HREOC Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention

Transcript of Hearing - SYDNEY

WEDNESDAY, 17 JULY 2002

Please note: This is an edited transcript

DR SEV OZDOWSKI, Human Rights Commissioner

MRS ROBIN SULLIVAN, Queensland Children's Commissioner

PROFESSOR TRANG THOMAS, Professor of Psychology
Melbourne Institute of Technology

MS VANESSA LESNIE, Secretary to the Inquiry

AVILLION HOTEL

DR OZDOWSKI: My name is Dr Ozdowski and I am the Human Rights Commissioner and we are conducting an Inquiry into Children in Detention. To my left is Mrs Robin Sullivan who is Assistant Commissioner for the Inquiry and in her other life, she is Queensland Children's Commissioner and to my right is Professor Trang Thomas, Professor of Psychology at the Melbourne Institute of Technology and she is also Assistant Commissioner. Also to my left is Mrs Vanessa Lesnie and she is Secretary to the Inquiry.

The Commission believes it is important to respect the privacy of the individuals and to protect children in particular. So as a result there are a number of orders made to protect privacy. In particular I would like to ask you not to identify any asylum seekers and not to disclose names throughout the hearings. I'm also asking you to not disclose the names of any other person who either is involved in the detention centres or who requested that their identity be protected. Maybe now I could ask you to take an oath or affirmation. Could I ask you to give your names, qualifications and the capacity you are appearing in for the record.

MS SYLVIA WINTON, sworn [9.02am]
MS JENNIFER MARSH, sworn
Asylum Seekers Centre

MS WINTON: Co-ordinator of the Asylum Seekers Centre. I am a graduate social worker.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you.

MS MARSH: I am a qualified social worker and I am the case worker at the Asylum Seeker Centre.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Now, could I ask you to make an opening statement please, but maybe before it, I would like to say thank you for your submission. We have read it and the purpose of the hearing is to test evidence and to acquire new information which could be useful for the inquiry so that is what we will be trying to do. Also, if there is any additional information you would like to provide us, please be in touch at any future date with the Secretary to this Inquiry. Also, if there are some particular case names you would like to be mentioned, please mention them after the hearing to the Secretary. So now, if I could ask you to make your opening statement, please.

MS WINTON: Okay. I think probably the opening thing is just to acknowledge the nerves that are going on for the two of us who have not been involved in something quite this formal before but what I would like to say in opening is that most of the folk that we meet at the Asylum Seekers Centre and in the course of a year we are seeing some 312 asylum seekers or 312 cases, applicants, and then of course the families are involved. Most of the folk that we meet are not in detention.

We see some folk who are from detention and largely it is parents who are reporting on the children's behaviour. In the last year, we saw some 130 children between the ages of 5 and 18, so school aged children, and pre school children who were in the numbers of about 72.

DR OZDOWSKI: Children who were on TPVs?

MS WINTON: They were either on bridging visas or a handful have been on TPVs.

DR OZDOWSKI: TPVs, okay.

MS WINTON: Okay but I guess what I'm saying is that we do see a lot of children asylum seekers. It is largely though the parents who are reporting on the behaviour of those children so we will spend an hour or so with the family, the children will be in the room. The stories that we hear from those released from detention vary differently, quite markedly from the children that are released from detention. So from your community asylum seekers we are hearing issues about getting children into school, getting normalcy within their life, from those from detention we are constantly hearing stories of nightmares, of fear, of fear of authority, of fear of what has happened to their parent, of fear of what they saw.

So the stories are very different from otherwise a similar group of refugee applicants. The other thing to mention in introduction is that there is another scenario of folk who are affected by detention and those folk who have not been mentioned in the submission are not mentioned because it is not the children who are in detention but where a parent has worked in breach of their visa and the parent has been taken to detention. We have seen the effect on those children that are left in the community with no way to survive, no parent to feed them or at least the father taken to detention, no way to have that normal life that they would otherwise have had with parents around them and the impact on that group.

The other thing to say in introduction is that there are other cases, apart from the three that were noted in the submission, there are certainly many other cases that could have been mentioned in the submission.

DR OZDOWSKI: If you could maybe concentrate on children released from detention and on the impact of detention on them. You said that they do suffer some psychological problems after the release. Could you be more specific and also if you could perhaps relate it to different age groups? What are the most common problems experienced by you.

MS WINTON: Okay, sir, in that regard I'm going to let Jen do that because it has been Jennifer who has largely been seen by the younger family.

MS MARSH: I will talk in particular about the second family, the case study 2 who I interviewed. I interviewed the father of the family. He had four children, the ages were - sorry I'll have to look them up - they were in Woomera Detention Centre for 10 months. He reported that they had seen several things, they had seen fires, they had seen a man mutilate himself, stab himself, had seen people climbing up trees threatening to jump off, that kind of thing. He did say that they had nightmares in the detention centre and I saw him recently when they had recently come out of detention and he said they were still suffering from those nightmares at that time.

He was particularly worried about their schooling. He was saying how were they expected to concentrate at school when they were having nightmares during the night because of what they have seen in the detention centres. Yes, so basically what they had seen, he said that they had witnessed similar violence in their country but not to that extent, not personal violence.

DR OZDOWSKI: Do you see also kids from other detention centres or Woomera is mainly the centre which is delivering your clients?

MS MARSH: We see them from all detention centres. Woomera has been the main one that I have seen.

DR OZDOWSKI: Are there any differences between the kids coming from different detention centres?

MS MARSH: Woomera seemed to have been the worse from what parents have reported to me but certainly I don't think, you know, they benefited from being in either one. All of them seemed to be about the same.

DR OZDOWSKI: Do you know if they had any schooling in Woomera during the 10 months they were there?

MS MARSH: The two families that I interviewed, the first one in case study 1 reported that there was schooling available but the teacher was actually a detainee and the second reported I think it was only a few hours. So it didn't seem

DR OZDOWSKI: So it didn't seem adequate?

MS MARSH: Yes, they all commented that it wasn't a very good learning environment for the kids to be able to concentrate in.

DR OZDOWSKI: What happened when they went to a local school?

MS MARSH: To a local school?

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes.

MS MARSH: The first group that I interviewed said that, the mother who I interviewed, said she thought her kids were adapting okay. It was difficult because of the language and culture and things like that but they seemed okay for the time being. The second group I interviewed, the father said that they found it difficult that particularly a lot of things were effecting them after detention as well, the fact that they weren't settled properly, the children didn't have beds to sleep in at night, things like that. The third man I interviewed was actually young, 18 years old, and when he was released from detention, he went to high school the next day and he commented that the school principal knew that he was some kind of a refugee and had asked him about that in the playground sort of jokingly and in front of other students and he had admitted that he was in Villawood and he said the principal was embarrassed and walked away from him. So there was stigma within the school as well.

DR OZDOWSKI: What about his English, because usually people from detention centres go to intensive English classes.

MS MARSH: Okay.

DR OZDOWSKI: So this 18 year old must have been speaking quite good English.

MS MARSH: Yes, he does have good English.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay. So he didn't go to a normal channel so possibly he went to another school?

MS MARSH: Yes, that particular case, he was living in the community on a bridging visa and then because of an application, the second appeal to the Minister, the men were then placed in detention. So he had been living in the Australian community before, yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, what about the TPV visas? Do they have any impact on the families settling in the Australian society?

MS MARSH: The particular first family I can speak about, the father came out from his country, was placed in Woomera, released on a TPV and then moved to Sydney because of the problems with family reunion he had left the mother and children behind in their home country. A year later the mother and children actually came out by boat and were placed in Woomera. During that time the father was in Sydney and there was no effort to perhaps place the family in Villawood where he would be able to visit and support them. So that is, to me, that is an obvious case where the family has

DR OZDOWSKI: The Minister quite often says that he does not like to split families and on this occasion I can see children were kept in Woomera and father was in Sydney

MS MARSH: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: was an attempt made to release children to the father?

MS MARSH: No.

DR OZDOWSKI: And how long did that situation last?

MS MARSH: The father was in the Australian community and the mother and children were in Woomera for 10 months.

DR OZDOWSKI: 10 months

MS MARSH: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: they were separated?

MS MARSH: yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, could you comment about any possibility - lasting impact of detention on children?

MS MARSH: I believe that, from what I've been told by the parents, that there's a lot of psychological damage done. The fact that children are still having nightmares, things like that, things that we don't normally hear from other asylum seeker children who haven't been through detention. The separation of family

DR OZDOWSKI: What are the symptoms?

MS MARSH: Yes? Also education, not having adequate education at that age, health issues as well. I've heard reports about long queues, the environment, not very good - not adequate showering facilities, a lot of disease, a lot of sickness in the detention centre and things like that.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes. What is

MS WINTON: Can I pick up on one of those?

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes.

MS WINTON: Another family that comes to mind is a family that were in Woomera for 12 months where two teenage boys were with the parents for that 12 months and I interviewed this family in their home. When the boys spoke to the guards in detention and asked why the guards were so cruel to the people in detention - and the particular cruelty that they were talking about or reporting to me - was that they were woken for all of that 12 months at 1 am with a torch in their eyes, saying: show me your identity paper and that was one of their routine checks and when the guards were asked why they were so cruel to them, the boys were taken in the wee hours of the morning to isolation detention for 45 days and the parents weren't told where they were taken and so

DR OZDOWSKI: How old were they?

MS WINTON: They were 16 and 17 when I met them and they had been in Woomera for a year before that, and when I asked the boys would they come to a public forum and speak out about the conditions, mother said: these boys must never speak out. We've seen what happens to children in this country if they ask questions or speak out.

DR OZDOWSKI: What did she mean?

MS WINTON: That they were taken to detention. They were taken to isolation and she didn't know where they were held. So this family were punished for speaking out, the mother believed and these boys must never speak out. This was a family where both parents were engineers, where the young boys were obviously very - they certainly had excellent English. They were a family from Iraq. We got these children into school. Very soon the eldest one dropped out of school. The ability to complete school, to see life as a child, to kick footballs or to participate in a child's life had totally been taken away from them. I don't think that was just the refugee experience of fleeing their country. Prior to that they had been students who had studied and who

DR OZDOWSKI: If the family would wish I wouldn't mind having the names of the children to check up this story about this 45 days of detention in isolation compound. So if I could ask you to ask them if it would be possible to check for us this

MS WINTON: I will ask her. I will call her.

DR OZDOWSKI: If yes, please let us know.

MS WINTON: I know she is very frightened. The family are very frightened too.

DR OZDOWSKI: Why are they frightened? They are already out of detention so what are they afraid of now?

MS WINTON: I - the belief that it is, within Australia, that this fear, this treatment is sanctioned, that if you speak out in Australia, you will be punished. They also - it is not an unusual - the story from TPV folk is: we are not safe, we know we might yet be sent back, and so, speaking out is a fear. A fear of settling, a fear of participating fully within this society for what the recriminations might be.

DR OZDOWSKI: We heard much evidence that in long-term detention the families detained disintegrate.

MS WINTON: Huge.

DR OZDOWSKI: could you tell me from your experience whether the families regain their composure after they are released from detention or what happens to families after they are

MS WINTON: Sadly, we haven't done any long-term study on that, Sev. I guess we are only seeing 3 years as the time. I'm having folk who are just coming around to that 3-year time now and our work has not been largely looking at - following 2 or 3 years later, saying: tell us the impact. It wouldn't be difficult to do but it would be something outside our normal call. We are doing case work with 25 to 30 people coming in our door of a day.

DR OZDOWSKI: When you see them in their family groups do the family role, the traditional family roles return to the family after being released from detention centre or are they grieving?

MS WINTON: I don't know that I can really comment on that. I mean, my inclination is to say "no" the family traditional role does not return. The pattern for the refugee applicants is that the family role does not return. Father, who was the traditional carer of the family usually does not pick up English as quickly as the children do, so there are all sorts of ways that refugee roles are topsy-turvied when they get to a new country. I don't know that I can say detention impacts, that there is any different study.

DR OZDOWSKI: What about the employment rate among people who get released on TPVs, what would be your experience, how many of them do work?

MS WINTON: What I hear of reports is that people ask if they have a temporary visa - once they release they are of a refugee-like possibility, they are less likely to be employed so TPV folk report because they have a 3-year visa: "no one wants to employ me, I might be going back", so while Australia has a high rate of casual employment or of part-time employment and we accept that there might be a turnover, these folk seem to be discriminated against even further.

DR OZDOWSKI: The last thing before I will ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask you questions, I would like to ask this. The Minister quite often says that these people cannot be released to the community because they would abscond. What is your experience with - because you are dealing also with the other kind of refugees, asylum seekers in Australia - what is your experience with families, especially families with children absconding?

MS WINTON: You get a smile on my face. The chance of a family with three or four children going underground in this country and surviving, feeding, educating - I mean the refugee applicants that we meet are desperate for their children to have a normal life, to have education, to attend school. The chance of them going underground, changing their name, picking up a new identity, is so remote it is almost laughable. It is just a ridiculous possible scenario. We don't hear of the general asylum seekers absconding. They are hanging out for the possibility that they will one day get their permanency here. They don't want to abscond - traditionally, the folk we meet are so law abiding, they are just beyond our normal Australian citizens' ability to say: this is what the government expects, this is what I must do.

DR OZDOWSKI: Do you know of cases when people disappear, absconded?

MS WINTON: I do not know of TPVs. I know of people who have come to the end of their refugee process and believe they are still unsafe to go home and

DR OZDOWSKI: So they have had a negative decision and they disappeared afterwards?

MS WINTON: And the only option will be that they are to be deported and I can think of two single men in my time who have done that.

DR OZDOWSKI: What about families?

MS WINTON: None.

DR OZDOWSKI: None at the moment

MS WINTON: Absolutely none

DR OZDOWSKI: in your experience?

MS WINTON: and I've been there for 5 years and seen hundreds of families.

DR OZDOWSKI: Moving through. Do you know of families who reached the end of the process which was negative and then availed themselves for deportation?

MS WINTON: And then avail themselves of the protection?

DR OZDOWSKI: No - deportation.

MS WINTON: Sorry.

MS MARSH: Deportation.

MS WINTON: Deportation. Sorry. No, because what I do at that last stage and it is very painful stage in my work, is to explore other possibilities and deportation is not one I would encourage a family to go through.

DR OZDOWSKI: So you will counsel them to depart voluntarily?

MS WINTON: Absolutely. That might be to depart to their own country or explore where else in the world might they go or what are the possibilities, but never would I - unless they said: I'm safe to go back, never would I suggest that they go through the process of deportation.

DR OZDOWSKI: How many families did you counsel last year?

MS WINTON: With this in mind? Probably about five families. I can certainly think of two single people who have gone back. I was

DR OZDOWSKI: Well, thank you very much. I will ask Professor Thomas to ask questions.

PROF THOMAS: Your submission was one of the few that raised the difficulties of bridging visa and just releasing people from detention centres on bridging visas which creates a lot of problems. We have heard that they don't have access to so many of the normal services. So what kind of suggestions can you make? Say for example, we can get the government to close down all the detention centres, people come by boat, people come here we all release them on bridging visas then what kind of suggestions would you make on the conditions that are sort of practical and acceptable to most people.

MS WINTON: Would you like to answer that?

MS MARSH: Yes. I would say first of all, rights to health care, to Medicare, also to permission to work and to Centrelink benefits.

PROF THOMAS: At the moment they get, what do they get?

MS WINTON: If they are on a bridging visa, if you are on a bridging visa

PROF THOMAS: At the moment

MS WINTON: you don't get

PROF THOMAS: Anything?

MS WINTON: No, you are not able to access Centrelink, you are - if you are in the community and on a bridging visa, if you applied within 45 days and without certain other conditions you might get permission to work. You might not have enough English to find a job or you might have such trauma or refugee experiences that make it difficult or impossible for you to work, especially if there are children involved but work might be your only means of survival. Now if they were to have no detention centres and people were to be released into the community on bridging visas, I think permission to work would be essential and, as Jen said, that would attach to it, the right to have Medicare and therefore medical assistance.

PROF THOMAS: At the moment the people can always access public hospitals.

MS WINTON: Can they?

MS MARSH: They can but then they are billed towards - if they turn up in an emergency room and it is an emergency they will be seen but then they are billed for thousands and thousands of dollars afterwards.

MS WINTON: So a large part of our work is then advocating to get some sort of health care for a family that has no right to Medicare. And if you don't have right to Medicare, when you go to the public hospital, if they don't see your Medicare card, you have to sign a document and you will be given a bill and the bill is quite sizeable. Like at the moment we have certainly got a family that has got a bill for a child going to emergency for $2500, a child taken to intensive care. The family has no way to pay that, they don't have permission to work and they don't have access to Medicare. As I said to the Commissioner a moment ago, these people are fearful of not paying a bill. They are told within the hospital that if you don't pay your bill we will report you to DIMIA and they have no way to pay the bill because they have no permission to work.

PROF THOMAS: How is housing and food, who do they rely on - to get that?

MS WINTON: Again, at the moment, if for instance our folk were released from detention and it was on a bridging visa, without the permission to work, this would be extremely difficult. We manage sometimes to get folk into a refuge and ask them to take them without payment.

PROF THOMAS: In a way, do you think they are worse off?

MS WINTON: It is a good question.

PROF THOMAS: In detention centres they get health care, they get food

MS WINTON: And then they also

PROF THOMAS: .....

MS WINTON: and also they get the nightmares and the trauma that we are seeing.

PROF THOMAS: I'm trying to solve a difficult problem because if we are going to make some sensible suggestions

MS WINTON: Yes.

PROF THOMAS: we have to find a solution.

MS WINTON: I think there is a large community support. At the moment, people are saying: we would like to help asylum seekers, we would like to put people up.

PROF THOMAS: Yes.

MS WINTON: I'm sure you are aware of the housing project that is in Victoria with the asylum seekers there where they have located houses within parishes that care for people. We have got - the National Council of Churches have provided two flats for asylum seekers, rent free. There is a sense of community out there as well, I believe that. When children are involved we will get behind - if the government can't get behind providing accommodation for these people

PROF THOMAS: In America - because my family are refugees and I was a refugee myself - in America, there is a system where people in the community put their name forward on a register, say: :we are willing to take a refugee into our home".

MS WINTON: Exactly.

PROF THOMAS: Do you think that sort of thing wouldn't work in Australia?

MS WINTON: I think it can work, I think it can work, especially if there is support given to those people who are saying they will help - that is support from perhaps the agencies that can provide some training or some knowledge of torture/trauma/refugee issues to that family. So if the children are having nightmares, it is not a case of, good heavens, this is just too much, let's get them out of the family, but an awareness for that family to know of some of the issues around the refugee process that might affect the children. There are certainly a lot of families that ring us and a lot of response that we get. Recently I was out of the centre for 6 weeks and in that 6 weeks we had 150 volunteers ring and say: I'd like to do something for asylum seekers. What can we do for people out of detention?

PROF THOMAS: Your organisation, do you get funding from somewhere?

MS WINTON: Non-government, predominantly from two of the large Catholic organisations, the Good Shepherd Sisters give us the house rent free, our accommodation and a third of our funding, Mercy Foundation give us a third of our funding and under-pin our health care program where we offer health care to people that don't have Medicare and the other third is from the private sector, from individuals that want to support refugees.

PROF THOMAS: That is great, thank you.

MS WINTON: Thanks.

DR OZDOWSKI: Mrs Sullivan.

MRS SULLIVAN: How do people find out about your service?

MS WINTON: I should have submitted to you a copy of our annual report. We ask that at the time of the initial interview: How did you find out, so the statistics are all gathered. Probably the largest number is family and friends, then there are acquaintances and an interesting comment we hear is: "I saw another black person at Central Station" or at so and so and they will have told them how to find us. The next group probably is Australian Red Cross that refer to us, the private lawyers, legal aid, interestingly even Immigration refer because they have seen and know what we do and what we can offer. Hospitals, social workers that come in touch with asylum seekers. Our centre is the only one on the Sydney area that offers a service to asylum seekers.

MRS SULLIVAN: So for example, when people exit Villawood they wouldn't be provided with information about your service?

MS WINTON: They might be. I haven't been into Villawood recently to see if they have got any information about us. There is now at Cabramatta, a House of Welcome that has been set up for people being released from Villawood.

MRS SULLIVAN: That is by your organisation?

MS WINTON: No, by another. The New South Wales Ecumenical Council.

MRS SULLIVAN: Right. The Government occasionally, sort of, raises the issue that this is an impost in taxpayers having detention centres, and having this whole set up is costly to Australian taxpayers. Do you see any cost to the Australian taxpayer in the current system once people are released? You mentioned all the volunteers

MS WINTON: Yes.

MRS SULLIVAN: and churches and so on

MS WINTON: Yes.

MRS SULLIVAN: but do you see any evidence that the Government itself is paying any money to support people once they leave the detention centres?

MS WINTON: Under Jen's scenario, Jen is saying that, in answer to Professor Thomas, that she thought there should be Centrelink available.

MRS SULLIVAN: Mm.

MS WINTON: I suppose, one could argue that there was going to be that possibility. However, one of the comments that I hear from TPV folk is we are paying our taxes. Why can't we participate in the education that is offered? So if they do have permission to work, one would assume they are going to be paying their taxes, and then the access to Centrelink is no different than for you or I.

DR OZDOWSKI: Which of them do have permission to work?

MS WINTON: Anyone on TPV, anyone released on a temporary visa has permission to work.

DR OZDOWSKI: Have permission to work?

MS WINTON: Yes. The folk on bridging visas

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, that is different.

MS WINTON: some will, some won't and those just released from detention predominantly won't.

MRS SULLIVAN: So that is a future scenario you are describing, but the current scenario, are you able to point at Government funds being used in any way?

MS WINTON: No, I don't believe - if I'm really trying to think about it from their perspective, additional people accessing a health care system

MRS SULLIVAN: But they get a bill from what you have said.

MS WINTON: They do get a bill, yes. I think there has been enough study done on the costs of "in detention" versus "out of detention". Out of detention costs are minimal. I haven't done the study, but I've certainly read about the study. I don't see it being an impost on the Government. I see it as a community response, and I think in your opening remarks about the cost of detention centres on the Government raises the issue about what is the cost of detention centres when they are not within Australia. And they are being paid for by Aid money.

MRS SULLIVAN: This is a difficult question to ask but I will ask it. In the hierarchy of needs of people, and you have mentioned health, education and housing, is there one that they ask for first? I'm trying to get a sense of where the greatest pressure point is?

MS WINTON: My response to that is that the issue of insecurity, the fear of perhaps being sent back is the worst thing for most of the TPV folk.

MRS SULLIVAN: So does that mean the priority is on counselling services?

MS WINTON: No, no. The priority is on making that visa a visa that doesn't leave them with the fear that we have said you are a refugee but, hey, we might be sending you back. Give it a longer term, or make it some other shape that lets them think that when conditions in their country change they might be sent back, the insecurity of being able to engage with their life, that is, I can't get my family to me, my fear of what is happening to them, that sort of insecurity.

The folk that have been released on TPVs and their families are not safe. These guys will sit and cry with me, big Muslim men, sit and cry about the children they have left and the fear, that they couldn't say goodbye to their children. That is, you know - they talk of suicide. They talk of the fear. Would you add anything different to

MS MARSH: I think that oppression of family and just the insecurity that manifests itself while they are waiting still.

MRS SULLIVAN: Finally, you mentioned one of the case studies involved some adolescent boys who withdrew from school. In general terms, adolescence appears to be a period of childhood that is particularly affected by the detention experience. Can you make any general comments about the adolescent children, young people, that you have come across and, I guess, make any suggestions of how to deal with them in relation to their detention experience and the post detention experience they have got?

MS WINTON: My comment would be that the adolescents that I've seen have been greatly affected by how our system has treated their parents so instead of these young people being able to see their parents in that traditional, responsible, being respected, role, they are seeing all of that taken away. That has, I think, been most unsettling so I'm seeing angry adolescents. Now, we see angry adolescents in our normal society but they are not angry about being rebellious teenagers. These are people with a just cause of disgust of how their parents have been treated, very unsettled from that experience.

MRS SULLIVAN: Do they tend to stay with the family or do they tend to move on, on and out?

MS WINTON: The teenagers, and I'm thinking of that same family from Colombia, stay with the family very much. They become the breadwinner for the family and they support that family.

MRS SULLIVAN: Thanks.

DR OZDOWSKI: Perhaps, I would like to return to the issues which were mentioned by you. The first one is you mentioned suicide, that they are talking about it. Are you aware of any attempted suicides or successful suicides among this group of people?

MS WINTON: Post detention?

DR OZDOWSKI: Post detention.

MS WINTON: I'm not, no.

DR OZDOWSKI: Or any self harm or anything?

MS WINTON: I'm trying to think.

DR OZDOWSKI: Post detention.

MS WINTON: I can't think of anything on the top of my head. If I look back through files and think, oh yes, but no, I can't, sir.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. The second issue is that you said that quite a number of people rang you offering various kinds of support. On the other hand, we are reading different public opinion polls saying that the policy of mandatory detention is fully, well, 70 per cent supported by the Australian population. How would you reconcile these two different types of information?

MS WINTON: Commercial radio versus other sorts of radio. I think within any section of the community, we have got, you know, people that want to support one aspect of life or want to support another aspect. I really don't think there's ever going to be 100 per cent support of removing all families from detention. That won't come. I meet those people in my daily life, you know, when you go to a meeting of some sort.

DR OZDOWSKI: Did you see any changes in attitudes towards refugees, and especially children, during the riot up here?

MS WINTON: I see huge, huge changes at our place. Less than 12 months ago, we did a pilot study to change the name of our organisation because no one knew who an asylum seeker was. We have now a greater number, a much greater number, of people who daily make contact and say, "What can I do?" Our funding has become more secure. The decision was don't change the name of your organisation. People know, since September last year, who asylum seekers are and not only know, but care.

Yes, I know there's a very large negative response out there. I had a refugee, she is a permanent resident now, who said to me that the other night she was awake with her nightmares that she has, and she listened to whatever the talkback show was on the radio, and she said, "I was frightened. I lay there in my bed frightened." There's a negative element.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, are the people who are released on TPVs attempting to form links with the broader community, and explain how they came, why they came, what were the issues and so on assisting in that public affairs area?

MS WINTON: Yes, yes. One of the things that we do at that first time of interview is to offer them the address of their own country support, the Iranian community or the Afghan Association. On the whole, they say, "thank you" and they don't make that link in the beginning. They explain to me that the reason being that they don't know who it is. They still don't know

DR OZDOWSKI: They don't trust.

MS WINTON: don't trust at this point. Further down the track, they are certainly participating as well as is possible when they know they are secure. They are certainly joining work. They are participating within their schools for their children. They are participating but not back within their own country on the whole.

DR OZDOWSKI: So whom do they trust in the broader Australian community?

MS WINTON: They often make links with people who were in detention at the same time as them so that is where they will have formed

DR OZDOWSKI: They come together, they will .....

MS WINTON: As one guy said, you know, "We have watched 25 people die on the boat that we came out on. We have experienced a lot together" so they form a friendship there. I guess, over time they start to know. They are as wise as anyone else as to know who they can trust and they come back to us every time there's a crisis, either within their own country or within their own family, or they lose employment, they need some more help getting through another stage, another hurdle. There's certainly been a lot of the TPVs coming back at the moment who were of that first group that were released. They know their 30 months is up and they are fearful of what is going to happen to them.

DR OZDOWSKI: Ms Winton, Ms Marsh, that is possibly all of the questions I have. I don't know whether you have got any other - would you like to make a concluding statement or have we covered all the other

MS WINTON: From my point of view, we have covered all the areas. I guess, you know, as the submission states, the impact on children is very different than the impact of the refugee experience where children have not been in detention, from what we are observing, and, I guess, I will be just looking forward to the report coming forward and hopefully, one day detention not being a way to punish people who have made a refugee application.

DR OZDOWSKI: Well, thank you very much for your evidence, thank you.

MS WINTON: Thanks for your time.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, I would like to come to our next witness, and I would like to invite the representatives of UNHCR to come forward. Thank you very much. My name is Sev Ozdowski and I'm conducting this inquiry with my Assistant Commissioners. To my right is Dr Trang Thomas, who is Professor of Psychology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and to my left is Mrs Robin Sullivan who is also Queensland Children's Commissioner, and I've also have got Ms Vanessa Lesnie, who is Secretary to the Inquiry over here.

I made a number of rulings relating to the confidentiality of evidence in order to protect the privacy of people, and especially, the privacy of asylum seekers. I would like to ask you not to identify by name or any other feature any asylum seekers in this hearing. I also would like to ask you not to identify other people who may be involved with the termination process. If you would like to provide us with case names, you can do it later to the Secretary of the Inquiry. Also, if there is some material we didn't cover during our cross examination of the evidence, we can do it later through either written submission or some other form. At the moment, I would like to ask you to take an oath or affirmation.

MR MICHEL GABAUDAN [9.42am]
MR ALVIN GONZAGA
United Nations High Commission for Refugees

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, I would like to ask you to state your names, addresses, qualifications, and the capacity in which you are appearing for the record of the hearings.

MR GABAUDAN: Certainly. My name is Michel Gabaudan. I am the Regional Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. My office is based in [address removed], and my office covers the whole continent - Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific. I am accompanied here by Mr Alvin Gonzaga who is the Legal Officer in the Regional Office in Canberra.

DR OZDOWSKI: Well, thank you very much, Mr Gabaudan. It is good to see you here, and thank you also for your submission. We will, perhaps, concentrate more on international issues and on issues which are of direct relevance to your mandate and where you could help us a bit. So would you like to make an opening statement or should we come straight to asking questions?

MR GABAUDAN: I will, perhaps, make a very quick opening statement if you will allow me. The mandate of the High Commissioner for Refugees is to ensure international protection and durable solutions for refugees. We exert this mandate through cooperation with States. We cannot ourselves deliver international protection or durable solutions. Our role is, in some countries, operational but it is everywhere: we have a function to supervise the application of international instruments, including advising States on their performance in applying these instruments.

We base ourselves in our function on international human rights instruments. Of course, the Refugee Convention is the most important one for us because we are the guardians of the Convention, but the Convention only provides for rights that are specific to refugees. We also consider that refugees should benefit from human rights that are embodied in other international instruments, and we use these instruments in our assessment of how Governments are treating refugees. The most relevant of these instruments are, of course, the ICCPR, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We also base ourselves and this is, I think, quite important on the body of soft law that has been developed over the years. The High Commissioner for Refugees reports to the General Assembly through the Economical and Social Council, and the ECOSOC has appointed an Executive Committee to oversee the functioning of UNHCR. This Executive Committee is composed of States - Australia is one of these States and was actually one of the first ones appointed to the Executive Committee. Every year, the Executive Committee reviewing both our activities and our budget on the one hand, and our protection function on the other, issues some conclusions.

Now, these conclusions do not have a binding effect on States, but as they have been adopted by our Executive Committee members, by consensus, we do estimate that they have a persuasive force and should be, as much as possible, applied by States who have contributed to their definition. Out of these conclusions, two processes take place. Many of these conclusions are summarised in recommendations of the United National General Assembly, so they do have life of their own, if I may say, and we also use these conclusions to draft guidelines that give application and effective implementation to international instruments that tend to be pretty general in their definition.

So a lot of our work with States is to try to use these conclusions that have been produced over the years as an additional body of law regarding refugees. I must confess that we have not been able to visit immigration detention facilities in a little more than a year, basically because of staffing constraints in my office, not because there is an opposition to do so. We are welcome to do so by the Government. We are preparing a new protocol to do so in the coming months, but we do not have recent experience in visiting detention centres, and we would not be able to comment, therefore, on the conditions in detention.

We have raised our concerns on the policy of mandatory detention with the Government on various occasions. As you know, we consider that detention is, inherently, undesirable and we do believe that the legitimate concerns of States with the sorts of movements of asylum seekers that we do see now, can be accommodated under the application of our guidelines. To finish, I would just like to mention that historically, we see perhaps two constraints to the application of these guidelines.

One is that the Immigration Act of '58 does not distinguish between asylum seekers and other aliens, while the first conclusion on detention which was, of course, passed much later, in '86 - this is conclusion 44, does ask Governments in their legislation and administrative disposition, to make a difference between asylum seekers and other aliens. The second historical concern that we have is that when the mandatory detention policy was adopted in '92, we understand practically in the second reading, that it was introduced with a clear deterrent effect against irregular movements. Now, if these reasons for the policy are still true, of course that limits the compulsion to look at alternatives. Thank you.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. In your submission and now, you have expressed serious concerns about Australia's mandatory detention policy. Could you mention what exactly are these concerns, and could I ask you also to say a few words on how other countries are regulating the inflow of asylum seekers?

MR GABAUDAN: Yes, certainly. Detention is not only applied in Australia. Many States do detain asylum seekers at some point of time or, at least, some groups of asylum seekers. I would say our concerns with the Australian policy that it is probably the toughest one because it associates a series of elements that make it almost, an uncontrollable element of their treatment. First, it is mandatory which means there is no - you don't look at alternatives first. You look at everybody in detention.

DR OZDOWSKI: Is there any other country which has mandatory policies around the world?

MR GABAUDAN: No, and those who have it, do not have it on an indefinite basis which means people can be detained only for short periods of time.

DR OZDOWSKI: Could you name some other countries with mandatory policies?

MR GABAUDAN: I think Greece, and Denmark now is looking at it pretty soon.

DR OZDOWSKI: Sweden?

MR GABAUDAN: Sweden has alternative detention, and has very clear regulations on the amount of time people can be detained. In Australia it is a combination of mandatory, indefinite - which is people are detained until such a time as they have been determined to be refugees

DR OZDOWSKI: Or returned.

MR GABAUDAN: or returned, and the fact that it is not reviewable, so that makes it the toughest policy of all. Many countries would detain, but only for admissibility purposes, for a short time and, certainly, in most countries, this would be reviewable, either by the judiciary or by an independent administrative body, not by the body who had decided initially on the detention. My colleague is mentioning to me that when it comes to children, we are not aware of States that detain, systematically, children. They do so on a very exceptional basis.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, it was my next question. I would just like to ask you to outline any factors which may justify the detention.

MR GABAUDAN: Yes, our guidelines do recognise that the sort of movements that are taking place now do create some legitimate concern for States. We have, in our guidelines, provided for some specific conditions in which, we believe, detention could be justified - it is to establish identity, in a case which is a very common one like smuggling, in a case where asylum seekers have thrown their documents away and there are worries that they might be trying to cheat the Government and, therefore, to establish the truth.

Certainly, for admissibility purposes, this is something that has developed recently. I mean, because of the nature of these movements, which mix asylum seekers with people trying to seek asylum as a way to bypass restrictions to immigration, we do accept that an admissibility test is carried out by States to see who really deserves to go through fully fledged refugee status determination procedures, and who does not.

DR OZDOWSKI: Are there situations where it is okay to detain children?

MR GABAUDAN: We think that this should be argued very strongly, reviewed judicially, that in general it should not apply, that alternatives should be sought for children to start with. What is happening, I understand, in Australia is that as detention is mandatory, first you are detained and then eventually alternatives are looked at. We would rather see the opposite work.

DR OZDOWSKI: Let us deal for a moment with children who are travelling with families. It would mean the release of whole families, wouldn't it? The Minister would say that, possibly, it would encourage people who are using the services of people smugglers to bring their whole families at once and expose them to danger.

MR GABAUDAN: Well, the best interests of the child are to be with his family in general. I think that is internationally accepted.

DR OZDOWSKI: You see, the debate in public policies was with families in detention or outside, and the Minister is putting it on the level that if outside, only the children should be outside and not the family.

MR GABAUDAN: Well, this is why I believe that we should look at detention in general. The detention of children is a consequence of the general policy on mandatory detention. If you are not making detention mandatory and were only detaining people on the reasons we have exposed, you would already have a number of children that would not have to go into detention. So let us start by the detention of asylum seekers before we just address the issue of detention of children because most children - I think we have statistics that have shown that by May, out of 184 children in detention, only 21 were unaccompanied minors. All the others were there with their families.

MS LESNIE: Sorry, Mr Gabaudan, the reasons that you outline that might justify detention are similar to the reasons that the Minister gives as the reasons for detention. So what is the distinction between what you are saying and what the Minister is saying?

MR GABAUDAN: Well, I am going to put this in the most appropriate form. I do not know that there is a systematic review of all the people in detention to see whether they fit within these categories, for example, after 3 months or after 6 months. I mean, it may be at that the beginning quite a few people would have to be detained, particularly when they have arrived through smugglers and thrown their documents, but I believe that in most cases, you can run the security checks pretty quickly and I doubt that after a certain period of time the reasons which were valid initially for the detention remain valid, and as the procedure is not reviewable, we have no evidence that they increase .....

DR OZDOWSKI: I would like to change the issue for the moment. I would like to ask you about your experience with Nauru and Manus. I'm doing this because I have written to the Department of Immigration, asking the Department to facilitate visits of this Inquiry to both Nauru and PNG to see what is happening with children over there. Do you have any experience with Nauru or PNG?

MR GABAUDAN: We do have an experience in Nauru because we are processing some of the asylum seekers in Nauru, essentially those who were brought to Nauru on the Manoora. These include the Tampa people and those who arrived subsequently on the Aceng and who are mostly Iraqis, so we have been processing these cases - the Tampa people - because they were rescued at sea and we did accept that there was an issue of international responsibility in cases of rescue at sea. The Aceng was an exception we did, because they had been brought to Nauru in the same boat as the Tampa people. We said: we are going to make an exception for these. We are not processing subsequent groups.

DR OZDOWSKI: Did you personally visit Nauru?

MR GABAUDAN: I personally have visited it.

DR OZDOWSKI: Can I ask you, who is really running the show over there? Who has the ultimate responsibility for processing people there and for the running of the detention facility, what would be your judgment?

MR GABAUDAN: Well, the processing is done through a group of people by UNHCR, and these are the Manoora those who were brought by the Manoora.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes.

MR GABAUDAN: And for all the others it is done by the Immigration Department, by DIMIA?

DR OZDOWSKI: DIMIA. So you both are involved with processing?

MR GABAUDAN: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Who is really responsible for the conditions in the detention centre over there?

MR GABAUDAN: The IOM is overseeing the facilities and is subcontracting, as I understand, with some

DR OZDOWSKI: Chubb.

MR GABAUDAN: Yes, some agency in Australia.

DR OZDOWSKI: Do you have DIMIA officers in a way with watching brief over IOM and so on, who are resident in Nauru?

MR GABAUDAN: There are DIMIA officers there at any time. They have sent people for the processing. The relationship they have with IOM is something I would not like to comment on, it is not my prerogative.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, but at least they are there?

MR GABAUDAN: They are there.

DR OZDOWSKI: They are there and possibly they are having some roles controlling the roster?

MR GABAUDAN: I think this should be put to the next witness.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, the last issue before I will ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask questions, is the issue of terminology. In Australia we are calling people "unaccompanied minors". In Europe and quite often they are called "separated minors".

MR GABAUDAN: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Or "separated children". What is the difference between these two words being used to describe the situation?

MR GABAUDAN: That is for my colleague.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you, Mr Gonzaga.

MR GONZAGA: The term "detached" or "separated" children so far in the present context is to distinguish one without a - for detached children, or unattached children, they have no family members with their parents, or siblings, or family link, relations to the minor. Before the concept of "unaccompanied minor", they referred to "children without parents", but part of the context now "children without parents" could still be separated from the family, or the parents. So a person who is "unattached minor" is a person, a child, or a minor below 18 years old who has no adult accompanying family members, regardless if it is parents, or not. Or, "unaccompanied minor" before it was just context that there is no parent, but if he or she

DR OZDOWSKI: So it is no parent alive, or one parent?

MR GONZAGA: No parent is accompanying the child in the asylum country, for example.

DR OZDOWSKI: Country. But they could be living in a different country?

MR GONZAGA: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: So basically there is no difference in the meaning, is there?

MR GONZAGA: Basically, there is no difference, except that for "unaccompanied minor" before what we are using is that: minor is not accompanied by the parents, but he or she could be accompanied by an adult relative.

DR OZDOWSKI: But "separated" it sounds to me a softer term, because "separated" it appears to me that maybe they got accidentally separated, maybe because of war, maybe of other circumstances a child got separated from the parent. "Unaccompanied" I think to my mind it is having at least a degree of free will, that there was a choice that in a way a child was sent "unaccompanied". Would you agree with that distinction?

MR GONZAGA: I do not think that the distinction was made on that context.

DR OZDOWSKI: The second thing, I understand you to be involved with the Separated Children Europe Program. Could you give me some information about how global is that problem of separated children? I understand that there are over 40,000 of them presenting themselves. What I'm really interested is, how many of those children are presenting themselves in especially Western countries, and how do different countries handle that issue? Are there in a way "good practice measures" developed by some of the Western nations in this area?

MR GABAUDAN: Well, there aren't any, Commissioner, but we haven't prepared ourselves to answer that. I would have to go to the special reports and I will make myself heard, thank you.

DR OZDOWSKI: Could you take it on this question?

MR GABAUDAN: I will take it on that, yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: That is possibly all questions I had to you. Could I ask perhaps Mrs Sullivan to ask additional questions?

MRS SULLIVAN: Is there an increase in the child component of the refugee problem?

MR GABAUDAN: Yes, we have initiated the small study, and I will try to find my statistics which, of course, you might want to corroborate with the Government, because this is a sort of second-hand exercise we have carried out, but we found that in the reporting period, 1 January '99 to 31 October '99, children represented 6.3 per cent of boat arrivals. From 1 November '99 to December '99, went up to 16.4. For 1 January 2000 to December 2000, 17.2. And from 1 January 2001 to mid-June 2001 to 34 per cent. So I know the reporting periods are not quite the same but it does indicate basically a trend in an increase of the proportion of children among boat arrivals.

DR OZDOWSKI: Could we ask you later to provide the statistics for those as well?

MR GABAUDAN: Yes.

MRS SULLIVAN: Yes, thank you, that is helpful. In global terms, is your feeling that that pattern is the same, if you look beyond Australia?

MR GABAUDAN: I would have to check that. I only have statistics on the global number of asylum seekers that I have brought with me and so I would have to check that and then return to you.

MRS SULLIVAN: Thanks very much. The UNHCR guidelines on unaccompanied minors say that:

They should be represented by an adult who is familiar with the child's background and who would protect his or her interests.

The unaccompanied minors in detention actually have the DIMIA manager as their guardian. The Minister is on record as saying:

There is no conflict of interest on the basis that the DIMIA manager is not involved in the decision to grant a visa.

In your view, does that establish the independence that is necessary under your guidelines?

MR GABAUDAN: No we think the issue should be in our eyes reviewed. We have called for independence of the guardians of the children and we feel that there is a conflict of interest when the person who is the guardian is also the person who is responsible for the detention and the person who is responsible for the determination of refugee status.

MRS SULLIVAN: Do you have any examples of alternative models that would establish that independence?

MR GABAUDAN: There are in Sweden and Canada, certain examples where guardians are totally independent from executive bodies.

MRS SULLIVAN: In broad terms, what is the origin of the guardian in Canada?

MR GABAUDAN: I believe it is from the Social Welfare Department. It would of course have specific expertise in children and were not involved in the decision that affects the refugee condition of the child.

MRS SULLIVAN: Thank you. Perhaps if we could have that information as well.

MR GABAUDAN: We could give you that, yes.

MR GONZAGA: Yes.

MRS SULLIVAN: That would be helpful. In the other models that you have referred to, is there State provision of services, or is there a reliance on volunteer and non-Government organisation support?

MR GABAUDAN: There is a variety of set ups and it would - I have here - there are a few models here and I could share that with you.

MRS SULLIVAN: I guess I'm just looking for trends.

MR GABAUDAN: In general, see you have a mixture of systems where you have NGOs heavily involved, but certainly Government having a supervisory role, in national standards, very often the NGO who is working with these schemes is funded either totally or in great part by the Government.

MRS SULLIVAN: Because it appears to be in the current set-up in Australia, it is either voluntary organisations or there's very little Government funding that goes into supporting people once they are out of detention centres. I was just trying to get a feel if that was the norm or not. You are suggesting it is not?

MR GABAUDAN: No, in countries that have made specific legislation to protect children asylum seekers, there are mechanisms which involve close civil society, I would say, and economic support from government.

MRS SULLIVAN: My final question is again a reflection on your guidelines. We've been informed that the initial interview that occurs at the start of the process that asylum seekers are not given access to a record of that interview, even when they apply for it under "Freedom of Information". If in fact that is accurate, is that supported by your guidelines?

MR GABAUDAN: Sorry, would you like to just repeat it?

MRS SULLIVAN: We've taken evidence which suggests that the initial interview on arrival, there is a tape as I understand it made of that interview but at least at the present moment, that interview is not available to the asylum seeker, nor are they able to access it under the Freedom of Information Act. My question is, how does that fit in terms of the guidelines you mentioned in your opening statement?

MR GABAUDAN: In terms of that tape being requested by asylum seekers to get a copy of that tape, so far in our experience in every country there are different systems of conducting refugee status determination. Not all countries require that the interview should be taped. There's no requirement in our guidelines on the taping of interview. Now, whether the asylum seekers are intending to get a copy of the tape or not, I could not comment on that because the guidelines with regards to this particular issue are silent.

MRS SULLIVAN: Do the guidelines make a more general statement about people being provided with relevant documentation?

MR GABAUDAN: They do request that people be informed on why they are detained. So it is more on, in that aspect, the reasons.

MRS SULLIVAN: The reasons?

MR GABAUDAN: Yes. That has not been done.

MR GONZAGA: Let me just clarify this because we have to distinguish between the administrative and judicial review of detention with the requirement on the judicial review of the refugee status determination application. In our guideline, it requires on detention, it is mentioned about the judicial or administrative review of the detention per se. It is I think separate from the requirement of refugee status determination application.

MRS SULLIVAN: Yes, thank you for that.

MS LESNIE: If I could just quickly follow up on that. What we have heard on this issue, I think we are talking about the screening interviews here, what we've heard and we haven't verified it but what we've heard is that some of the lawyers representing asylum seekers, are unable to gain access to the transcript of the screening interviews. We've also heard from the RRT, the Refugee Review Tribunal, that it is their belief that they can get access to those interviews. What I'm curious about is whether the UNHCR guidelines might have something to say about different participants in the process having access to different documentation of the interview and information gathering process.

MR GONZAGA: No.

MS LESNIE: We are talking about refugee status examination, not detention in this instance.

MR GABAUDAN: We are currently in the process of dealing with reviewing the whole standards that should be applied in Refugee Status Determination. So I will

MS LESNIE: Come back to us when you are done?

MR GABAUDAN: Come back. It is a pretty thick documentation but I will come back to you and try to find the reference to that. It is not yet sort of classed as and Excom conclusion, it might be discussed in the forthcoming Excom.

MS LESNIE: Okay.

DR OZDOWSKI: Professor Thomas.

PROF THOMAS: Yes, I'm also concerned about the integrity of that interview of screening in and screening out because for the asylum seekers, that is the very very important interview. There is a kind of rumour out there that it is some kind of lottery as to who interviews you, you may be in or you may be in out. That is what I'm concerned about. Since you have the jurisdiction over New Zealand and other countries in the region, I would like to know why we have some claims that some people who are being interviewed here get rejected and they abscond, jump ship over to New Zealand and get admitted as refugees. Why is there that discrepancy, if both countries follow the United Nation's guidelines?

MR GABAUDAN: I will try to answer your question in general terms because of course it would be useful to look at individual cases, really where is the discrepancy. Let me start first by saying that within our monitoring capacity whenever we have looked at the way DIMIA is processing cases, we have in the very large majority of cases been very satisfied with the professionalism of the Department. Now, we have not reviewed all the cases but we have reviewed some on an ad hoc basis. We have an open invitation to do so by the Government. We have also been addressed documentation by lawyers or by individuals who were worried about certain cases and again, in most instances when we've reviewed this documentation, we haven't found faults.

So we would say in general terms we are not overly concerned and will not of course swear that no irregularity ever happens but in general terms we think a professional job is done. Now, of the discrepancies you mentioned, what is happening with secondary movements. Most people who arrive in Australia do not arrive straight from the country of persecution. They are secondary movers. In most countries of first asylum, people are recognised as refugees on a prima facie basis and that is done essentially on the broader definition of refugees as it is ensconced for example in the OAU definition which is people fleeing general violence, gross violation of human rights, etcetera.

Take the case of refugees in Pakistan, they would be in camps in Pakistan accepted as refugees under this broad definition because they haven't gone through individual screening. When they move to Convention countries of course, the criteria which is applied in their recognition is a Convention criteria which is a much narrower one. Now, Governments are always asked in the executive committee to be as generous as possible but that is really their discretion. Some Governments can decide to apply strict reading of the Convention definitions.

Some might want to be a bit more elastic, a bit more flexible. This is the discretion of Governments but we want to make sure that people know that at least the strict definition is applied: if possible then Governments can be more generous. Now, that could explain in some cases discrepancies between countries. Now, the decision to apply a tougher or more flexible reading will depend on the sort of pressure a Government is submitted to but it is difficult for me to answer more specifically without having a case to analyse.

PROF THOMAS: At the moment according to the poll, 75 per cent of Australians support the Government policy which has bipartisan support, mainly because it linked with border control. Now, how do other countries manage the border control issue if they don't have detention centres, you know, like in Europe, what is your view about this?

MR GABAUDAN: Well, I'm certainly no expert on border control and I would not like to make any comments that is the prerogative of States on that issue.

MRS SULLIVAN: Yes, okay.

MR GABAUDAN: What I would say is that most countries who have alternative procedures, whether it is a guardian, open hotels, reporting requirements, etcetera, do manage to control most of the people they put in these conditions and it does not seem to affect in a large manner their national security.

MRS SULLIVAN: Thank you.

DR OZDOWSKI: Mr Gabaudan - yes.

MS LESNIE: Just a couple of questions. I just wanted to follow up quickly on some of your experiences in Nauru. We have heard that most of the people on Nauru have been processed and there are some people who have been found to be refugees in Nauru. Could you comment on whether those people have been released from detention on Nauru?

MR GABAUDAN: No, they haven't. They have been I understand - I have not witnessed that - it has been reported - some attempts at organising trips to the beach, etcetera, and sort of slight release from the facility for short times by IOM. Where they have not been released, then we have directed our concerns to Government on various instances.

DR OZDOWSKI: Which government.

MS LESNIE: To which Government?

MR GABAUDAN: To the Australian Government and to the Nauru Government.

MS LESNIE: So whose decision is it to keep the refugees inside those detention facilities?

MR GABAUDAN: Well, the Australian Government tells us that it is the Nauru Government who is sovereign and should decide and the Nauru Government tells us they have leased the facilities to the Australian Government so we are on this .....

MS LESNIE: Okay. Could you comment on whether there are in Nauru any families, or parts of families that also have members of a family in Australia?

MR GABAUDAN: Yes, among the Iraqi refugees - those we have recognised under our mandate - I think it is a little - just below 50 per cent of them had an immediate relative. I'm talking about a father, or children in Australia. We have presented these cases for re-settlement to the Australian Government and that is being processed right now.

MS LESNIE: So when you say: you have presented, are these the refugees that you have processed?

MR GABAUDAN: Yes, indeed.

MS LESNIE: So in the group of refugees that you have processed, you have presented to the Australian Government the separated family?

MR GABAUDAN: Those who have immediate family relationship in Australia for two reasons, one, it is the right thing to bring them to their family, but also no other country would consider them for re-settlement because their immediate relatives are in Australia. It is both a question of principle and of practicality.

MRS SULLIVAN: What numbers are we talking about here?

MR GABAUDAN: 160 - that would be about something like 70 - I can give you the exact numbers that we have submitted. 70-something.

MRS SULLIVAN: That would be helpful.

MR GABAUDAN: I will give you the exact figures we have.

DR OZDOWSKI: Children are in it as well?

MR GABAUDAN: There are children. There are entire families who are mothers with her children, with the husband in Australia, there is a mixed

MS LESNIE: Sorry, could I just pick up on something you said there. Did I hear you correctly that if Australia denied a visa to the separated families, no other country would take them?

MR GABAUDAN: Well, I think so because when we present cases, we have to explain why we go through a certain country, so we look at association with this country first, family is the first one and previous involvement of the person with the country, whether as a student, etcetera, would be the second reason. So countries will always give priorities in their re-settlement intake to people who have had this association, then they would look at other cases, but I would see it very difficult for any other country to say: why shouldn't I take a woman with children to another place, for example, when the husband is in Australia? They would not see this as a logical investment of their resources. They would rathe direct it to people without any association and, therefore, who are still in demand and we do not as a principle push families in one country when they have the immediate relatives in another one, that would be contrary to the whole concept of family unity.

MS LESNIE: So if Australia said, no, it is possible that these families could sit on Nauru forever?

MR GABAUDAN: Yes, but they have not said, no, so far.

MS LESNIE: Okay.

DR OZDOWSKI: Are you finished?

MS LESNIE: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Just one more question relating to Nauru. Earlier, when I asked you about the relationship and IOM and Immigration, you said that you prefer not to comment on the issue. Could I ask you for reasons, why do you prefer not to comment on the issue?

MR GABAUDAN: Well, because IOM is an international organisation which has its own mandate and its own right to relate to Governments and I'm not privy to the arrangements they have and, therefore, I cannot comment.

DR OZDOWSKI: I see. So you don't know the relationship which exists between IOM and the Australian Government?

MR GABAUDAN: We know there are contacts, but just like we have tried ..... meeting to coordinate as much as possible our activities, so that the international community at large looks coherent, vis-a-vis the asylum seekers, so we have been involved in intense coordination on the counselling of refugees that we are both processing and, therefore, as DIMIA, IOM and ourselves are involved, IOM is running the facility and DIMIA and ourselves as the agencies responsible for processing, we have decided how to surrender results, how to counsel after the results, how to present the appeal, so that there is a sense of coherency for the asylum seekers. We believe this is the minimum they are entitled to and that sort of coordination has worked quite well I think.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay.

MR GABAUDAN: I would not like to go from that to comments on what is a bilateral relationship.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, we will ask DIMIA in this case and IOM directly about the nature of the relationships over there. The final question from me is, you said that the number of unaccompanied minors are availing themselves of asylum, or travelling across the world is much larger, it has substantially increased over the last few years. Could you perhaps speculate on the reasons, or give me the reasons, if you know why this trend is happening?

MR GABAUDAN: I think what I have said is that the number of children represents the higher proportion in later arrivals than 2 years ago in boat arrivals in Australia, the children in general. Unaccompanied minors in the world is something I don't have exact figures on. I mean, it has become an issue in Europe, so I would gather that the numbers have gone up, but to speculate on, I would like to go back to the studies that have been written because I fear that speculation might be extremely dangerous if I launch myself on wild speculation.

DR OZDOWSKI: What is a balanced proportion - increased proportion of children coming to Australia, how would you explain this?

MR GABAUDAN: Well, I would like to look into - and I would say I would like to look into because I'm not making an assertion there. Given the experience we have in Nauru with the Iraqis, whether the prohibition of family reunification under the TPVs does explain this increase in children arriving.

DR OZDOWSKI: What, there is a possible potential increase?

MR GABAUDAN: Well, we were struck by the very high proportion of people with immediate relatives in Australia among the people we have assessed ourselves in Nauru, and when I say at the same time that over the last 2 years there is an increase in children as a proportion of arrivals - of illegal arrivals through boats in Australia, I think one would like to establish whether indeed there is a relationship with the prohibition of family reunification. I say I would like to look into it. I think there are suggestions from our experience that it might be, it is not yet a conclusive statement.

DR OZDOWSKI: Statement, but you say at least there is a possibility that Australian Government's Mandatory Detention Policy and the conditions of the TPVs has contributed to the increase in the number, or the proportion of children arriving here?

MR GABAUDAN: It is a concern that we should look into in more detail, yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes. Are you intending to look at the issue in more detail in the foreseeable future?

MR GABAUDAN: We will try to do so as we begin our visits of the detention facilities.

DR OZDOWSKI: Could you give me a time frame, or it is too difficult?

MR GABAUDAN: It is a bit difficult. I don't know the time frame.

DR OZDOWSKI: Well, I would like to welcome you that if this information became available before this Inquiry is finished that perhaps if you could provide us with that information. That is possibly all from us. Would you like to make a concluding statement?

MR GABAUDAN: Well, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for having invited us to make a submission to the Human Rights

DR OZDOWSKI: It is a pleasure and also thank you very much for all the work you put into the preparation of your submission and I'm looking also towards the questions on this.

MR GABAUDAN: Thank you very much, Commissioner.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you very much.

MR GONZAGA: Thank you.

DR OZDOWSKI: So now we will adjourn and we will resume at 11 o'clock.

MORNING TEA [10.28am]

RESUMED [10.58am]

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, we will commence and I would like to ask people from Chilout to come forward. Thank you very much, my name is Dr Sev Ozdowski. Please take a seat, I am the Human Rights Commissioner and with me are two Assistant Commissioners, on my right is Professor Trang Thomas and to my left is Mrs Robin Sullivan. Also with me is Ms Vanessa Lesnie who is Secretary to the Inquiry. Now, you possibly know that I made a number of orders to respect privacy of people so I won't be repeating it. Now, could I ask you to take an oath or affirmation?

MRS JOHANNE GOW, sworn [11.00am]
MS HEATHER TYLER, sworn
Chilout

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Now, could I ask you to give your names, addresses, qualifications and the capacity in which you are appearing, for the record?

MRS GOW: My name is Joanne Gow. My address is [address removed]. I'm appearing here as the representative for Chilout, a community organisation. I'm a parent.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you.

MS TYLER: My name is Heather Tyler. I live at [address removed]. I'm a journalist. I'm appearing for Chilout as a concerned parent and frequent visitor to Villawood.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you very much. Could I ask you to make an opening statement and in particular could you mention in the opening statement your expertise and your knowledge of children who are either in detention or have come out of detention?

MRS GOW: Chilout is a community based advocacy organisation and part of its work is it facilitates a visitors program to Villawood Detention Centre. Unlike many of the other organisations that will have appeared before the Inquiry, although many of us are professionals, we don't go in our professional capacity. We go as friends, we go as parents, we go as visitors, many of the Chilout supporters visit every week, sometimes two or three times a week and over a period of time have therefore built up quite strong relationships with some of the parents at Villawood Detention Centre and their children.

So really our evidence to the Inquiry is based on those sorts of relationships, not professional relationships but through this we have I think a unique perspective on the quality of life and the sort of environment that children and their parents are living with in immigration detention centres. We believe uncategorically, just for the record, that detention that is longer than is necessary to undertake basic health checks and administrative details becomes very quickly punitive in nature and the policy that can indefinitely incarcerate in children goes well beyond inappropriate. It is in essence over a long period of time immoral and that is the position we take very strongly.

DR OZDOWSKI: You mentioned the length. Do you have any period of time in your mind it could be so justified to keep people in detention?

MRS GOW: Only the shortest possible period of time.

DR OZDOWSKI: But you don't know whether the shortest is a week or a month?

MRS GOW: No. I think in Sweden it is about 6 days in terms of their immigration detention policy. So as soon as possible, as long as is needed for health checks to be undertaken and we identify who the child is and their relationship to the people around them and those sorts of details. I don't think there's any reason why those children should remain in detention longer than that period.

DR OZDOWSKI: I understand you visit Villawood quite regularly. How often do you go there?

MRS GOW: I personally go every couple of weeks. Heather Tyler here would probably go to the detention centre twice a week.

MS TYLER: Twice a week.

DR OZDOWSKI: Twice a week. Could you describe the process of access to Villawood, do you need to get Ministerial permission or ACM permission? How does it work?

MRS GOW: To access Villawood is relatively easy in essence. We go along to the detention centre. You need to have some identification, a driver's licence is sufficient, obviously with your name, a photograph, address, signature. You then line up outside the - we proceed through the first layer of razor wire which is the outside perimeter and then line up and we are processed which is simply a single sheet of paper with your name, address and details, the person who you would like to visit.

DR OZDOWSKI: So you need to know the person inside there?

MRS GOW: Yes, you need to know the name of a person and its to be correct.

DR OZDOWSKI: So if you misspell?

MRS GOW: It depends how far it is, it depends which guard is on, it depends whether they are happy for you to go through or not, it depends on a lot of things but generally you can identify who it is and as long as they know who it is, they will let you through. They tag you, then at

DR OZDOWSKI: What do you mean, "tag you"?

MRS GOW: You have a plastic tag put around your arm.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay.

MRS GOW: You then go through metal detector. One of the difficulties is that the rules about what you can and can't take in sometimes change. Lots of things change, sometimes we're allowed to wait on the porch outside the office but I've been out a couple of times where we've had to wait outside the perimeter fence and those periods might be up to 2½ hours.

DR OZDOWSKI: Are there any restrictions put on you when you are attending to the detention centre?

MRS GOW: There are restrictions in terms of what we are able to take in. I think at the moment they are restricting it to one bag of food per visitor for detainees, no mobile phones, no identification.

DR OZDOWSKI: What kind of food, any kind of food?

MRS GOW: Any kind of food, it needs to be in plastic containers. It can't be in any metal containers, it can't be in glass and pretty much any kind of food is okay, yes. We can take reading material in, generally speaking and less than $10 and no car keys.

MS LESNIE: Just with the food, when you bring a bag of food, do you have to eat it in the visiting area or can the detainees take it back?

MRS GOW: No, the detainees can take it back.

MS TYLER: As long as it is not cooked.

MS LESNIE: Why the distinction, do you know?

MRS GOW: They say that there are too many cockroaches and that and that taking cooked food inside will encourage, I've heard this from ACM several times.

DR OZDOWSKI: So basically what can you take in? You can take in apples or some fruit, maybe some

MRS GOW: Dried biscuits.

DR OZDOWSKI: Dried biscuits.

MRS GOW: Snack sort of things but not meat products, cooked meat products because they I suppose have access to this from the dining room.

DR OZDOWSKI: So you entered, what is next? Can you go wherever you want to go?

MRS GOW: No, once you are past the desk with your tag, you then go through another room and then you are allowed into a fourth area and then into a visiting, for want of a better word, pen which is an area which is cordoned off from the rest of the detention centre and the detainees are called from the information you have provided and they can enter the visitors area from where they are living and they eventually come through.

DR OZDOWSKI: How long does it take, the people first to attend?

MRS GOW: It depends when you go. It depends if there is a muster on at the time. It depends - at dinner time obviously it takes people a little while to come through because they're eating, not very long, a few minutes.

DR OZDOWSKI: How do you communicate, is that in English or do you have an interpreter with you or there's a telephone which you could use?

MRS GOW: Most of the detainees I know speak quite good English and if they don't, there are other detainees who are able to translate for me. I mean, on a number of occasions particularly when I was putting this submission together, I took people with me who were able to translate for me.

DR OZDOWSKI: The meeting is one on one or the meeting could be also with a group of detainees?

MRS GOW: Often for me with a group and probably with Heather too, family groups together, friends together.

DR OZDOWSKI: What about children, do you have any contact with children when you go there?

MRS GOW: Yes, the children will often come out with their friends or they can come through into the visiting area.

DR OZDOWSKI: Quite often I am told that Villawood is the best of the detention centres. Do you have any experience of any other detention centres?

MRS GOW: No, personally I don't. That comment was made in our submission and it was based on discussions we had had with a number of the detainees that we have developed friendships with. They often will comment that Villawood is definitely the preferable detention centre.

DR OZDOWSKI: So they had some possible experience of some other detention centre?

MRS GOW: Many of them have been through other detention centres, either Port Hedland and/or Woomera or Curtin.

DR OZDOWSKI: So why do you think Villawood is better than the other ones

MRS GOW: My understanding of the main reasons seem to be that it is less isolated than many of the others so it's much easier for visitors to go in to see them, to take them things that they needs, extra food, extra clothing. Geographically it's not as isolated so I imagine - only trying to imagine what it might be to be a detainee that you are not simply in the middle of the desert, also I imagine in terms of climate it would be much less severe than say Woomera or Curtin.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, what are their major complaints the detainees are making to you?

MS TYLER: Boredom, monotony of environment, or severe depression.

MS LESNIE: The children are saying that?

MS TYLER: The children are saying that.

MS LESNIE: Do they not go to school?

MS TYLER: If you were behind razor wire and you had virtually no children to play with, would you have any desire to learn when you are surrounded by depressive adults all day? There are approximately 500 detainees in Villawood at this present time. Only 16 are children. The children have such severe social isolation from their peers that this causes them great anxiety.

DR OZDOWSKI: What about the treatment of children by guards?

MS TYLER: I would like to ask the question in return? Do ACM have any training in child welfare? There seems to be quite a variation. Some guards are friendly, openly friendly, some empathetic, others are not.

DR OZDOWSKI: Did you hear any complaints about bad treatment of children by guards?

MS TYLER: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: What kind of bad treatment?

MS TYLER: Swearing at the children, just surly, abrupt, non empathetic behaviour towards the children. Some of the children are taken out on excursions, they have no social interaction with the community although they are outside the detention centre they are accompanied by guards. The role of the guards is to keep the children

DR OZDOWSKI: In uniforms?

MS TYLER: Not in uniforms. The guards are in uniforms.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay.

MS TYLER: So the children are actually out in the community in a limited capacity but they have no opportunity to socially interact with anybody out there. The guards' job is to keep them in line, keep them together and so they take on a kind of punitive role for the children who are just trying to have a good time and they are severe. I've heard this from children and two people who observed an excursion that the guards did not smile, did not encourage the children to have a good time. They just acted as

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, could you give me an example where excursions are taking place, where do they go to?

MS TYLER: They go to McDonalds, the zoo.

DR OZDOWSKI: How often do they go there?

MS TYLER: I think the excursions are about once a month.

DR OZDOWSKI: Once a month and all children can participate in them?

MS TYLER: No, no.

DR OZDOWSKI: How are children selected for such excursions.

MS TYLER: The children who mainly go out are aged under 12, the teenagers are not included.

DR OZDOWSKI: What is the reason for not including teenagers?

MS TYLER: I don't know.

DR OZDOWSKI: So how many children would we have there under 12, six, eight?

MS TYLER: May be six to eight, currently 16 children under the age of 18 in Villawood.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, and how many officers would accompany them for excursion?

MS TYLER: I'm not sure, at least two, at least.

DR OZDOWSKI: In uniforms?

MS TYLER: In uniforms.

DR OZDOWSKI: They travel by ACM car or a little small bus or how do they

MS TYLER: A little bus.

DR OZDOWSKI: What do children think about such excursions?

MS TYLER: The last one they went on to a children's museum, they came back and said they didn't enjoy it because they didn't - they were expected to walk into a place and have a good time. Nobody explained to them what this outing was about. They had no spontaneous interaction with anybody and the children's museum.

DR OZDOWSKI: Did a teacher or some kind of social worker going with children as well for this excursion?

MS TYLER: Not that I'm aware of.

DR OZDOWSKI: Did you hear any complaints about children being hit by guards?

MS TYLER: No.

DR OZDOWSKI: Did you hear any complaints about food or about access to religious facilities or any other issues?

MS TYLER: I don't think that access to religious facilities is an issue that comes up with children. That's more a parental concern.

DR OZDOWSKI: Parental. What about food?

MS TYLER: The children - some of the children I know would rather go without food than go without social contact. Meal time is between 4.30 and 4.30 pm at a time when there are visitors in the visiting area. The children would rather stay out in the visiting area and not eat than miss out on social contact.

DR OZDOWSKI: Are you aware of special food being prepared for children or do they eat whatever is prepared for everyone?

MRS GOW: As far as I'm aware, the children eat the same food as their parents.

DR OZDOWSKI: Exactly the same, regardless of age?

MRS GOW: I don't know about very small children, whether they have access to

DR OZDOWSKI: So after they have bottles they go straight to adult food?

MRS GOW: I don't know. Toddler food, we are not aware of. The children do complain if you talk to them, particularly the young adults. I think one of the hard things to understand and perhaps one of the areas where we have some insight simply because we go so often and we build relationships is the perception that people see of detention centres, the razor wire or the unusual admissions statements at the front desk about service delivery or the bad food or the fact that education exists but is so incredibly basic, it's not so much those aspects that make it so horrible for children. It's the fact that that happens for months and months and months and months and months.

I mean, a roast dinner is fine but it's not fine when you are still having it 6 months later. Education for kids, if you ask DIMIA they will say, "Yes, children at Villawood get access to basic maths, basic English", and they do which is fine for 2 weeks and it might even be fine for 3 months but when you have been in detention for 3 years and all you have received over that period of time is basic maths and English, it's not okay any more. I think it is with lots of aspects in detention, it's the period of time, the length of time that the children are exposed to those experiences that creates the long term damage.

DR OZDOWSKI: How basic is the education, how many hours per day of education is provided?

MRS GOW: As far as I know, they receive I think 4 hours, 3 or 4 hours each day at Villawood of maths and English and art and I think there might be some physical education but that's only for children who are at primary school age. For older children, there's just English and some art classes. The older kids are really reluctant. I think it's harder, all of the children suffer but in some sense for the young teenagers and adolescents, it's a really difficult situation because they actually have to try to fit it into a framework and it's very difficult for them.

DR OZDOWSKI: Would you know anything about participation rates, how many of kids do go to the classes, both under 12 and above 12?

MRS GOW: Below the age of 12 as I understand it, it is compulsory for the children to attend and they do, above 12 it's not compulsory as far as I know and the children, some do, some don't. One of the young men I was talking to about this when I was putting the submission together, and he didn't go and he refused to go and it was almost like an act of resistance.

DR OZDOWSKI: What is the compulsory attendance schooling in New South Wales?

MRS GOW: Sorry?

DR OZDOWSKI: How old can you be to leave school in New South Wales?

MRS GOW: I think the age of 15 or 16, to year 10.

DR OZDOWSKI: Why the difference between 12 and 16 or 15?

MRS GOW: I have no idea. I imagine it's because they simply don't have to. I mean, really according to our international obligations as far as I understand it, the children should be receiving an education that is comparable with the children living in New South Wales at Villawood. That's certainly not the case.

DR OZDOWSKI: What would happen to a child, say 13, 14, in broader community in New South Wales who is not attending school?

MRS GOW: I imagine that the school attendance officer would visit their parents, that they would be forced - whatever issues were keeping them from school would be addressed and they would be forced to go to school. Children have to attend school at 13 or 14 in New South Wales as far as I understand.

DR OZDOWSKI: Are you aware of State officers from the Department of Education going to detention centres and looking into the issue of education?

MRS GOW: No, I'm not aware at all.

DR OZDOWSKI: Do you know why the State Government is doing nothing?

MRS GOW: No, we don't and one of the areas that Chilout is currently doing some work in is speaking with the State Government about its role and responsibility in relation to children in detention and also children once they are released from detention. Certainly, it seems an area that the State Government is very reluctant to become involved in.

MS TYLER: Three children from one detainee family have received permission to attend school, primary and high school outside Villawood Detention Centre, just three. Children from another family have been told they will have to wait 11 weeks and then there will be a review.

DR OZDOWSKI: Do you know what arrangements were made for these three children? Who initiated, who is paying for it, how does it work?

MS TYLER: No, I'm sorry, I don't.

DR OZDOWSKI: Perhaps one more issue I would like to focus on before I will ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask further questions, it is the issue of the impact of detention on the family unit. We have got, so far, much evidence that family units appear to be disintegrating in detention. Do you have any knowledge of it happening? Do you have any stories from children and parents about what is happening to families in detention?

MRS GOW: I think we outlined this quite extensively in our submission, and it is certainly an area of deep concern for us. There's a quote here from the Prime Minister, who spoke at the Joint Meeting of the US Congress, and he makes a very specific reference to the importance of families in Australian and maintaining family units, that these are the core units of social welfare in our community. In detention, it is almost impossible for them to operate in that way in terms of parents being entirely disempowered in their ability to be proactive on their children's behalf and also for children to relate to their parents.

The children are constantly seeing their parents either depressed or unable to act on their behalf, or in a position of servitude in terms of their relationship with the guards and the system. That, I imagine, is very difficult for children to watch. As a parent, one of the things I can do for my children is when they need me to act, I can act on their behalf. That is, whether or not I can achieve it, I can do it, and those parents can't. It is very difficult for them. It is embarrassing for them, for the fathers and very few people talk about fathers, I think, because it is a difficult issue. We talk about children not living in detention.

Some people can imagine mothers not living in detention, but very few people talk about fathers being allowed to live in the community with their children because it is a difficult issue for a number of reasons. Fathers are put in a particularly difficult position because normally, they would be the breadwinners. They would be the source of strength for their family, and they have none of those opportunities and it is devastating for both parents and children. In terms of building trust, it is difficult in terms of children looking up to their parents as providers. It is difficult.

DR OZDOWSKI: Possibly, they would be also blamed for the situation the family found itself in.

MRS GOW: Very much so, and that is an issue that constantly comes up, that the parents made this decision to come and as a result, their entire unit is suffering but a lot of those problems - one of the - we told a young woman, in our submission, who gave birth to a child in Australia when she arrived, and watching her

DR OZDOWSKI: In detention?

MRS GOW: In detention. Watching her has been a really painful experience for those of us who have come to know her in terms of watching how her baby and she, their relationship, has not progressed the way you would imagine a normal relationship between a mother and child might progress.

DR OZDOWSKI: Could you describe it?

MRS GOW: This is based on discussions with the psychologists who have met with her - parents from Chilout who also practice as psychologists - who have - the bonds of attachment are not normal at all. The child will go to anyone. The child - the relationship with the mother is positive but it is not a deep bond. The mother suffered a number of conditions, including postnatal depression that was not treated until long after it should have been. Issues like breast feeding, the mother actually persisted but with enormous trouble.

When this mother - I suppose you guys have so many issues to deal with but this is another area that was of incredible concern to us - women who end up giving birth while in detention, when she went along to have that baby in a New South Wales hospital, her husband wasn't allowed to attend with her. She had had almost no history of antenatal care. She turned up at the hospital with two guards. She gave birth in a room by herself. There was no interpreter at all. This was a woman, a young woman, in her 20s giving birth to her first child.

Now, as a parent, I know how frightening giving birth is. That is with my husband and my support person and my obstetrician and with a system I know. This situation has been repeated over and over again, and husbands are not allowed - they are certainly not allowed to attend any antenatal care and they don't attend the birth. That is the beginning of this child's life, and this mother's life with the child. It is pretty much downhill from there.

DR OZDOWSKI: Did the woman require some kind of psychiatric care at a later stage?

MRS GOW: She is actually currently receiving psychiatric care and has been for many months now. She is really just keeping her life together.

DR OZDOWSKI: Would you know about what was made available to her and her child on her return from hospital to detention?

MRS GOW: As far as I know, when they returned from the hospital - and the other thing that might be of interest in terms of culture and the cultural experience of giving birth, for many women outside Western culture, they would normally stay at home. They would probably stay at home for about 40 days, and they would have the support of their mothers and their sisters and their grandmothers, all their family around them. This is a woman who, as far as I know after the normal period of time, of maybe a week, was returned to the detention centre with her child.

There was minimal follow-up. There was minimal support. She went back to her husband who had not shared the experience with her, and he really - he, in many ways, became the primary carer of that child over the next few weeks, but all sorts of - mastitis developed, postnatal depression, as I said, other complications, and it was days and days after they should have been identified that they were. This was

DR OZDOWSKI: What about access to nappies, to cotton wool, to formula and so on and how easy it is?

MRS GOW: As far as I know, and this is only based on our discussions with detainees, I haven't personally experienced - they haven't raised those issues of being able to access the very basic things. That does not seem to be an issue. It is more the environment.

DR OZDOWSKI: Could I ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask questions? Professor Thomas?

PROF THOMAS: In your relationship with the teenagers, what do you think about the long term impact of detention centres?

MS TYLER: I know three teenagers very well. All have a history of self harm. I believe that they are profoundly damaged. I have asked for independent psychological assessments of all three which have concluded the same thing. They are bitter, angry, deeply disillusioned. They have no hope. They are at a stage in their lives when they should be building hopes for their futures. They have no hope whatsoever.

PROF THOMAS: How long have they been in there?

MS TYLER: Over 2½ years.

PROF THOMAS: Why are they there for so long?

MS TYLER: Because Minister Ruddock deemed their parents not to be refugees.

PROF THOMAS: So they, in a way, have been rejected and are waiting to be removed?

MS TYLER: Waiting to be removed or appealing the process.

PROF THOMAS: Okay, yes. Now, if these children eventually - if they are, sort of, accepted and settle in Australia, what kind of expectations do you think they will have?

MS TYLER: All they want to do is go to school, to be normal, to have normal peer contact, be accepted, to be loved. That is all they want. They fear that they are living in such a freakish situation now that they will never be accepted. They fear being angry young men when they get out and not being able to move on with it. They fear that the damage is so profound that they will never recover, and they do not want to be like this. They simply want to be normal teenagers, to make a peaceful, intelligent contribution to Australia.

MRS GOW: Sorry, if I could add to that too. The young men - we talked about education with primary school children. These young men, certainly if they do eventually live in the Australian community, will have received no high school - basically, no high school education. They have no access to TAFE. They have no access to vocational training so when they are released from detention - if, in fact, they are released - they will be 17, 18 with no training, no prospects of a job and be, you know, 3 years behind their peers.

It would be incredibly difficult for them, and that is in addition to coming to terms with their incarceration over a long period of time, coming to terms with what has happened to them, and coming to terms with what happened to them in their home country. So it is difficult to see - they are incredibly strong, they are incredibly generous, they are fantastic, and given the situation, I find it is incredible they are not more bitter but it will be incredibly difficult for these children who, if they are released into the Australian community, they are young people who we say: yes, you had a genuine case. Yes, you should be here. Yes, you were a genuine refugee. Yet we have put them so far behind the eight ball in terms of being able to resettle and recreate their lives.

MS TYLER: They are so far behind in education and social skills.

PROF THOMAS: I have heard of little children who are, you know, attending school. Do you think they are - there is, therefore, more hope for them in the long term sense?

MS TYLER: I can think of one child who is aged 11 who exhibits the same behavioural symptoms as his teenaged brothers. His lives without hope. He is often too depressed to come out to the visiting area, even when we ask for him. He has only one child visitor his own age. There is nobody in Villawood Detention Centre his own age to play with. He is profoundly introverted and he is - if I compare him to my own 11 year old, this is a child who lives without hope. He is just not interested in so many aspects that a normal 11 year old would be interested in.

PROF THOMAS: Thank you.

DR OZDOWSKI: Mrs Sullivan?

MRS SULLIVAN: Are there any excursions where the whole family is allowed out?

MS TYLER: None whatsoever.

MRS SULLIVAN: Is your organisation allowed to sponsor excursions?

MS TYLER: No. I have written letters in the past asking for this type of thing and been told, no, because it is a security issue and the excuse was there was a lack of time but no families are ever allowed out all together.

MRS SULLIVAN: Does your organisation have any children involved with it who visit children.

MS TYLER: Yes.

MRS SULLIVAN: I thought I heard you say there was one.

MS TYLER: Yes.

MRS GOW: Heather's children both go out, and I take my two children when I go.

MS TYLER: We encourage people to take their children.

MRS SULLIVAN: Earlier this morning, we heard the comment that the current policy has bipartisan support and that the polls are showing a large number of Australians are supporting it. In your submission, you indicate that you have got a large number of people who have joined together. What do you think is the common thread that has brought your group together in comparison to those other figures that have been quoted?

MRS GOW: I think the thing that draws us together, the great bulk of Chilout - people involved with Chilout are parents themselves, and I didn't join the group reluctantly. I felt very strongly about this issue pretty much from Tampa onwards. Many of us did, sort of, come together at that time because I think - in terms of what happens to adults who come without appropriate documentation, I think that is a very difficult issue. I don't think it is nearly as difficult as the Government is making out but I do think it is difficult.

In relation to children, children are not a risk. They are not terrorists. They haven't come of their own - they have come with their parents or they were sent. They are of absolutely no risk to the community whatsoever. The only thing that I can personally think of as to why those children remain in detention over long periods of time rather than being settled in the community, the main reason seems to be it is part of a policy of deterrence. That is an enormous concern, that we are using young people as part of a policy of deterrence.

When you go out to Villawood and you meet with them - the first time, it was okay. The second time, it was a little bit harder to leave and each time I've gone, it is more and more difficult to leave the Villawood Detention Centre simply because as you get to know - with any relationship in your life, as you get to know someone, you understand the history. You understand their background. You understand their motivations. You understand them as a human being, and it is difficult to understand why my kids get to walk out, small innocent children who are lovely, get to walk out and beautiful innocent children I have to leave behind for no reason other than their parents sought a better life for them.

Whether they are economic refugees or whether they are refugees genuinely in fear for their lives and afraid of persecution if they return to their homeland, it is still not justification enough to keep children behind barbed wire and in detention for long periods of time. Whether they come into the Australian community eventually or whether they are returned to their homeland, those children are so far behind the eight ball either way, and ultimately, we are going to have to take responsibility, I believe as a community, for the damage that we do.

I'm not prepared to be part of that, and I think that is probably what draws us together as a group. We are simply not prepared to be part of the system that does that. It is amazing. You send out a call to action to Chilout supporters. There's a family who have just come out of detention, and you receive hundreds of E-mails back of families saying: yes, for sure, they can come and live in our back room. They can come and live with us. People, I think, are frightened in the community.

People are frightened for lots of different reasons, and I think, particularly in New South Wales with the Tampa, with south western Sydney, with September 11, with riots at detention centres, people became very scared very quickly. We can understand that as a group, but I think we need to be very rational about what the true fears are, what the real risks are and it is certainly not children. I think that is what we feel very strongly about.

PROF THOMAS: One more question.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, but the last one, please.

PROF THOMAS: Yes. Do you think there is a kind of a racial element in it because there has been the suggestion that if these people were not Muslim Iraqis, Afghanistan, but they were white from some other countries, they would have been more accepted?

MRS GOW: Yes, quite definitely.

MS TYLER: I think there is a racial issue. I also think that the public, in general, sees the extreme behaviours, the self harm, the riots and so on and does not see the other side. They are people just like us. If we were behind razor wire, I would burn and maim and stitch my lips. I would do anything to stop being silenced at the injustice and I think this is what people really have to realise. They are people just like us and that they are believing a racist propaganda, and I have no boundaries to cross. I have no barriers. People are putting up barriers. I think it is a tremendously racist policy.

DR OZDOWSKI: I think we will have to finish here. We are out of time

MS TYLER: Okay.

DR OZDOWSKI: but allow me to say thank you very much for preparing this solid submission, and thank you for your evidence.

MRS GOW: Thank you so much for your time.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, I would ask our next witness, Jim Carty, from the Marist Refugee Office. Good morning, Father.

FATHER CARTY: Good morning, Commissioner.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, I would like to ask you to take an oath.

FATHER JIM CARTY [11.39am]
Marist Refugee Centre

DR OZDOWSKI: Could I ask you to make an opening statement, and to focus especially on the area of your expertise and direct knowledge of the issues impacting on the refugees in Australia?

FATHER CARTY: Thank you very much. My name is Jim Carty. I'm a Marist priest, and I represent the Marist Refugee Centre and also the Jesuit Refugee Service and Caritas Australia. I am grateful for the opportunity to make this submission. As to my expertise, I bring only my years of experience working with refugees. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a doctor or psychiatrist. Perhaps it would be helpful to mention I built and directed a refugee camp in Japan, a Vietnamese refugee camp, and I ran that for 6 years. It was an open camp. I was a volunteer in Hong Kong working in the camps between 1987 and 1988, and during that time I visited almost all the camps in South East Asia and Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia.

Since October of last year, I have visited every detention camp in Australia, except Maribyrnong and that includes Christmas Island, and more recently the two camps that make up the Pacific solution, Nauru and Manus. The isolation and desolation of Nauru is overwhelming, as described in my report. Imposing on this bankrupt and indigent nation is breathlessly cynical and condescendingly reprehensible.

The people of Nauru deserve help without this imposition. The normal socialisation that occurs in the family in these camps is destroyed, as mentioned earlier. Roles of parents are in many ways negated. The father cannot work and carry out the normal things that he does in the family. The mother cannot care for her children, cooking, those sorts of things. Everything is handed out. This places great stress on both the parents as well as the children.

In the camps of South East Asia it was quite different. There were huge camps where they were given food to cook for themselves in their own small houses, but in Hong Kong and here in Australia, those kinds of things are not provided for them, so the family unit is in many ways broken down. I would like to talk about three camps, if I may.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, please do so, yes.

FATHER CARTY: The first one would be Curtin. To get there you go to Broome and then drive 220 kilometres north, you turn right - okay - I spoke with one family on three successive days, a family of a mother and father and their two children, a 13½ year old girl and a 17½ year old boy who had been in the camp for 2½ years at the time of my visit. Because the boy was 15 at the time of his incarceration, he did not get access to any formal education. The girl being 13½ was allowed to attend the local school in Derby. However, the boy's depression became so severe after 18 months, he was so concerned about his own well being, but particularly about his parents, he went on to a hunger strike and as we know with so many cases, sewed his lips. The girl also went on a hunger strike and from an affidavit that they made, they went on that hunger strike for 25 days. The girl didn't sew her lips up.

Eventually, as they became weaker - and they were able to take some liquid - but they were separated from their family, their mother and father, and put into isolation and threatened with nasal feeding, unless they began to eat. The boy cut the stitches out of his own lips and then began to eat. It took him 10 days before they could take

DR OZDOWSKI: And the boy wasn't attending school?

FATHER CARTY: He was not attending school. He was physically fit because he obviously did exercise, but it was interesting to note that when I went every day for about 2½ hours to see the family, the boy came out for the first time, sat very quietly, hardly said a thing. The two other days he didn't come out at all. I was told that he was asleep and going through the various stages of depression.

DR OZDOWSKI: We possibly would like to track this case and to see DIMIA records of it, so could I ask you perhaps to talk to the family and to see whether they would agree for us to request the documentation to be presented and, if so, could you please notify the secretary to the inquiry with the name and with the agreement.

FATHER CARTY: I would be very happy to do that and, in fact, they did make a statutory declaration at some stage, but I can get a copy of that for you with their permission.

DR OZDOWSKI: That would be good, with their permission.

FATHER CARTY: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you.

FATHER CARTY: Right, moving then to Manus because I will spend a little bit more time, if there is time, on Nauru, but Manus is totally shut down to any outsiders. I only know of one person representing an NGO who had access to the camp, was taken around by the camp commander. The only connection he had with the people in the camp was a video of the smiling people in the camp, he was not allowed to talk to them. My attempt to get into the camp was blocked about 500 metres short of the camp itself which is as you would probably know, it is on the Island of Mannus on the place called Lombrum, where the Naval Base is. The only access to that is one road, or by sea. The road access since the visitation by Evan Williams, I think - anyhow, he was with that TV program - he got into the Base, but not into the camp. After that the PNG Defence Force set up a road block, I was turned away by the road block.

DR OZDOWSKI: You in a way managed to get remarkable access to all other detention centres. You are possibly one of the very few Australians who got such good access. Could you explain how it has happened? Could you explain what your nature of special relationship with ACM and DIMIA?

FATHER CARTY: I don't have a relationship with either of them directly. I was asked by my provincial to write up a report on detention centres, asylum seekers and see if there was some way we could respond more specifically to the issue, so I took that mandate broadly and just, on my own initiative, went and visited the camps - usually through the local parish priests.

DR OZDOWSKI: I see.

FATHER CARTY: With regard to Woomera, I was able to get in through him.

DR OZDOWSKI: So you didn't seek permission from the Department, or from the Minister, you just arrived with the local priest and that is the way how you accessed it?

FATHER CARTY: In the case of Woomera and Port Hedland, yes. In the case of Curtin, no, I got the name of the family that I spoke to, to seek permission for me to be there and then I wrote and asked permission.

DR OZDOWSKI: So in this case your knowledge would be limited rather to the visiting early as possible.

FATHER CARTY: Very much so, yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, thank you.

FATHER CARTY: With Christmas Island, I went there on behalf of the Catholic Immigration Office in Perth and was denied access to the camp, but I did speak to the manager. So coming back then to Manus, of great concern to me, apart from the incarceration of these people, they are denied access it seemed to anybody - any NGO - access is denied. The local parish priest, a place at Papitalai, which is just down the road from the camp, he actually goes on to the Naval Base for services, but is not allowed into the camp itself, which is a separate entity. He knows that there are Christians because there was a time when he was permitted, but that has been denied.

DR OZDOWSKI: Do you know who made that decision to deny access for him?

FATHER CARTY: Well, he told me that it was the new camp commander, but I don't know the relationship between the IOM, the Australian Government and the PNG Defence Force.

DR OZDOWSKI: And "camp commander", as you are calling it, he is IOM person?

FATHER CARTY: No, I would call him the Head of Mission. The commander of the Naval Base.

DR OZDOWSKI: Of the Naval Base, okay.

FATHER CARTY: Yes, yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay.

FATHER CARTY: He has overall say it would seem about who comes on and who does not.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, because it is on the territories.

FATHER CARTY: That is correct, yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you, please continue.

FATHER CARTY: So during the Second World War, even during the time of the POWs on the Thai-Burma Railway, there was a Marist priest who was a chaplain and he spent his time up and down the line access to care for the dying and burying the dead, but even here in this day and age, spiritual counselling and help is not allowed in this camp. So coming then to Nauru, well, as I mentioned in the report about the isolation and desolation, it is isolating them on what I found was the most ugly Pacific island I've ever been to in terms of the conditions. I feel very sorry for the people of Nauru, but we have devastated, it is a lunar landscape.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, could you give us a bit more detail how you came and establish, so we know how much you have seen and how you access it and so on, what was the process?

FATHER CARTY: Because JRS and Caritas, all their requests to go there officially were denied, we decided that since I had this sort of open mandate, that I would try and just go as a visitor, which I did, and a transit visa was granted to me at the point of entry on Nauru Island for 3 days. Prior to my going I did receive a request from an international NGO in Washington to see if we could help in the medical area, medical team, and that organisation in Washington had been approached by IOM in Geneva to see if they could get a back-up team, because you can never guarantee that you will have sufficient medical people on the island to care for the people in the camps.

I had all attempts to contact - the person in Canberra had been knocked back - so nevertheless when I got on to the island I was taken actually into the camp. Access to the camp on Nauru is very simple in the sense of, if you have permission, you simply tell the guard and walk in, there is only a boom gate. In fact, the detainees in the topside camp and I think also in State house, can in fact walk out, but they would be arrested by the Naruan police I'm told. I didn't see that happen. Once I got on to the island I was taken down to the IOM office and met the deputy IOM man and when I told him that I was sort of representing this Counterpart International, which is the organisation in Washington, he said: I know it, come and meet the IOM Head of Mission. When I told him that I was also - I was possibly going to help with the medical care he said: well, go into the camps and have a look at it, and then he appointed an Australian Afghan man as my interpreter and guide, so then I had free access to both camps.

DR OZDOWSKI: So really be an accident of history so to speak?

FATHER CARTY: Exactly.

DR OZDOWSKI: What did you see there?

FATHER CARTY: In Topside camp, I saw a camp that was still under construction. I was told by the people that there were pools of sewerage up until the previous month or so. A huge problem both for the people in the camps but especially the people of Nauru is water, potable water. At one stage they were actually bringing water from the Solomon Islands to the Island. So what you have is an ongoing building program. At the time I got there two state of the art sewerage systems had been put in place in the two camps but, again, insufficient water and they took me around - they insisted on me looking at every toilet block and the mess that they were in. So that was their main physical concern was lack of water, lack of water to wash in this hot, humid conditions and to of course to wash clothing.

DR OZDOWSKI: And the toilets were?

FATHER CARTY: The toilets were in a terrible mess because they didn't have enough water to flush them and of course we introduced the western style toilet which was quite unsuitable, the pedestal style.

DR OZDOWSKI: What about the children?

FATHER CARTY: The children? Well, the ones that I saw and spoke to in Topside Camp were actually lining up for an educational program which they had established together with a number of the interpreters. At that stage they had English classes with - 22 of the teachers were in fact detainees who spoke very good English. I didn't really need the interpreter. They were able to talk to me quite well. So there was that English program was under way together with program for computer learning, no access to the internet but at least they were training them in the computer. So my sense was that the IOM people there on Nauru were concerned to make it as comfortable as possible and to avoid any outbreak of violence.

DR OZDOWSKI: I asked that question before of another witness. Were you able to observe the relationship between DIMIA people and IOM people over there?

FATHER CARTY: No. I know they were there, I saw the office, I didn't have any direct engagement with them but I had a closer engagement with just the two IOM people and I fact was invited to attend the block leaders' meeting for about 30 of them, in the Dining Room and I was asked to talk about what I was doing there.

DR OZDOWSKI: And who was at the meeting in terms of IOM and DIMIA?

FATHER CARTY: There was an Australian woman representative and I think she works for DIMIA. I don't know who she was, she didn't speak at the meeting and it was just a cursory greeting to me.

DR OZDOWSKI: So you can't assess who was in control of the place? Was it DIMIA or IOM?

FATHER CARTY: No. When I went to see the Head of Mission in Nauru, he mentioned, he said: yes, I will let you go into the camps but I will check with, and he mentioned the name of I think, the head of IOM in Canberra.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay.

FATHER CARTY: So I was making

DR OZDOWSKI: So you were checking with IOM in Canberra?

FATHER CARTY: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Perhaps I will ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask questions. Maybe let us start this time with Mrs Sullivan.

MRS SULLIVAN: You paused, talking about the education provision for children, was there any other provision of services for children that you saw, such as recreation, health provisions?

FATHER CARTY: The health provisions on the island at the time that I was there, it had five doctors, seven nurses, one psychiatrist from Norway, I think and one Arabic speaking psychologist who commuted between the two camps. I should mention that, if I may

MRS SULLIVAN: Yes.

FATHER CARTY: the Topside camp and the Stateside had just been divided at the time of my arrival and it was 2 weeks before the first determinations were made and there were 800 Afghanis in the Topside camp and the 350 or so Iraqi, Iranians and Palestinians and I think that division was made in preparation for what they all - what they already knew in terms of determination and I just put to you, they have satellite television, they have - so they know what is going on in the camps in Australia, they know what has been going on in Woomera and one man asked me, he said: how many detainees left in Woomera?

I gave a figure, I've forgotten what it was, and he said: well, the demonstrations are working are they? And I said: well, you draw your own conclusions. So when you have, of those 800 Afghanis, 400 are young, very strong, very resourceful according to the psychiatrist because they are survivors, men and who are increasingly becoming angry and that is what came out at the meeting. Water and the uncertainty of their future and that was back in March that I was there, so

MRS SULLIVAN: So your judgment in terms of your other experience is that the health services were adequate?

FATHER CARTY: Adequate, yes.

MRS SULLIVAN: What about recreation? You have mentioned computers and satellite television.

FATHER CARTY: They were constructing a children's playground in one section and as was mentioned earlier this morning, they are in fact taking about 30 from at least one camp every afternoon, or most afternoons for a swim in the local harbour, and it is a protected harbour, and they do, I think, have volleyball competitions which the detainees always win.

MRS SULLIVAN: So is there any contact with the local people in terms of visitation?

FATHER CARTY: I sat and watched on two occasions the swimming there but - the locals would come and watch. I didn't see any interaction as such apart from - the volleyball games I didn't see, so obviously there would be that interaction.

MRS SULLIVAN: What about links with family members or community members back in Australia including in the detention centres? Was that an issue that was raised with you?

FATHER CARTY: No, they do have access to satellite phones on an irregular basis. I'm not sure how frequent that is, so they are able to make a call. I also know that there are people in Australia - I'm not sure about families who are in contact with some of the members, some of the detainees.

DR OZDOWSKI: So these two phones were exclusively reserved for the use of detainees of .....

FATHER CARTY: Whether it is exclusive, I'm not sure but certainly that was available to them.

DR OZDOWSKI: To them?

FATHER CARTY: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: So in a way, IOM people had their own phones there?

FATHER CARTY: Yes, yes. The IOM head of office walked around permanently with the head set on.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay. Thanks.

PROF THOMAS: From your observation what do you think about the atmosphere of the place? You know, the mental health, mental state of the people?

FATHER CARTY: Well, my observation was, as I mentioned earlier, growing anger and distress among those with whom I spoke. I didn't have much chance to speak with the women or children but I did talk to the psychiatrist who said she didn't find any, what she would describe as cases as post traumatic stress syndrome as such but a lot of depression and a lot of anger which could become, she said, post traumatic stress syndrome for the longer they stay there. So it is - I was overwhelmed by the sense of isolation and desolation. You look through this chain link fence at a moonscape that - it is not the Pacific Island that we, you know, like to think of, with the swaying palms and coral water.

DR OZDOWSKI: So when you attended the block leaders' meeting, what do they talk about?

FATHER CARTY: Well, they talked about the two things, the lack of water which caused them great discomfiture and the uncertainty about their future and they felt that they had been lied to by the Australian government - that is what they said. They thought they would be off the island much sooner and so what they are saying now would be even more out of anger that they are still there.

DR OZDOWSKI: So do they - do they say that they wish to be transferred to detention centres in Australia?

FATHER CARTY: They just want to get off the island.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, so they do want to get off the island, even just to come to a detention centre

FATHER CARTY: Anywhere. Well, one man said: I have never in - a man from Afghanistan, he said: I had never believed that such a place existed.

DR OZDOWSKI: So you mean that they are willing even to got to Woomera?

FATHER CARTY: I didn't ask that question. No, I - probably it would, meaning Villawood?

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes.

FATHER CARTY: If detention was still the mandatory, because at least they get access to

DR OZDOWSKI: Water

FATHER CARTY: some of the care that the groups ..... are doing, are giving.

DR OZDOWSKI: Father Carty, any of the people in Nauru, do they have any contacts, family contacts in Sydney or anywhere in Australia?

FATHER CARTY: They do, but I can't give you just who - but I could provide that through another contact that I have if that would be helpful.

DR OZDOWSKI: If you could take notice, please and provide us with that information.

FATHER CARTY: I just need to note also that I met the son of one of the women that disappeared on Ashmore Reef. He was in Nauru.

PROF THOMAS: So in your observation did you see the children playing around?

FATHER CARTY: No. I have a photo of them here. I took a photo and they were sitting there like children around the world with not much to do and they had just finished lunch and their parents were - their mothers were washing so they were playing in the sand, and they have got plenty of that.

MRS SULLIVAN: Thank you.

FATHER CARTY: Thank you.

MRS SULLIVAN: Dr Ozdowski?

DR OZDOWSKI: Father Carty, any concluding statement?

FATHER CARTY: Yes, if I may. I believe mandatory detention is a punitive policy and it is, for it's using innocent people, or at least until proved otherwise, as a deterrent which I think is unacceptable and I came here not only on behalf of the children but also on behalf of the Australian conscience. It seems to me that - I have this little quote here:

Whatever is opposed to life itself...

and there's a whole list of things:

...and particularly sub-human living conditions.

Which is not necessarily the case, but:

Arbitrary imprisonment and deportation or slavery, all these things and many others, are infamies indeed and they poison human society but they do more harm to those who practise them than those who suffer the injury.

If this is true, what are we doing to Australia by allowing such injustices to occur?

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you, Father Carty for your evidence.

FATHER CARTY: Thank you very much.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now I would like to ask our next witness, Dr Newman, to come forward. Please take a seat. My name is Sev Ozdowski. I am the Human Rights Commissioner. To my right and left I have two Assistant Commissioners. To my left is Mrs Robin Sullivan who is also Queensland Children's Commissioner and to my right is Professor Trang Thomas who is Professor of Psychology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. I also have our Secretary to the Inquiry, Ms Vanessa Lesnie, sitting on the left. I would like to perhaps start by asking you to take an oath or affirmation.

DR LOUISE NEWMAN, affirmed [12.03pm]
New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry, North Parramatta

DR OZDOWSKI: I would like also for you to give your name, address, qualification and the capacity in which you are appearing here, for the record.

DR NEWMAN: Yes, it is Dr Louise Newman, New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry, North Parramatta. I am the representative of Royal Australian New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, I am the chair of the faculty of Child Adolescent Psychiatry for Australia and New Zealand. I am also the chair of New South Wales Branch of College of Psychiatrists. I am a director of New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry. I am representing the College and we are part of the Alliance of Health Professionals representing 45,000 medical specialists across the country and we have made a submission obviously relating to this issue.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, thank you very much and I also saw you speaking publicly on the issue on a number of occasions.

DR NEWMAN: Yes, I have.

DR OZDOWSKI: Dr Newman, before I come to evidence I would like to remind you that I have made a number of orders dealing with privacy of people so I will ask you not to mention names. If it is important to mention a particular case we can do it after the official hearing and you could provide the name to the Secretary.

DR NEWMAN: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: If there are any outstanding issues which you would like to clarify later please be in touch with us. Now, could I ask you to make an opening statement and in particular to address the issue about your direct knowledge of detention centres and your direct contact with children, either in detention or after they left detention?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, certainly. Our college has been conducting a series of visits to the detention centres. Several colleagues as well have been involved in this activity. We have been trying, as best as possible, to document the actual mental health effects of mandatory detention. We have also been looking at children released into the community and are involved in treating these children and their families on a pro bono basis given that many of them have no rights to mental health treatment and care which they need. We have documented very severe emotional psychological and emotional disturbances in children. My main direct involvement has been with children and their families in Villawood and also treating several children who are now in the community.

These children's problems are severe and are likely to be ongoing. We are looking at quite significant effects on children's development which of course means there are long term implications in terms of service provision and there is currently of course, a lack of clarity about who has any responsibility for the long term treatment of these children if we do let them in to our communities. We have raised particular concerns about very young children and specifically those children who are born in detention which is a particular interest of mine and my area of clinical expertise.

These very young children are showing signs of developmental delay and very severe attachment problems and as highlighted in our submission there is quite a significant body of research and scientific evidence which points out the very severe and complex developmental problems that can result from these sorts of early disturbances. There is also a body of literature which we have made reference to which points out how vulnerable children are to these sorts of very distressing experiences and the trauma they are experiencing particularly in terms of their neuro-biological development, their brain development and then again I think both these bodies of evidence point to the fact that we are going to have long term problems, potentially, for these children.

These are children who even if they are very young, are witnessing extremes of disturbed behaviour in adults. They frequently have parents who themselves are traumatised, distressed and despairing who are unable to parent effectively in the detention context. The developmental effects, I think, are added to by the depriving and harsh nature of the environments with very clearly inadequate opportunities for play, for exploration for learning and other crucial experiences that children need if they are to develop normally.

So we are seeing children who currently have very clear features of stress and trauma which psychiatrists and psychologists would diagnose as post traumatic disorder and we are now starting to see the longer term implications because those children have not been appropriately treated and indeed it is not possible to treat children in a detention context such as they are at the moment. We have been documenting the rates of very disturbed behaviour in children such as self harm and suicide attempts. We have seen suicidal behaviour in children who are pre-pubertal. This is virtually unheard of, in the general communities, exceptionally rare, and suicidal ideation in children as young as 3 and 4.

Now many of these children of course are witnessing such behaviours in the adults around them. Children are traumatised by seeing adults' self harm

DR OZDOWSKI: Children 3 and 4, you said. Is it documented in the way you said that the suicidal behaviour could be a

DR NEWMAN: Yes, yes we are documenting that. These are - and there have also been one or two cases of children who have been treated in hospital context, young children, for suicidal behaviour.

DR OZDOWSKI: For suicidal?

DR NEWMAN: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, how can we check this evidence? How can we get access to more information about it? Would it be possible for you to check with the parents of children whether we could get access to names and check the departmental records?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, I think ideally you would have access to medical records.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes.

DR NEWMAN: Parents and carers, of course, can request that information under Freedom of Information.

DR OZDOWSKI: We can also request

DR NEWMAN: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: but we would prefer to have agreement of parents because we have heard of a number of reasons why people on occasions do not wish to draw attention to the cases.

DR NEWMAN: Yes. We would certainly be very happy to discuss with the parents we have contact with, yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: If you could, yes, take it on notice.

DR NEWMAN: So those are behaviours of course that are very, you know, very severe, not usually seen in children that age in the general community and only occur when children have been extremely traumatised and are significantly disturbed. We have also raised issues about the actual conditions and treatment of women who are delivering and highlighted the fact that many of these women are at risk of suffering from post natal depression and anxiety.

DR OZDOWSKI: Is it much higher than in the normal population?

DR NEWMAN: It seems to be, yes. The difficulty is actually documenting rates. We are in the process at the moment of undertaking a more systematic survey. Access remains an issue but I think it is important that we actually document the rates. We have collected, as much as possible, rates of self-harm and suicide and highlighted the fact that even completed suicides - many of these cases are still before the

DR OZDOWSKI: Coroner, yes.

DR NEWMAN: coroner but it would appear that the rates of suicide are significantly higher than again, than in the general community in the order of

DR OZDOWSKI: The Minister would disagree with you on this one, I think.

DR NEWMAN: Yes, I'm sure the Minister would disagree with us.

DR OZDOWSKI: So you are working on documenting it and

DR NEWMAN: Yes, we will actually be publishing that data in the Medical Journal of Australia that is in press at the moment. That is myself, Michael Dudley and Sarah Mares.

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay, well, they would like to ask you that if there is any additional evidence coming to your hand before this Inquiry is finished that you won't forget us, that you will provide us with

DR NEWMAN: Yes, we would like to. We have several, again, further examples of quite serious mental health conditions in detainees which we would like to highlight and I think they raise some of the systemic issues about the actual lack of adequate interventions and support and the difficulties of actually providing appropriate health care in the detention context. Our submission I think makes that point that many clinicians, doctors and other clinicians, are facing a tremendous ethical dilemma working within the detention context. This is certainly a matter of some debate at the moment as to what extent we should be involved in actual service provision, or whether we risk

DR OZDOWSKI: Why, are you involved in it?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, we are because in many ways we believe that it is the detention context per se and the current policies and practices of mandatory detention that produce directly mental health problems and other health problems in the detainee population. To work within that system and thereby lend tacit support down to the policy of mandatory detention are for many of us, seems to put us in an very unenviable position of collusion with a system which we believe to be toxic to the health and mental health of detainees.

DR OZDOWSKI: Could you heal psychological, or psychiatric problems in the context of detention?

DR NEWMAN: No, I don't believe that is possible. We certainly have documented many cases where even raising with a detainee who we have had in hospital the likelihood of them returning to detention has prompted a relapse of their condition, we have seen that on many occasions.

DR OZDOWSKI: Dr Newman, just going back to your direct experience, I understand you visited Villawood?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, I have.

DR OZDOWSKI: How often did you visit Villawood?

DR NEWMAN: I've probably been in there about 15 to 20 occasions.

DR OZDOWSKI: Right, so a substantial number, but you restricted your visits only to the visiting areas, or you had an opportunity

DR NEWMAN: No, we have been working with the lawyers acting on behalf of some of the detainees and have obtained permission to conduct clinical assessments in the clinic section of Villawood. We, initially, went as visitors and I think doing comprehensive assessments is very difficult in those circumstances given the environment, lack of privacy, many people milling around and so on. We actually wanted to be sure that the assessments we were doing were valid and of good quality so we have gone in officially, so to speak.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes. But you didn't have unrestricted movement in Villawood Detention?

DR NEWMAN: No, we don't have unrestricted movement. We're only allowed into the health clinic.

DR OZDOWSKI: Medical area, health clinic?

DR NEWMAN: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, you also deal personally with a number of clients, or patients, yes, who came out of the detention centre?

DR NEWMAN: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: How many children are involved?

DR NEWMAN: I've seen probably about five.

DR OZDOWSKI: Five children you know directly and you deal with?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: In addition, because of your function you would possibly be consulting with a whole range of professionals in the field and your evidence is also based on the direct knowledge of other professionals?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, that is right.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you very much. Perhaps the last question from me - and I will ask Professor Trang Thomas, who is an expert in this area to put further questions to you - but could you explain to me how does being in detention impact on the development of the brain of a child, or a young child? How it is possible that a small child born in detention develops differently to children in the broader community?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, I will try. Essentially, what we know about what children need for healthy early brain development is this, children require secure attachment relationships, or at least relationships where they have adult carers who are emotionally available to them and consistent in their care. They also require appropriate levels of stimulation, so opportunities for learning and play, and in general environments that are conducive to learning and development. We would argue that the Detention Centre context directly impacts adversely on children's development for multiple reasons.

Firstly, because their main attachment figures, parents and carers are themselves usually depressed, distressed, internally pre-occupied - many of the adult carers are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - and they are not emotionally available for children. In fact, what you observe in the care of children is that the children are cared for, as well as possible, by very traumatised adults in a collective sort of fashion, so many of the children show signs of being somewhat disorganised in their attachment behaviour, so they don't form the sort of close emotional bonds that children need for ongoing healthy development.

The other groups of experiences that have direct impact on brain development are the traumatic experiences, the things that these children witness. Quite young children are seeing adults losing control, becoming despairing, screaming, they are witnessing riots, they have been exposed to self-harm in adults. One of the most severely distressed children I have been involved with was a little boy who witnessed someone self-immolate and also had witnessed a significant suicide attempt, so these children are terrorised in essence by the things that they are witnessing.

Their whole sense of safety and security in the world is shattered by the things they are exposed to and no-one in that situation is there for them, so it is unmediated experiences of terror and fear. That would cause, as would be expected, very high levels of stress hormones, which is a natural response in a terrifying environment and there is clear evidence that stress hormones at very high levels when the brain is developing so rapidly, which is what is occurring in the first 3 years of life in particular, will actually cause severe disturbance in the way the brain grows and organises itself.

DR OZDOWSKI: Will it have a long term impact?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, it does. The evidence that we have in terms of people who have actually studied this in laboratory settings, in a scientific way, would show that children who have been traumatised in the first 3 years of life still show signs, even though they are in safe environments, into their early to mid-adolescence. That work we have referenced in the submission.

DR OZDOWSKI: So they can recover but it will take a substantial period of time?

DR NEWMAN: It is going to take a lot of quite significant intervention over a long, long period of time and none of the children who are in detention in Australia who are traumatised in this way have access to that sort of treatment.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, did you advise either the Department or the Minister about this?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, we certainly have on numerous occasions advised the Minister and his Department that this is likely to be the case. We have presented a synopsis of the available evidence. We have also notified all the children that we have seen in New South Wales to the Department of Community Services. We have advised that these children are at risk of long term and ongoing developmental harm if they remain in detention.

DR OZDOWSKI: And what was the response?

DR NEWMAN: We have had no response.

DR OZDOWSKI: Did you advise the New South Wales Child Protection Authorities about this?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, on numerous occasions.

DR OZDOWSKI: And what action did they take?

DR NEWMAN: It varied. We have had no clear response and I think that is because of the jurisdictional issues and the lack of

DR OZDOWSKI: What kind of jurisdictional issues are we talking about?

DR NEWMAN: In that these children are allegedly under Commonwealth jurisdiction.

DR OZDOWSKI: But the Commonwealth does not have a Child Protection legislation.

DR NEWMAN: No, no, so they do not have rights to child protection, so we have raised that issue at a very high level with the Department of Community Services and asked for some clarification as to whether they see themselves as having any responsible to protect children who are to all intents and purposes in New South Wales, but their verbal response was that it was seen that: Child protection for children in immigration detention is a Commonwealth matter and that they had no legal authority to do so.

However, that being said they did actually send in with one case that we have raised, child psychiatrists to conduct further assessments on the situation which were done, reports were submitted by those psychiatrists to the Department and no action was taken. We can provide these later, if necessary, but these were multiple recommendations that these children needed to be remove and have appropriate mental health treatment.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, we would be interested in seeing that documentation, so if you would take it on notice as well. If you would have a child in the broader New South Wales community being in similar conditions as the children in detention, would DOCS do something about it?

DR NEWMAN: We would hope so. At least they would agree that they have the

DR OZDOWSKI: The responsibility.

DR NEWMAN: the responsibility to do that.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you, I will ask now Professor Thomas to ask further questions.

PROF THOMAS: In your assessment and treatment of these children, do you use you know sort of more culturally appropriate, non-verbal psychometric tools, or do you use interpreters?

DR NEWMAN: To date we have used interpreters, largely because of the lack of suitably translated instruments with the groups that we have actually been dealing with, so the majority of the work has been done with interpreters. Although I must say, some of the even quite young children have reasonable English.

PROF THOMAS: Yes. So in your college you look at the development of culturally appropriate tools, because it looks like we are going to have large communities of non-English speaking migrants?

DR NEWMAN: Absolutely, no, I think we would be very interested in working on developing those and what we of course need would be culturally appropriate child and adolescent mental health services and staff, particularly with experience in working with trauma and dislocated communities, which is lacking at the moment in New South Wales.

PROF THOMAS: Yes. The Minister would argue that some of those children/adolescents, have experienced trauma in the country of origin before they came to Australia.

DR NEWMAN: Yes.

PROF THOMAS: Do you think it is possible to differentiate the impact of detention centres and their previous experiences?

DR NEWMAN: Certainly, many of these children and families have of course come from traumatic events. In addition, they have experienced often cultural breakdown community trauma and cultural dislocation. Those factors, if anything, mean that we need to provide more support and help for those people, not less. What we in effect provide is no support and help for those people and then we add to their burden of trauma by partly the refugee determination process itself, the conditions in which we house people and the experiences, particularly for children that they are exposed to, so I think these things are additive. I mean, ultimately, it is impossible to give say percentage figures as to what the cause of the disturbance is.

PROF THOMAS: Yes.

DR NEWMAN: But the irony I think is that we should in fact recognise that we have vulnerable children and families who need care and support and in fact come here searching for that and what we offer them is re traumatisation and long term health problems.

PROF THOMAS: What do you think are the protective factors for these children in detention centres in terms of mental health?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, and for the others, it is an interesting question. There's some evidence that many people who have organised themselves to the extent that they have been able to leave traumatic circumstances of course are quite resilient and have shown high levels of adaptive behaviours and resourcefulness and certainly have come with the intention, many of the parents we have spoken to, of wanting to protect their children and have a highly developed sense of themselves as good parents and trying the best they can. When they come here of course, the terrible irony is that they are in effect disempowered as parents and parenting in the detention context is virtually impossible and the scene is a nightmare for many of these people who then experience a tremendous sense of guilt, particularly for the fathers.

What they often are is despairing and saying: look what I've brought my family to when what I wanted to do was something totally different. So we start off I think in many cases with quite resilient resourceful well motivated individuals who gradually become disempowered and despairing. Children of course are quite resilient creatures overall. The children in effect try and obtain support from many of the adults around them. I think sadly we are seeing, particularly in the young children, almost a situation where the children try developmentally, inappropriately to parent the parents. The children are sometimes dealing with immigration officials and guards in a direct way, making requests because sometimes the children have better English.

They take on emotionally an undue burden of responsibility and care. So we've seen that on numerous occasions with quite young children exhibiting what we would call a role reversal in their relationship with their parents where the child parents, parents of the parents. Ultimately that's very harmful for children because they're sacrificing their own needs. So some pseudo mature behaviour in a lot of these children is quite common, children 5, 6, 7 looking after younger siblings and other little children as best they can because sometimes parents are not able to do that themselves.

PROF THOMAS: Do you think age can be a vulnerable factor for these children?

DR NEWMAN: We overall would think that the youngest children, particularly those born into these environments, are the most vulnerable and I must say we've seen quite severe disturbance across the age range, the adolescents in particular are quite despairing, very angry, and I think find the situation particularly traumatising. The youngest children are more likely to show attachment disturbances, slightly older children then become depressed. That's when we start to see self harming behaviours and suicidal thoughts.

These are in primary school age children, adolescents are more likely to become very angry and enraged about their circumstances and do more of the protesting sort of behaviours which are common in other stressed groups of adolescence. I think what we see in the detention context is the contagion effect of this. It's a hot house atmosphere so you very rapidly get the spread of those sorts of behaviours which are a mixture of protest, of feelings of despair and helplessness and contagion.

PROF THOMAS: Now, many of these children will eventually be released into the community. So what do you envisage is the psychiatric and the long term treatment that they will require - the services that they will require in the long run?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, I mean, we've been trying to actually do some rough calculations. These children and adolescents are likely to need, given the severity of the problems that they already have, long term mental health treatment. Ideally you would have a multi-disciplinary approach to managing these children and their families. On average children with post traumatic stress disorder of this magnitude need treatment for at least 6 to 12 months. Some will need longer, particularly some of the very young children who have developmental problems.

They will also need things like remedial education and preferably group activities to look at improving their peer relationships and socialisation. Their parents will also need support. We're roughly talking about in terms of just the one to one treatment component on average across the disciplines about $100 an hour. More when we add the extra components that are needed and I think we can do the calculations. It's a very significant health bill that we're looking at that the Australian community will need to fund.

PROF THOMAS: Do you think it is possible in a way that we are having generation, a large group of adolescents who eventually when they go out into the community can become quite a problem for the society?

DR NEWMAN: Absolutely. We're looking at a generation potentially of bitter, angry, alienated young people. That's talking to the adolescents currently who already say they do not like this community because they feel that we've treated them in this way. They're angry and embittered.

PROF THOMAS: So do you think it is possible for a potential delinquent to

DR NEWMAN: It wouldn't be surprising, adolescents who are at risk of becoming angry and anti-social and delinquent are usually those who've had adverse experiences essentially where they've been maltreated and they come to feel, they lose faith in the sense of community and they feel that the community has nothing to offer them and they remain very angry and they are likely to act out. So potentially, yes, the other big burden will be depression, an ongoing vulnerability to depressive illness which is already a major public health problem.

We know that these sorts of experiences, particularly if they're ongoing in this way, are risk factors for depression across the life span. So we have the added burden of treatment for depression, medication costs, and so on.

PROF THOMAS: So you think it is possible to reverse all of those effects if they receive really, you know, I mean, intensive treatment?

DR NEWMAN: Look unfortunately, some of these children are already damaged. That's the tragedy of it. Certainly we can intervene and hopefully minimise the long term disturbances. I think what's concerning is that on a daily basis, children are being traumatised in this way. We need to be able to remove, in our opinion, children and their primary carers as a matter or urgency and institute urgent mental health interventions if we are going to have a hope of preventing this sort of burden of disease that we're talking about.

PROF THOMAS: Thank you.

MRS SULLIVAN: What is your comment on the initial screening processes, the mental health screening processes when people come into the detention centres?

DR NEWMAN: Look unfortunately on the whole, they are somewhat superficial and in fact it's not clear that they're actually in all cases conducted by people with the necessary skills to interpret disorder if it's there and disturbance in people. So I think on the whole it's inadequate. It wouldn't be surprising to find high levels of symptoms of distress amongst such a group of vulnerable people given their circumstances. That wouldn't be surprising at all. I think what the system doesn't have is any capacity to manage or understand when people are severely at risk. So in terms of a risk assessment, from our point of view it would be inadequate.

MRS SULLIVAN: Do you receive copies of that screening material when you're treating some of these individual cases?

DR NEWMAN: Within the detention context where we've gone in to assess people we've not been given access to any medical records.

MRS SULLIVAN: Have you asked?

DR NEWMAN: Yes.

MRS SULLIVAN: What was the reason given?

DR NEWMAN: They're confidential. They're not even released to the lawyers in many cases, the lawyers acting on behalf of the trainees haven't been given them.

MRS SULLIVAN: So are they given to your patients on exit, the ones that you are treating who have now left detention centres?

DR NEWMAN: No, I've not seen any.

MRS SULLIVAN: You have asked to see them?

DR NEWMAN: Yes.

MRS SULLIVAN: What was the answer the former detainees gave - sorry, what was the answer that the former detainees gave when you asked for those records?

DR NEWMAN: They hadn't had them themselves.

MRS SULLIVAN: Right. Have you seen the evidence of the use of prescription drugs with children for mental health reasons?

DR NEWMAN: Yes. We've had at least a couple of examples where children - adolescents as opposed to younger children - have been prescribed SSRIs, antidepressants. I think one of the issues that I'm speaking about, Villawood particularly, that there are no consulting psychiatrists at Villawood. The medical treatment and prescription of medication is carried out by the visiting general practitioners. We've had cases that we've been involved with where as a specialist, our opinion has been the use of antidepressants and other tranquillising medication, as one of the cases in our submission, has been extremely concerning and inappropriate.

We've had a woman with a very severe depression who had been prescribed valium which is a benzol diazepam which is not the treatment for agitated major depression. In fact this woman needed treatment in a psychiatric facility with antidepressants and anti-psychotics. So we are concerned about the quality and standards of clinical care within the detention context and I think part of the difficulty for those practitioners working within that context, we did directly try to discuss with the general practitioner involved the treatment of the person we were seeing. They wouldn't speak to us and the reason given is that they signed confidentiality clauses with ACM.

I think this gets back to the point I made earlier about the ethical dilemma facing doctors. I would feel that the doctors in that situation are not able to treat people appropriately. The constraints of the system are such that they are compromising their own clinical standards.

DR OZDOWSKI: For me it was quite surprising when visiting all the centres, I saw psychologists wearing ACM uniforms. Is it possible to treat people wearing these uniforms?

DR NEWMAN: I don't think so. I personally don't think so. I think opinion is obviously divided because some individuals are doing that. I mean, we have raised this as a major ethical concern. I don't think it is possible from all the evidence that we have got, from multiple sources now for quality of care that is given and numerous examples where the doctors might have well have wanted to get a specialist opinion, or do certain sorts of treatment and ACM have said, no. Doctors in that situation and other clinicians have very little autonomy.

DR OZDOWSKI: So what you are saying is that on occasion ACM was second-guessing the medical or psychological opinions of the professionals?

DR NEWMAN: Absolutely, and the Minister's Department. I mean, I think it needs to be said that the Minister for Immigration and the Department of Immigration is not a Department of Health and have actually no expertise, or jurisdiction in my opinion, to be making decisions about people's health care and treatment and, in effect, because of the system that is what happens.

MRS SULLIVAN: My final question is about whole of family treatment. Have you seen any evidence of that occurring in detention centres - that is the first part - and the second part is: do you see that as a possible way of dealing with some of these issues, given the fragmentation of family ties that we just talked about?

DR NEWMAN: Yes, I mean, in principle it is essential to treat family and social groups together in these sorts of situations. The evidence is very clear in the trauma research that traumatised people need to maintain bonds, a sense of community and cohesion. They need to be treated together as much as possible, which is why we have on several occasions, argued with the Department about the removal of children and the fragmentation of families that occurs, sometimes as a form of pseudo punishment within the detention context.

In terms of that sort of treatment being offered, I mean, I think it needs to be said that treatment is not currently given to people in detention. These are people in need of treatment in our opinion, but they are not receiving it. There are no organised mental health services, let alone child and adolescent mental health services in the detention context. There is very much, you know, the very limited capacity in some of the centres, maybe to offer one or two sessions which is very much just the beginning of trying to understand the problem. I would not think that we had caught any of that treatment.

MS LESNIE: The Department states in its submission that there are parenting skill seminars offered. Are you aware of any of those happening?

DR NEWMAN: There have been one or two sessions that I'm aware of in Villawood, largely for some of the mothers with younger children around feeding. Feeding and care of children has been a constant issue in, not only Villawood, but the other detention centres as well because of the regime, but in no way are they equivalent to what we would offer in the community for high risk vulnerable people in need of parenting -education or parenting classes.

DR OZDOWSKI: There were accusations, if I could say, some made at some of the behaviour of detainees in detention centres is cultural. Could you comment how other cultural groups would behave in similar kind of conditions?

DR NEWMAN: We have argued that, essentially, any group of people stressed to the utmost and to this degree would show disorganised behaviours, behaviours motivated by protest and despair, that that is a universal human reaction to these extremes of treatment and trauma. Within that of course there is going to be cultural variation in terms of how people express distress. It is well known that different cultural groups express psychological distress and depression differently, so we have in some cultural groups in the detention context, people who would focus more on the physical, or sematic presentations of distress, so experience a lot of physical symptoms as a result of stress, things like headaches, stomach pain and so on and we know that that occurs in other cultural groups in our community as well.

The allegation has been made that self-harm and self-mutilation, particularly the mouth sewing episodes, have been purely cultural manifestations and shouldn't be seen as reflecting on the detention context. Somehow it has said that: this is normal for those people and does not mean that detention is bad. From my understanding and speaking to people that behaviour, yes, is motivated out of a sense of protest and despair, but the particular form of self-harm, as in the sewing of the mouth, had a particular symbolic significance for people who felt themselves to have no voice.

But it was still, by all those people themselves, seen as extreme behaviour and I think that is the bottom line that, all right, there might be some cultural variation in how it is expressed, but they all recognise that as an extreme form of behaviour and as a form of protest, so in no way in my opinion from talking to these people was that seen as somehow culturally normative. It still means that these are people stressed to the absolute maximum who felt that they had nothing else to do as a form of protest.

DR OZDOWSKI: Dr Newman, there were also allegations made that parents were either assisting, or encouraging children to sew their lips and to commit other acts of self-harm. Are you aware of it, or did any member of your association report to you that the parents were either encouraging, or participating in these kinds of acts?

DR NEWMAN: No. We don't believe that there was any direct sewing up in any sense of children, or adolescence by parents, or encouragement in an active way in doing that. We certainly saw some adolescence who decided against their parents' expressed wishes that they would join in that behaviour as a form of protest. Children, of course, are very vulnerable and likely to be influenced by the behaviour of those around them. All the parents we have spoken to and the adolescence - and I personally have met several adolescents who had sewn up their mouths previously - denied that that had occurred. I have no evidence of that at all.

DR OZDOWSKI: Dr Newman, any final comments?

DR NEWMAN: No, I think that has covered most of my points, thank you.

DR OZDOWSKI: Well, thank you very much for your submission and for your evidence.

DR NEWMAN: Thank you very much.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, I would like to ask representatives from the Sabean Mandaean Association, our last witnesses, to come forward to give evidence. Thank you. Now, could I ask you to take an oath or affirmation, please?

MR HATTOM: Yes.

MR ESSELLE JOHN HATTOM [12.42pm]
Sabean Mandaean Association

DR OZDOWSKI: Could I ask you to give your name, address, qualifications, and the capacity in which you are appearing for the record.

MR HATTOM: My name is Esselle John Hattom. My address is [address removed] and the capacity I'm appearing in is that I am the Association spokesperson for the Sabean Mandaean Association of Australia.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you. Before we ask you further questions could you let us know about your background in terms of dealing directly with asylum seekers or people in detention or people who have been released from detention?

MR HATTOM: Certainly, sure. I am Sabean Mandaean by birth. I have been engaged in probably the vast majority of Sabean Mandaean asylum applications to Australia and some to New Zealand. I have very close, intimate links with the Mandaean community here which, of course, is about 80 per cent asylum seekers. My ongoing links put me in the position where I'm able to ascertain quite accurately any ongoing effects that manifest themselves on these people after they have been released from detention.

DR OZDOWSKI: Did you visit any of the detention centres?

MR HATTOM: Yes, I have.

DR OZDOWSKI: Which ones?

MR HATTOM: Villawood.

DR OZDOWSKI: Villawood only?

MR HATTOM: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: But you went there to meet with some Sabean Mandaeans who were there?

MR HATTOM: Yes, that is correct.

DR OZDOWSKI: So you, possibly, didn't inspect all the facilities around you. You were in the visitors area only?

MR HATTOM: No, I was not permitted to go anywhere but the visitors area.

DR OZDOWSKI: You would be an actual point of contact for Sabean Mandaeans who are released from detention? If they arrive, they would possibly be contacting you?

MR HATTOM: Well, yes, they would be contacting the Association. We do look after a lot of their needs, their social needs, their spiritual needs, settlement needs as well as administrative needs. We are basically in contact with almost all of the Mandaeans who are currently in detention.

DR OZDOWSKI: I see, so you are in contact with all who are in detention. What about people who are released? Are you personally in contact with people who are released?

MR HATTOM: I'm personally in contact with some of them. However, I mean, the capacity in which I appear here is as spokesperson so the experiences which I wish to avail you of are really experienced by the Association as a leadership for the community.

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, I will come to that. I am trying to establish your contacts first, so how many families would we have here in Sydney who are released from detention?

MR HATTOM: In terms of families, it would probably be around 60 or 70 who have been released. That figure might not be accurate. I would have to go back and verify that.

DR OZDOWSKI: How many of them did you meet personally?

MR HATTOM: I would say more than half.

DR OZDOWSKI: Half. Now, could I ask you to start with telling us something about Sabean Mandaeans?

MR HATTOM: Certainly.

DR OZDOWSKI: We met them in a number of detention centres and if you, maybe, start with that question.

MR HATTOM: Sure. Because of the lateness of the notice, we didn't have time to prepare a proper submission. We have prepared one for today. I've abridged it somewhat. I would like to read it to you because a lot of the problems are very specific to Mandaeans, particularly problems of persecution, of children within the detention centres.

DR OZDOWSKI: We will take the submission in evidence and we will read that. I would prefer, perhaps, to talk with you about the issues rather than to allow you to spend the whole time reading it.

MR HATTOM: Sure.

DR OZDOWSKI: If you would like to make a short statement or use part of the evidence time, but we will take it as evidence as it is and we will read it.

MR HATTOM: Okay.

DR OZDOWSKI: So, maybe, let us start with why you are different or why you are perceived differently from other religious groups. What is happening to Sabean Mandaeans, that they are leaving Iran? I understand some of them are leaving Iraq as well.

MR HATTOM: Right. The majority live in Iraq, an estimate of between 30 and 35,000 live in Iraq and about 5000 live in Iran so the minority live in Iran. Mandaeans are the last remaining gnostic religion. They are monotheistic. They pre date Christianity and Judaism. They have been persecuted for, basically, hundreds of years - say 1300 years - by Muslims in the region, particularly because they steadfastly refuse to convert to Islam. The remaining Mandaeans in Iran and Iraq suffer persecution.

We believe that the persecution suffered by the children, it is paramount for the Inquiry to be aware of this because a background to the kind of trauma that they suffer on the way here as well as the trauma that they suffer because of ongoing persecution within the detention centres themselves. I can give you a brief idea of what kind of persecution they suffer in Iran and Iraq from the statement, or you may wish to ask me questions?

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes, please. Please do.

MR HATTOM: In Iran, the children are forced to study the Islamic religion knowing full well that it is not the faith of their parents. They are bullied incessantly by Muslim children. Muslim children pick on them for being Mandaean, calling them Negis, which means defiled. They are not allowed to play with Muslim children and are ostracised in school playgrounds. Disputes and disagreements between children are almost always resolved in favour of the Muslim child. They are not allowed to drink from the water fountains utilised by Muslim children as they are told they would contaminate the water due to their Mandaeanism.

A number of Mandaean children have been abducted by Islamists and forcibly converted to Islam. A larger number have been threatened with abduction and forced conversion. This is often, but not exclusively, used as a tool by corrupt authorities and criminals to extort money from well to do Mandaean jewellers. An even more serious occurrence is the sexual assault of Mandaean children. Even in these instances, Mandaeans have no recourse under Iran's Islamic laws and complaining only serves to exacerbate the situation for the Mandaean child and her parents.

There's at least one Mandaean child currently in detention who we know has been sexually assaulted, as verified by the Department's own child psychologist. In Iraq, children live under what is arguably the most diabolical political regime in the history of human civilisation. The entire population survives in a state of constant alert, always fearing and preparing for an impending war. There is not a single Iraqi child alive today who has not seen war or the devastating effects of the combination of Saddam Hussein's despotic rule and the UNs crippling sanctions.

Being a tiny minority, Mandaean children in Iraq are extremely vulnerable to the excesses of the regime, and particularly to the effects of witnessing the oppression and persecution to which their parents are subjected. Similarly to their peers in Iran, Iraqi children are also bullied on the basis of their Mandaeanism and are constantly subjected to ostracism and degrading comments that have a long lasting detrimental psychological effect.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, could we come to the situation in Australian detention centres? Could you, perhaps, describe what are the special difficulties which are faced in the detention centres?

MR HATTOM: Sure. I will read you a list of the abuses that Mandaeans have suffered often. Some of these are towards the children and sometimes towards the parents in view of the children: verbal abuse of Mandaeans by Islamists. Physical abuse of Mandaeans by Islamists. Islamists defecating on Mandaeans. Islamists defecating at the doors of rooms occupied by Mandaeans only. Islamists prohibiting Mandaean children from playing with their children. Islamists prohibiting Mandaeans from eating with them. Mandaeans prohibited by Islamists from being involved in food preparation. Islamists prohibiting Mandaeans from playing sports with them.

Islamists prohibiting Mandaeans from washing their clothes in the same washing machines that they use. Islamists ignoring the verbal and physical abuse by their children of Mandaean children. Islamist clergymen in detention issuing fatwas stating that killing Mandaeans is sanctioned in Islam. Islamists threatening Mandaeans against complaining to authorities about them. Islamists setting fire to the residences of Mandaeans and Christians. Islamists turning the water off for Mandaeans and Christian ablution blocks. Islamists preventing Mandaeans and Christians from using certain toilets.

Islamists forcing the Mandaean women to observe the strict Islamic dress code, including abusing a young Mandaean woman for wearing shorts. Islamists abusing Mandaean children and adults while standing in meal queues. Islamists conducting a concerted campaign of vilification against Mandaeans. These are not the only abuses but they are, pretty much, the most common ones.

DR OZDOWSKI: Are you aware of ACM or DIMIA taking any action to stamp out these acts of discrimination?

MR HATTOM: Well, the only solution that ACM and the Department has offered was isolating the Mandaeans themselves which means

DR OZDOWSKI: Yes. Why didn't you accept it?

MR HATTOM: Well, you are incarcerated and you are being asked to be incarcerated in an even more confined area without facilities. That means your kids are, basically, not going to enjoy any of the facilities in detention.

DR OZDOWSKI: So your worry was that, basically, you were denied even further access to services which are available?

MR HATTOM: Well, I mean

DR OZDOWSKI: It was a balancing act is what you are saying.

MR HATTOM: I mean, what we were told by these people, by the Mandaeans, is that it is bad enough as it is, the situation is bad enough as it is. If you were to take away the few privileges that they have or the rights that they have, it would just be unbearable for the children, and the children themselves have made it clear to their parents that they don't understand why they have to be isolated. I mean, there was one instance in Port Hedland where Mandaeans accepted being isolated because things got very serious.

They were threatened with death, basically, and they couldn't really bear being there for very long because they already felt they were being punished, and now they were punished even further for being persecuted on top of that. Although they are being persecuted in detention, they are getting statements by the Government saying: well, no, we don't accept that you are persecuted back home, even though you are being persecuted here in detention, and we are refusing to acknowledge that. So their situation, as you can imagine, is dismal in the extreme.

DR OZDOWSKI: Anyway, my next question is why, in a way, are you particularly unsuccessful in terms of applying for protection visas? Would you be able to explain it?

MR HATTOM: Well, Iraqi Mandaeans have absolutely no problem.

DR OZDOWSKI: They are getting them?

MR HATTOM: Yes, they are. Iranian Mandaeans are not. We believe that it is due to an agreement, trade agreement or some level of bilateral relations between the two countries, that is discouraging Australia from acknowledging that in Iran, there is severe persecution of religious minorities. The US State Department as well as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have all said that all religious minorities in Iran are extremely persecuted but when Mandaean refugees arrive here, they are supposed to present this amazing evidence that they are being persecuted. As any refugee would tell you, the most difficult thing to actually avail to authorities is evidence or hard evidence.

DR OZDOWSKI: Now, are you aware of any Iranian Sabean Mandaeans being returned to Iran?

MR HATTOM: No, not yet

DR OZDOWSKI: Okay.

MR HATTOM: but we know there is a group of 100 that are about to be.

DR OZDOWSKI: What would need to be done in detention centres in terms of facilities to ensure that you are not suffering discrimination and that your religious and cultural needs are appropriately catered for in the detention facilities?

MR HATTOM: Well, I don't think it is a matter of facilities because, I mean, if you were to approach it that way, you would have to build two separate facilities, one for Islamists and one for everybody else. I don't think that is really very economically feasible. I think what ought to happen is people who come here seeking asylum and show such a high degree of intolerance of other faiths should be made aware of what kind of behaviour is acceptable and that is not being done.

If those Islamists were told: look, you are not allowed to do this to Mandaean's, you are not allowed to do this to Christians, this is the way you ought to behave and if you are not going to behave this way, this is going to have dire ramifications for you, not necessarily for the application but for the person as a criminal offence. Then I think people would at least be able to tolerate each other and as far as children are concerned, we steadfastly maintain that children should never even be subjected to the risk of having to ensure such behaviour.

They come from very traumatised backgrounds. If you are putting them in a place where they could, you know, even on a weekly basis suffer such persecution by Islamists, you are basically saying: here, you've travelled this very perilous journey, you have come here to a civilised country and we can't even protect you from the same kind of behaviour that you are suffering back home.

DR OZDOWSKI: What kind of support can we offer to people who are released on TPV out of detention?

MR HATTOM: All that is necessary?

DR OZDOWSKI: So you are saying that your community is relatively well organised and relatively wealthy, you could look after people in the initial stages when they are released?

MR HATTOM: Well, I wouldn't describe them as particularly affluent, they are getting there but, you know, when you are faced with these kinds of situations, I'm sure people would go well out of their way to accommodate the needs of Mandaean children and their families rather than to let them go through what they're going through in detention.

DR OZDOWSKI: I will now ask my Assistant Commissioners to ask any questions if they wish. Professor Thomas?

PROF THOMAS: What is the size of the Mandaean community in Australia?

MR HATTOM: About 2000.

PROF THOMAS: In the whole of Australia?

MR HATTOM: 2000 mainly in the Fairfield and Liverpool areas of Sydney, that's where I would say about 95 per cent of Mandaeans, there might be a little more than 2000 there. There are a couple of families in Melbourne, a couple of families in Tasmania but the vast majority are in Sydney.

PROF THOMAS: So the settlement of the community as a whole, it has had no problems, you have settled well in Australia?

MR HATTOM: Well, we actually met with a representative of the Department last week and he said that the most impressive thing about the Mandaean community was how well it has settled in Australia, how well it's adjusted to the Australian way of life. So, yes, in terms of settlement we are extremely successful.

PROF THOMAS: So what your concern now really is only about people who are still inside the detention centres?

MR HATTOM: Our concerns are firstly that Mandaean children are being persecuted, that nothing effective is being done to allay that and that taking that away, that Mandaean children are being incarcerated in the first place.

PROF THOMAS: So have you made an official complaint to ACM and the Department?

MR HATTOM: Mandaeans within the detention centres have complained, yes, on many occasions. Despite threats by Islamists against them not to complain, there was one instance in October last year where Mandaeans complained. Their complaints were reported in the media and a group of Islamists approached them and under duress forced them to sign a retraction of their claims but then later on when the Department met with them, basically in confidence they reasserted their claims that they were being persecuted on a daily basis and almost everything.

DR OZDOWSKI: I heard also evidence or we had evidence some time ago that some of Mandaeans are reacting quite - how to describe it - violently possibly towards the other Mandaeans which are going and taking part in the Christian services. Do you know anything about it?

MR HATTOM: No, we are not informed of that.

MRS SULLIVAN: Do you see the same reaction from Islamists within the broader community to your community or is it restricted to detention centres?

MR HATTOM: It's mainly restricted to detention centres. There is not a great deal of friction between the Mandaean community outside the detention centre and the Islamic community. However, it is pretty much the self same persecution that goes on back in Iran and Iraq towards Mandaeans. Here once the Mandaeans are out of detention, they do tend to avoid having any business dealings, personal dealings, social dealings with Islamists, not Muslims in general because not the best.

DR OZDOWSKI: What is the difference?

MR HATTOM: Well, I mean Islamists are fundamentalists, Muslims, they're extremists. They will approach any one who is not a Muslim as someone either to be seen as an infidel or someone who you can potentially convert to Islam. So I mean, the term Islamists has really been around since September 11 in particular and the Islamists who have been released from detention centre usually are concentrated in Auburn and Lidcombe and they are not the areas that Mandaeans reside in.

MRS SULLIVAN: Why do men then choose to come to Australia given the long distance?

MR HATTOM: Well, I would probably say, the Mandaean religion is a very passive religion, you are not permitted to kill not even in self defence. Even if you have to slaughter an animal to eat it, you have to ask forgiveness, it's a very humane religion. The values that are seen to be Australian I think are very similar in terms of tolerance, acceptance, and a very peaceful approach to life. So I think that is very attractive to Mandaeans and the first Mandaean arrived here in 1981 and many of the Mandaean's back in Iran or Iraq were told that Australia is a great place, far better than Europe and North America. So it is not surprising to us that they would choose to journey perilously to get here.

MS LESNIE: Thank you. Are there any special food requirements that should be provided in detention centres for Sabean Mandaean detainees?

MR HATTOM: Detainees who wish to eat meat or food that is prepared the Mandaean way will have to have a special type of food. We are currently discussing with the Department ways of going about that. So we're quite happy with the Department's approach with respect to food.

MS LESNIE: What about religious education in the detention centre, is that an issue that you have addressed as well or is it a need that needs to be filled?

MR HATTOM: Well, it is a need particularly because a lot of the detainees are suffering and generally tend to become more religious. That is very difficult. It is very difficult because there is a lot of pressure on Mandaean's not to practice their religion within the detention centres. There is pressure on them not to be Mandaean. So we only have two priests here and we've been able to fly them to different centres around the country every now and well but it's very difficult to have one visit at detention centre on a weekly or fortnightly basis.

DR OZDOWSKI: Did they have access to your people in detention centres?

MR HATTOM: Yes.

DR OZDOWSKI: Did they have difficulty in access or was it relatively easy?

MR HATTOM: I don't know. I think it was relatively easy, yes.

MS LESNIE: Would it make a difference if the Sabean Mandaean detainees who are currently in Port Hedland, Curtin, Woomera, if they were in Villawood instead, would that make a difference to their ability to access religious education and leadership?

MR HATTOM: It would be an enormous difference. However, the Minister has refused to grant that request which we've made on several occasions because of what he terms as "operational difficulties".

MS LESNIE: Has he explained what that term means?

MR HATTOM: No. No, he wouldn't elaborate nor has anyone from the Department been willing to elaborate.

MS LESNIE: Okay.

DR OZDOWSKI: Mr Hattom, is there any concluding statement you would wish to make?

MR HATTOM: No. I will give you a copy of the submission which in more detail addresses the problems that the children are facing.

DR OZDOWSKI: So if you could provide us with the submission for the records?

MR HATTOM: Yes, I will.

DR OZDOWSKI: I would like to have it on official record.

MR HATTOM: There is just one thing also that I would like to attach to that. I actually addressed that, a drawing by a Mandaean child into submissions.

DR OZDOWSKI: Thank you.

MR HATTOM: Thank you.

DR OZDOWSKI: So thank you, Mr Hattom, for providing your submission. If would like to collate any further documents, please feel free and this officially closes our meeting for today. Thank you.

END OF SESSION [1.10pm]

Last Updated 9 January 2003.

Site navigation

Human Rights navigation

Transcript of Hearing - SYDNEY

WEDNESDAY, 17 JULY 2002

Please note: This is an edited transcript

Footer information