.

The Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman found that, up to February 2001, of the children still in detention at Woomera Immigration Detention Centre the oldest had been there for 19 months (Wheatley, 2001, p.24 The Advertiser).

On the 16 January 2002, 14 unaccompanied minors were removed from Woomera Immigration Detention Centre and placed in alternative care with foster families in Adelaide because the South Australian Department of Human Services declared they were 'at risk'.

In January 2002, 11 unaccompanied minors at Woomera Immigration Detention Centre threatened suicide.

Refugee advocates are concerned over reports that children are being subjected to sexual abuse in detention.

Independent Council for Refugee Advocacy president Marion Le, said "There had been many instance of sexual abuse against adults and children [In detention centres]...These places really aren't for children."
(West Australian, 21/6/00, page 2).

Child detainees are at the risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse by being placed in detention centres designed for adults with the risk being increased for unaccompanied minors.
(Refugee Council of Australia, 2001)

The Memorandum of Understanding between DIMIA and SA Department of Human Services, signed in December 2001, sets out the powers for state welfare officers to investigate risks to young detainees and consider recommending their release.

Other states are expected to finalise similar agreements.

Interview with a Diversity Directions client asylum-seeker family

In April 2002, a Cultural Support Worker from Diversity Directions interviewed a client - an asylum seeker parent with a young child in child care. The Cultural Support Worker has been supporting the child and the family in the child care service. The asylum seeker parent and child were in Woomera Immigration Detention Centre.
Following is a transcript of the interview as told to the Cultural Support Worker:

For how long were the children/parent(s) in the detention camp?

It varies from family to family and nationality to nationality. My family and I stayed there for six months. There are some families who have been there for 2 years and still have to wait. They don't know when they become released if ever.

How old were the children when they were first in detention camp?

My child was two years old when we went to the camp, but there are some children who were born in the camp. In short there are children from newborn baby up to age of 15.

What is the language and religion of your family?

My family and I speak Farsi (Persian). There are other languages such as Arabic, Kurdish, Turkish, Dari, Pashtoo. I am Moslim but there are Christians and Madai (John Baptist followers) as well.

Describe how the children/family were able to practice their religion they were in the detention camp? Were there any barriers?

It was not band [banned] to practice the religion but there were no facilities. For example, if you are a Moslem and need a place to do your daily prayer it was a special place and our room was too small.

Did you have religious representative/s to help the children practise their religion?

There were no religious representatives. In one occasion, ACM invited a Moslem religious leader (Mulla) to the camp and it was when detainees had hunger strike, and they set the building alight as a sign of protests. They invited him to make detainees calm down, he made promise on behalf of ACM and also give them free telephone card. He also told detainees if they don't stop, then ACM won't give them early breakfast (Sahari) for Ramedan, when Moslems are fasting.

Were the children able to have religious instruction from their parent/s?

Families themselves are free if they want to teach their children.

Were there any daily programs in place to ensure that their language, religion, arts and traditions of children's culture were met?

It was no such program to cover children's religion, language, art etc needs.

Were other ethnic communities outside able to help them?

There was no help from outside, because of security reason no was allowed to come to the camp.

Transcript continued:

Were the children addressed by their correct names while in detention by guards and by others?

Every one had a number and everyone was called by that number and it includes children.

How different was it in the detention camp for the children compared to being in their own home? (play, playthings, discipline, routine, language, customs, health, clothing, stories, drawing pictures )?

It was totally different. It was another world. It was no freedom. In one sentence I can say it is like when you compare your home with prison. When you compare your freedom and not behind bars with when you are in prison and behind bars. Health: there was no dentist at all. Only one or two doctor for the whole camp. You can imagine when you are sick and need a doctor. Children has to wait too. They take them to the hospital if there is a emergency case or if there is a dangerous illness which can threatened children's life.

What would the parent/s liked to see improved in the detention camp for:
(a) children (b) parent/s to help their children

(a) Play equipments are very limited, old and broken. It was only a small room where children can play twice a week and only one hour every time. It is a big number of children and not enough equipments. Children were not allowed to take toys to their room to keep them busy the rest of the week. It was some story books, but they are in English, which most families are unable to read them. There is no facilities for drawing/painting. It was a long waiting list. Every time we need a cloths we had to make for requests and wait long. Cloths are all second hand and mostly in a bad condition.
(b) Freedom, no gates, no bars, no rasier wire

Anything else that the parent/s would like to comment on concerning their children and families during their stay in the detention camp?

Keeping children in the camp will affect children physically, emotionally, psychologically. I believe this can affect children's personility and has a long lasting effection when they are grown ups. These memories of camp and being behind bars will come back to them and hunt [haunt] them over and over. This is unhealthy for them and for the society they live in.

Julie Redman, child rights lawyer and member of the South Australian Coalition for Refugee Children visited Woomera Immigration Detention Centre in December 2001 and reported:

Child detainees are growing up among depressive adults and guards. They have done nothing wrong but they have fewer rights than the young offenders in our country. They are denied adequate schooling, stimulation and play equipment.... Children in detention centres are deliberately deprived of nearly all sensory stimulation. They see no animals, flowers, plants, interesting food or even the ability to accumulate their own toys, books and games. There is currently no visiting program for non-family members apart from the limited number of professional people who have permission to offer some services to the centre.

Children wandered aimlessly behind the huge compound fences with not one ball or play thing evident. I saw no children laughing or playing freely as I stood in the administration area observing the children like I was observing animals in the zoo. The contrast between the ways we now provide for the animals in our own zoo in Adelaide is far superior to the facilities provided to these families. There was not a blade of grass in sight, the children aimlessly wandered through the dust moving slowly between family members and groups of children.

I was further struck by the contrast of the faces I had seen on some of the children in refugee centres throughout the world who despite the conditions were smiling and playing freely. The only time I saw children smiling was when they came with their mothers to see us and had a degree of freedom without the ever watchful eye of the ACM guards. There was a total lack of stimulation evident in the compound that I observed from a distance. .. The 37 unaccompanied children live in 3 of these buildings with each cabin having 15 beds. Family groups share with other family groups, able to keep only the minimum of personal goods...

[Through an interpreter] One 11 year old Afghani boy told me he was an orphan and had travelled to Australia from Afghanistan via Indonesia. His extended family had raised the money to send him to a safe place...He did not know what was to become of him. He believed he'd been in the detention centre for six months. He could not tell me who the migration agent was that was assisting the processing of his application for refugee status. He told me he spent most of his day sleeping. When asked what, if anything, would make life better he said that he would like a soccer ball. He told me that they do play soccer but thy have to wait for the guards to go and play with them. They have a gaming room that does have access to games and a ping pong table. He said that he didn't feel motivated to lay games and did not really know what t do with the art materials... he told me that since the Taliban came 5 years ago he had not been to school but had studied the Koran.

Barbara Rogalla, registered nurse, who worked at Woomera Immigration Detention Centre for three months, reported at that Centre:

Trish Highfield, a Mothercraft Nurse and experienced child care worker, who worked at Woomera Immigration Detention Centre, observed:

From the Law Society of Australia's Children, asylum and detention- is this the Australian Way? Workshop Summary 30/6/2001, workshop participants were told of these conditions at Woomera Immigration Detention Centre:

The story of one woman with three children in detention in Woomera was recounted. She alleges that her children are too cold to sleep at night and scream with cold. She is not allowed to contact her husband in Australia by telephone and has been presented in handcuffs for a meeting with lawyers.

Tirana Hassan reports on visits to Woomera Immigration Detention Centre by a legal team in January and February 2002 that focused on children's issues. A number of families with children were interviewed and a detailed evaluation of daily life indicated common concerns. Most concerns have been raised repeatedly in the past and reflect ongoing issues with conditions at the camp:

Education: Pre adolescent
 Children between 5 and 11 are now able to go to school in Woomera Township for three hours per day four days per week. As at 11 February 2002 91 children in this age group were attending school. Tuition focuses on English as a Second Language, but there is also some mathematics, Australian studies, and organised play both indoors and outdoors. Three or four age specific classes are run each half day. There are also fortnightly visits to the swimming pool (on Friday's) and on alternate fortnights, another activity is arranged. Schooling is carried out by qualified teachers, with the assistance of detainee teachers, who receive some training.

Families interviewed were very positive about this initiative. It needs to be emphasised that this initiative only started in January 2002. Prior to that date schooling was far more limited and did not involve children going off site.

Education: Adolescent
 Teenagers interviewed by the legal team uniformly reported high levels of boredom, depression, and lack of motivation. No formal schooling is available for teenagers, however they may access 2 ½ hours of ESL tuition per day, four days per week, which includes one hour computer time. There are currently 31 male and 7 female adolescents in the camp, with 17 computers available for their use for one hour per day. Attendance is uniformly low. This is attributed to depression and lack of motivation by ACM program organizers. Adolescents are also able to access fortnightly visits to the pool in Woomera, although the females do not accompany males and will instead participate in activities arranged for the housing project. Adolescents may also access programming available for adults (ESL and computer access). Other activities for teenagers involve gardening, mural painting.

An issue is that all adolescents interviewed expressed extreme distress at not being able to access education and activities. They complained of depression and lack of motivation. Involvement in adult activities was rare. Adolescents expressed the feeling that "there was nothing to do" and that this was a significant issue for them. Some of them reported that when they first came here they were keen to be involved but as time passed and / or they were rejected, they became too depressed to participate.

Education: Pre School
 There is a kindy in Main Compound open for free play between 10 - 12, and 2 - 5, with a resident (detainee) schoolteacher in charge. In November there is free access to for 1-½ hours to toys, and in India block, kinder gym is being introduced. The latter two are recent initiatives.

Education Summary
 Numbers in the centre have decreased significantly, and there have been improvements in the educational opportunities for children under 12. The outside schooling is a positive step. The quality and duration of that education will need to be monitored.

Adults who speak English are generally critical of the English lessons available for adults and adolescents, and the level of English comprehension is very low. Some adults are also critical of the level of education offered to children, saying that it is not proper school and they are not learning anything. (It is noted that the expectation of international law is for schooling to be of the same standard as is available in the host country, and that is clearly not occurring).

The overall impression is one of despondency, depression, sense of loss, and lack of motivation for older children. Younger children are less able to articulate their feelings, but it is clear that he environment is in no way reflective of "normal" existence, although some steps forward have been made this year, in the form of outside schooling. Children feel that they are in prison.

Hassan report continued:

Social and sporting activities.
Impromptu ball games are available at any time. A soccer pitch and a volley ball pitch are currently under construction. Matches are occasionally organized. Although ACM report that children regularly participate in these, most children interviewed do not refer to these activities. It is understood that they are organized on an occasional basis and do not form a regular activity.

Most adolescent children interviewed reported having no friends in the camp, and having no social life. They report spending day after day doing nothing but moving from meal to meal, lying on their bunks, occasional English lessons. In Main compound there are two TV's with videos, in other compounds there is a TV in each living unit and videos are available. However many children do not comment on this as a feature of their day and clearly do not see it as an activity.

Environment
 The overwhelming statement made by children was the sense of being in prison, and craving freedom. Older children were not able to identify any activity or improvement that would make life more bearable, simply wanting to be free. It is clear that the physical nature of the detention, and the boredom, are an overwhelming issue for these children.

Living conditions
 Conditions continue to be cramped, although less so than last year. Access to and the state of toilets and showers is a common cause of complaint, with children suffering the same privation as adults in day to day matters such as hygiene, food, facilities. There is no privacy.

They have nothing to do. Older children report spending the day doing nothing.
The ACM activities officer acknowledges that apart from the school, participation in activities is very low. She commented that participation would be very high on intake, but would deteriorate to very low levels, as a consequence of depression and the time taken to process visas.

Conclusion
 The perception of being imprisoned is an overriding factor in the minds of children interviewed. Whilst significantly greater access to relevant and varied education, activities, social opportunities, and the opportunity to engage in normal family life and activities are desperately needed, the perception of imprisonment and the yearning for freedom is a key issue for every child

The Commonwealth Ombudsman's report into immigration detention centres has likened conditions in some centres to those in prisons. The report says women and children are at risk in centres and recommends that alternative accommodation is found.

'The loss of liberty and personal freedom associated with detaining persons in a secure institution is akin to the prisoners held in prisons' wrote Acting Ombudsman, Oliver Winder.

"However, unlike criminals who have been extended the full protection of the law...immigration detainees appear to have lesser rights." (Wheatley, 2/3/2001, The Advertiser'. P.24)

 

ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

" Sweden's 'reception centre' system
Grant Mitchell spent two years from 1999 working at the Swedish Immigration Department and Carslund Detention Centre. He reports that the Swedish Model solves the problem of having children and families in detention; treats detainees respectfully; is successful in reducing incidence of riot and disturbances and has a positive effect on level of voluntary repatriations on negative decisions. This has led to Sweden having lowest number of illegal immigrants in the community in Europe. Children are never held in detention for more than 6 days. All detainees have one caseworker for the duration of their stay. In all, but extreme cases, families are released into the community under supervision. If husbands are held in detention, with wives and children released into group homes outside detention centre and they are allowed visits during the day. (Mitchell, March 2001, p.7).

However, Adrienne Millbank (2001) observes that many European countries, including Sweden, have identity card systems that make asylum seekers much easier to track in the community. Without such identification or residency papers, gaining access to services or lawful employment is not possible, and apprehension is easier.

One of the main differences between the Swedish and Australian immigration detention systems is that it is against Swedish law to detain children for longer than a maximum of three days. (Millbank, 2001, p.1).

The average time spent in detention varies between two weeks and two months compared with an average of 6 months in Australian detention centres. However, there is no maximum period, and rejected asylum seekers, whose deportations cannot be implemented due to conditions in their home countries, can face lengthy detention, as in Australia.

Despite having more than twice as many asylum seekers per capita as Australia, fewer people are detained because detention is mainly used at the end of the refugee determination process to ensure departure. In 2000, there were an estimated 17,000 asylum seekers in Sweden: the combined capacity of Sweden's four detention centres is 120. Compare this with Australia's total of 637 in mainland detention centres as at February 2002 (DIMIA, 2002, p.2).

Accommodation is provided for needy asylum seekers in 'reception' or 'investigation' or 'transit' centres in the form of self-contained flats or boarding-house type housing. Staying in government-provided centres while claims for refugee status are assessed is not compulsory; asylum seekers are encouraged to move into the community, especially if they have relatives or friends in Sweden. In 2000, approximately 10, 000 out of the 17, 000 asylum seeker population lived outside the detention centres. Asylum seekers who wait over four months for a decision may be granted permission to work. According to the UNHCR, however, few find it. (Millbank, 2001, p.1).

 

" The Group Home Model-Sweden
 Grant Mitchell (Mitchell, March 2001) describes the Group Home Model, which is quite common in Sweden, being used for children and mothers released from detention, as well as for others in the general population with disabilities, drug rehabilitation and for juvenile justice. Upon the family being signed into the detention centre, discussions take place with the parents, outlining their rights (including the right to appeal) and explaining the detention procedure in relation to children and the family. It is explained that the father will be held in detention while the mother and children will be released into a group home until the father's identity can be confirmed, or appeal is won. The parents are assured by the Immigration Department that they will be kept regularly informed about their case. The mother is reassured that she will have visitation rights and regular telephone access. In most cases, even though it can be a distressing time for the family, the parents would rather the family split than their child be held detention for an extended period.

In cases where there is only a father and child, and the father will not be released on compliance because of extreme reasons, the child will usually be released into a group home for unaccompanied children with regular access to the father. Mitchell reports that this never happened during his time at the centre.

Group homes are normally supervised and there is access to counselling, information, legal advice and recreation. All those who live in the group homes are involved in preparing food for their meals. Regular group meetings with consensus deciding all issues are held. Translators via the phone are available.

" Woomera trial of alternative detention arrangements for women and children DIMIA began a trial in early August 2001of alternative detention arrangements for women and children from Woomera Detention Centre involving a maximum of 25 volunteers permitted to live in houses in Woomera Township. The women and children were required to have a family member (usually the husband/father) remain in the detention centre. They undergo health assessments and are considered 'no character or management risk.' Participants in the trial are under 24-hour supervision by ACM officers, which includes accompanying them outside the perimeter of the house and the yard. Visits to the main immigration detention centre are arranged and groceries supplied. The trial began with five women and children who moved from the detention centre to a cluster of four three-bedroom house leased from the Defence Department. (Mason, 2002, p.25)

Some refugee and human rights groups criticized the trial program for failing to respect the principle of family unity. The Refugee Council of Australia said "it gave children two unacceptable options: whether to remain in the immigration detention centre or be separated from their fathers." (Mason, 2002)

Studies (Allodi, 1989: Sack, 1995: Savin, 1996 in Barnett, 2001) on children of refugees prove that separation is detrimental to these children's health and they need a continuous relationship and parental bonding. Allodi's research (1989) into the psychological well being of children shows that they have less suffering if they stay with their parents even though the conditions may be stressful and dangerous.

" All families with young children in one urban-based reception centre model Archbishop Ian George, Chair of the Christian World Service Commission of the National Council of Churches in Australia stated "One compromise solution put up by the churches could be to put all families with young children in one urban-based reception centre, fast-track their applications for refugee status, and make sure that centre has proper services and facilities to meet early childhood needs and offers proper protection." (National Council of Churches media release 2000).

Choice of models

Diversity Directions believes that the continuum below represents the range of choices, described in this submission, of models for immigration detention for children and their families. It may be that there is no one sole model that best suits the needs of children in immigration detention. It may be that the Australian Government needs to provide a range of models to meet various needs.

Whatever the choice of models, there needs to be consideration given to locating these models in urban centres so that appropriate government, non-government and community supports can be given.

Any models for immigration detention for children and their families need to serve the best interest of the child and be least like a prison and more like a home.

Continuum of choice of models (Barnett, 2002)

Continuum of choices of models (Barnett, 2002)

 

CONCLUSIONS

For example, from the DIMIA Website - Information Resources, March 2002, Women and Children in Immigration Detention:
Page 1
"The IDS outline the quality of life expected in immigration detention centres and take into consideration individual needs such as the gender, culture and age of the detainees."

In particular, emphasis is placed on the sensitive treatment of the detention population, which may include torture and trauma sufferers, family groups, children and the elderly, persons with fear of authority, and persons who are seeking to engage Australia's protection obligations under the refugee Convention.

The Department and ACM fully appreciate that immigration detainees are in administrative detention and not a correctional setting…"

Page 2
"The Department is committed to ensuring that children held in immigration detention receive appropriate care…"

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Best interests
In all actions concerning children in immigration detention, the human rights of the child, in particular his or her best interests are to be given primary consideration

2. Non-discrimination
 Children in immigration detention are entitled to the same treatment and rights as other Australian children.

3. Family unity
 Preserving and restoring family unity are of fundamental concern.

4. Family support
 Actions to benefit children in immigration detention should be directed primarily at enabling their primary caregivers to fulfil their principal responsibility to meet their children's needs.

5. Family participation
Where the special needs of children in immigration detention can only be met effectively through child-focussed activities, these should be carried out with the full participation of their families and communities.

6. Separated children
 Unaccompanied children in immigration detention must be the particular focus of protection and care.

7. Cultural support
 The provision of childcare, healthcare and education for children in immigration detention should reflect their linguistic and cultural needs.

8. Interpretation
Families in immigration detention should be provided with suitable interpreters who speak their preferred language whenever they are interviewed or require access to services.

9. Confidentiality
 Care must be taken to maintain the confidentiality of information provided by children in immigration detention. There should be no disclosure or information that could endanger or compromise the child's family in Australia or his or her home country. Information must not be used inappropriately for purposed other than that for which it is sought.

10. Staff training
 Those working with children in immigration detention should receive appropriate training on the needs of these children.

That the treaty provisions of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child 1989 be incorporated into Australian domestic law

Although the Australian Government has ratified the Convention, this does not mean that its provisions are enforceable in law.

The Convention applies to every child in Australia regardless of nationality or immigration status and regardless of how the child arrived in Australia.

Under the Convention, children in detention have the right to:

ENDNOTES

1. As set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) 1989, ratified by Australia (Dec 1990) in Human Rights Brief No.1 www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/briefs/brief_1.html
2. Global Guidelines for Early Childhood Education and Care in the 21st Century, OMEP (World Organization for Early Childhood Education)
3. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989
4. http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/aiweek97/appeals/app2.htm
5. Refugee Council of Australia
6. Defend Children's Human Rights-Fact Sheet, Amnesty International Australia
7. ibid
8. http://www.dimia.gov.au/detention/women.htm 15/4/02
9. http://neda.org.au/7.html 15/4/02
10. http://www.immi.gov.au/annual_report/annrep01/report3.htm
11. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/woom-j04.shtml

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Australian Children's Rights News, Issue Number 28, March 2001.

Australian Early Childhood Association, 2001, 'Principles of Good Practice' (adapted from UNHCR and International Save the Children Alliance), draft position paper on children of asylum seekers.

Australian Early Childhood Association, Working Position on Resiliency, 2001.

Barnett, Kristina, 2001, 'A Fair Go? (unless you are the child of an asylum-seeker in Australia)' article in Australian Early Childhood Association (SA) newsletter.

Barnett, Kristina, 2001, "Biculturalism"- a course paper prepared for the Masters of Educational Studies, University of South Australia.
Barnett, Kristina, 2002, Continuum of choice of models for immigration detention centres in 'Alternative Models for Detention', HREOC submission National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention.
Calvert, Gillian, December 2001, "Stateless and silenced: giving a voice to refugee children." Commissioner for Children and Young People in New South Wales.
URL:http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/news/issues/20011204_refugees.html Accessed: April 2002.

Clarke, Priscilla 1999, 'Supporting children & families in the Kosovar Safe Havens', Kosovar Refugees Resource no. 100, FKA MRC, Victoria.

Commonwealth Child Care Advisory Council, September 2001, "Child Care: Beyond 2001. A Report to the Minister for Family and Community Services".

DIMIA, Annual Report 2002-2001
URL: http://www.immi.gov.au/annual_report/annrep01/report3.htm

DIMIA, 2002, "Children in Immigration Detention"
URL: http://www.dimia.gov.au/detention/women.htm. Accessed 24/04.02.

Debelle, Penelope & Shelton, Russell, 9/4/02, 'Children draw on their own trauma', The Age.

Ebbeck, Marjorie & Dyer, Maureen, 1989, "The early childhood teacher working with children living in two cultures", article from Australian Early Childhood Association 8th National Conference, Canberra,

George, Archbishop Ian, 2002, National Council of Churches in Australia media release.
URL: http://www.ncca.org.au/mediarelease/20001122-cws-ngo.aspds

Gottleib Duttweiler Institute, July 1999, The International Symposium for Early Childhood Education and Care for the 21st Century, Ruschlikon, Switzerland.

Halvorsen, Kate, "Separated children seeking asylum: the most vulnerable of all"
URL: http://www.fmreview.org/fmr1211.htm Accessed: 25/4/02

Hassan, Tirana, April 2002, 'Draft Report for AMCO - condition of children in detention at Woomera IRPC.'

Hutchins, Teresa, 1996, 'Bilingual workers alleviating separation anxiety', Every Child Volume 2 No.4, Summer, 1996, Department of Human Services, Edith Cowan University.

Koutroulis, Dr Glenda, 23/4/02, ABC Lateline interview.URL: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/ Accessed 26/4/02.

Law Society of Australia, 30/6/2001 Children, asylum and detention is this the Australian Way? Workshop Summary.

O'Brien, Susie, 17/4/02, Key Concern for children 'who suffer', The Advertiser.

Maksimovic, Nancy & Pittaway, Eileen, 2001, "The Experience of Refugee Children who have been in Australia's immigration detention centres", Research and Development Monologue: Number 1, 2001, UNSW Centre for Refugee Research.

Mason, Jana, February 2002, "Sea Change: Australia's New Approach to Asylum Seekers", U.S. Committee for Refugees.

Millbank, Adrienne, 27 February 2001, "The Detention of Boat People", Social Policy Group

Mitchell, Grant, 2001, "The impact of the Swedish model of detention", Australian Children's Rights News, Number 28.

National Council of Churches, 2002.
URL: http://www.ncca.org.au/mediarelease/20001122-cws-ngo.aspds Accessed: April 2002.

Newman, Dr Louise, December 24. 2001, "The plight of the babies born behind the barbed wire".
URL: http://www.smh.com.au/news/0112/24/opinion/opinion5.html accessed 24/12/2001

OMEP (World Organization for Early Childhood Education), Global Guidelines for Early Childhood Education and Care in the 21st Century.

Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Joint Standing Committee on Immigration, September 2000, Not the Hilton. Immigration Immigration detention centres : Inspection Report.

Phelps, Dr Kerryn, 2001, "The health of children in detention", Amnesty International Australia newsletter.

Pittaway, Eileen; Breen, Cate & Maksimovic, Nancy, 2001, "Surviving War, Surviving Peace", Research and Monograph Number 1, 2001 Centre for Refugee Research, The University of New South Wales.

Powrie, Dr Rosalind, March 2002, "Submission to the Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention", article in AAIMH newsletter, Vol.14, No. 1, March 2002.

Rayner, Moira, 31/10/2001, Political Pinballs: The plight of child refugees in Australia, Murdoch University,Perth, Western Australia, URL http://wwwcomm.murdoch.edu.au/lectures/murdoch_rayner.html

Red Cross (SA), 2001, 'A Temporary Home'.

Refugee Council of Australia. July 2001, Position on Family Unity and Family Unification Draft.

Silove, Derrick, Stel, Zachary & Mollica, Richard F, 2001, "Detention of asylum seekers Assault on health, human rights, and social development" - edited version of the article that first appeared in The Lancet Amnesty International Australia newsletter.

Skeers, Jake, 4 January 2002, "Protests erupt at Australian refugee immigration detention centre"
URL: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/woom-j04.shtml Accessed January 2002.

Smolicz, J,J, 1999, "Education and Culture", James Nicholas Publishers Pty Ltd, Albert Park, Australia

Swiniarski, Louise, 1999, "Educating the global village including the young child in the world", Prentice-Hall Inc, New Jersey.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) 1989, in Human Rights Brief No.1 www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/briefs/brief_1.html

UNHR & International Save the Children Alliance, "Statement of Good Practice", Separated Children in Europe Programme. URL: www.scfuk.org.uk

UNSW Centre for Refugee Research, www.crr.unsw.edu.au

Wheatley, Kim, 2/3/2001, 'Immigration detention centre conditions liked to prisons.' The Advertiser.

Last Updated 9 January 2003.