Click here to return to the Submission Index
Submission to the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from
the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union
1. Australia's International Obligations (Terms of Reference 1)
2. Mandatory Detention of Children (Terms of Reference 2)
3. The Adequacy of the Detention Environment (Terms of Reference 3)
5. Protecting the child in the Community (Terms of Reference 6)
The Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU) welcomes an opportunity to make a submission to the Commission's Inquiry into Children in Immigration in Australia.
The LHMU is arguably the most diverse trade union in Australia, with membership and industrial coverage across a range of sectors and industries, including in hospitality and tourism, community services and health, contracting services such as cleaning, catering and security, and in manufacturing.
The LHMU takes a particular interest in this Inquiry because the LHMU has thousands of members employed in the children's services sector throughout Australia, whose job involves the care of children in early childhood education, pre schools and childcare.
As well, the LHMU has membership of workers who are employed by Australian Correction Management as detention officers in immigration detention centres. Our coverage in this area has evolved from our historical coverage of security officers and more recently, of correctional officers in private correction facilities. The LHMU has been active in canvassing many "workplace" issues on behalf of our detention officer members, some of which are canvassed in our submission below.
The ACTU has expressed concern about conditions involving mandatory detention, including the fact that refugee families and independent young children are being held for many years. The LHMU reiterates these concerns and further supports the submission of the ACTU to this Inquiry.
1. Australia's International Obligations (Terms of Reference 1)
Last year, over 16,000 unaccompanied children applied for asylum in Europe. In Australia, 12,000 refugees arrived through the federal government's Humanitarian program. The LHMU has expressed the view elsewhere that Australia's contribution is disappointing given that there has been a huge increase in the number of people seeking asylum worldwide. Particularly disappointing is that the number of refugees arriving through the federal government's Humanitarian Program has remained steady over the past three years, in stark contrast to international trends where refugee numbers have increased. [1]
Australia supports the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC). Article 37(b) requires that the detention of children only be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period. Notwithstanding this, according to federal government statistics there were 1147 detainees aged 17 years or younger in 2000-1. [2] At that time, this was the third largest age category after 21 to 25 year olds (1614 detainees) and 26 to 30 year olds (1495 detainees). These figures indicate that at that time, the number of children in detention comprised 15% of all detainees. [3] 23% of children in detention in January 2001 had been in detention for more than six months, and a total of 14% had been in detention for more than 12 months. [4]
Through its support for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Australia has effectively endorsed the principle that mandatory detention of children be used as a last resort. As noted above, Australia's support for the Convention is at odds with the actual situation, namely a federal policy framework which emphasises mandatory detention of asylum seekers.
Within this context, in the case of accompanied children, a belief in the principle that a child has a right to live with their parents leads children into a detention environment. It is difficult to argue against the principle (that a child has the right to live with its parents or other family members - even in detention). It is equally difficult to conceive how the best interests of a child can be properly addressed when the federal policy context has as its foundation the system of mandatory detention. In the case of unaccompanied minors, it is even more difficult to conceive how the interests of the child are at all served by mandatory detention.
2. Mandatory Detention of Children (Terms of Reference 2)
Australia is the only Western country that has mandatory detention of asylum seekers. Clearly, this policy has a specific impact on children (and arguably other groups, such as women and asylum seekers) who are held in detention.
While the position of children in detention forms the particular focus of the current deliberations, the LHMU believes that HREOC should adopt a broad approach to its the Inquiry.
The emotional, psychological and developmental impact on a child of spending a short or extended period of time in the detention environment is both direct (ie through their own experiences of detention) and indirect (through the impact of detention of family members from whom the child draws for support).
We have noted above that the impact of detention on a child is both direct and indirect. We take this point further to add that even where children are not detained, the absence of family members who are held in detention and the inability to retain contact with them will have an emotional impact on children either directly or through the impact of separation on other family members.
For this reason, we urge the Inquiry to undertake deliberations using a "child centred" framework. [5]
In addressing the issue of the possible separation of women and children (enabling women and children to live outside detention or to live in specific family detention centres), the Flood Report [6] has noted:
"… most women with whom this issue was raised in informal discussions with my Inquiry, and who are currently in detention accompanied by children and partners, made it clear that they would not be prepared to leave male family members behind if they were offered the opportunity to be located outside the centre with their children. Those with the strongest views said that it would cause them serious distress if they were to be separated from their partners"
Other practical considerations observed in the Flood Report include: the availability of accommodation, financial and other support, community attitudes and cost.
Additionally, the effect of separation on detainees who are parents can have long term consequences for both the parent and the child. This was recently expressed by a parent detainee:
"One cannot live without one's family, wife and children are the responsibility of the head of the family. Now I am here, I do not know what is happening to them. It is very hard for me, believe me. If the government took me and threw me in the ocean it is better than like this".
It is also important to have regard for the experience of the child prior to their entry to Australia. Many children of asylum seekers have spent months or even years in dangerous flight.
As Jasmine Zahedi , a child refugee has commented:
"It was hard to get out of Afghanistan. I was about 10 when we got out of there. We came from our village to Mokur and from there we went to Karachi …. After that we got in aeroplane, I think we went to Dubai, and from there to Jakarta and from Jakarta to Bali, and then from Bali we got in a boat and from boat we came to Australia…. We had storms. For the two days when we were on our way, the first thing was that the driver lost the way, he didn't know the way to Australia ….. and a fishing boat got us and we signaled them and then they called the police and they came and took us to a small island. After that we came to Port Hedland….. We really hoped, we really prayed that God, please, for our safety, keep us in your safety and take us to Australia".
It is into our trust that Jasmine and children like her, arrive.
Finally, like others in the community, the LHMU questions the logic of detaining women and children when their partners, who have previously arrived here and had their refugee status determined, are released into the community. This imposes an unnecessary hardship on refugees and their families.
3. The Adequacy of the Detention Environment (Terms of Reference 3)
In 2001, only two centres (Port Hedland and Curtin) had playground equipment for children and areas for sport. At Port Hedland, the LHMU is aware that the external environment for children is one of "jungle gyms" on dirt and the play area is surrounded by razor wire. The particular deficiencies at Woomera hae been noted by the Inquiry into Immigration Detention (Flood Report). [8]
The Flood Report has noted that the detention environment is a very difficult one for detainees. Very few detainees arrive with a proper understanding of the length of time it is going to take to process their applications. This leads to increased levels of tension and unrest. Many facilities are in need of urgent upgrading, and under the current federal government there has been a reduction in support services for detainees, such as the provision of English language classes.
The LHMU points out that within this environment, the job of the detention officer is a complex and difficult one.
Wages and conditions of employment of detention officers are set through a non-Union enterprise agreement. The LHMU is not a party to this agreement.
The LHMU has been actively pursuing many of the issues facing staff, such as the need for improved skills and training. Members of the LHMU who work in the detention environment are sympathetic and understanding of their multifaceted role as a detention officer, and the importance of appropriate training and skills in contributing to their ability to perform their jobs.
Primarily, however it is our view that the detention environment is not suitable for children, and an approach by this Inquiry that seeks to introduce improvements within the detention environment may increase "adequacy", but will fail to fully support the best interests of children.
4. The Impact of Detention on the well being of children and additional measures and safeguards required in detention facilities (Terms of Reference 4 & 5)
One of the area of concerns expressed by women to the Inquiry into Immigration Detention [9] concerned education, particularly by those in detention for several months or more. As well parents worried about the impact of riots or breakouts or if children should witness self harm by others in detention. Distress is also caused when friends are released and they have to stay behind, and this had lead to some instances of behavioural problems amongst children.
The Executive Committee of the UNHCR has drawn attention to the following issues and concerns [10]:
- The conditions in which many asylum seekers are detained, including serious overcrowding in living conditions, poor sanitary and other facilities and deficiencies in providing adequate outdoor space and recreational facilities.
- Minors being detained or threatened with detention because of illegal entry into the country. According to the UNHCR, "such detention can pose grave risks to their well-being, their education and the psychological development".
The UNHCR supports the following measures:
- That the release of an adult member of the family be permitted to keep children out of detention.
- That minor asylum seekers be accorded the full scope of legal rights available to adults, including where appropriate, the appointment of a legal guardian or advisor.
- Minors should be detained separately from adults, unless these are their relatives, and they should never be placed with criminals.
- Unaccompanied minors should never be detained.The UNHCR abhors the growing practice whereby asylum seekers are detained for insufficient reasons, without an adequate analysis of their individual circumstances or an opportunity to have their cases reviewed [11]
5. Protecting the child in the Community (Terms of Reference 6)
The LHMU believes that the federal government, as well as relevant state departments of family and/or community services, should monitor and support children following their release into the community.
6. Conclusion
The LHMU has noted that services and facilities for children held in detention are hopelessly inadequate.
The UNHCR has recommended the release of an adult member of the family to keep children out of detention. However, the Flood Report canvassed the views of women detainees and found that many did not support this course of action as it involved being separated from their spouse.
We believe that community housing and other alternatives to detention should be fully explored through the Inquiry's deliberations. Alternatives to mandatory detention include home detention and parole or probation. In Sweden, there are 17,000 asylum seekers and 10,000 reside outside detention centres. Children are only detained for a maximum of 6 days.
The LHMU believes that the Inquiry should adopt a broad approach to the task at hand, and be primarily guided by our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Adopting such an approach clearly challenges the current federal policy of mandatory detention, as it rightly should.
1. LHMU, Refugees are Welcome, An LHMU briefing paper on asylum seekers, March 2002
2. Background paper on Unauthorised Arrivals Strategy, Philip Ruddock MP, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, media release
3. More recent figures have not been cited by the LHMU.
4. Philip Flood, AO Report of Inquiry into Immigration Detention Procedures, February 2001, p11
5. This statement applies to situations where children are detained with family members, (and where the family environment does not pose any threat to their wellbeing).
6. Philip Flood AO, op cit p 30
7. ABC Radio National, "Stangers in Our Midst", Encounter 29/7/01
8. Philip Flood AO, op cit, p 30. That Report has made findings in relation to processes and procedures for dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse, and we trust that this Inquiry is familiar with the full report.
9. Philip Flood, AO op cit, p 30-31
10. UNHCR Detention of asylum seekers and refugees: the framework, the problem and recommended practice (EC/49/SCCPR.13)
11. UNHCR Detention of asylum seekers and refugees: the framework, the problem and recommended practice (EC/49/SCCPR.13), part IV Conclusions
Last Updated 9 January 2003.
