BY ALISON DELLIT
Two separate inquiries into the Australian government's refugee detention centres have confirmed reports that detained refugees have been harassed and the centres mismanaged. The picture that has emerged is of desert hell-holes controlled by ex-prison officers with little sympathy for the refugees.
The Flood report, released on February 23, was commissioned by immigration minister Philip Ruddock in November and headed by the former Australian High Commissioner in London Philip Flood.
On March 1, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigation into the centres was released. It was carried out independently of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA).
Both reports were damning in their criticism of the private company that manages the centres, Australasian Correctional Management (ACM). The reports detail instances of abuse of refugees by ACM staff, the treatment of the refugees as if they were criminals and inappropriate punishments.
Both inquires had access to ACM incident reports from the centres, and to the refugees. The reports' findings included:
- the centres are chronically overcrowded, with 50 refugees sleeping on mattresses on the floor in one centre in late 1999;
- ACM staff are inadequately trained, particularly the staff transferred from ACM's private prison system;
- racial abuse, insensitivity and inappropriate comments by staff occurred at all detention centres;
- there are long delays in processing refugees' applications, in some cases more than 12 months. These delays result result in self-mutilation attempts and suicides. At January 1, there were 739 refugees who had been in detention for more than six months and 361 for more than 12 months;
- there are inadequate procedures for following up incident reports;
- ACM's child welfare policy is not implemented. The belief of a nurse that a child was being sexually assaulted was illegally dismissed by ACM staff, and not reported to DIMA for nearly eight months;
- children have spent up to two years in detention with inadequate education and a lack of development of social skills. One 19-month-old child still in detention was born in a detention centre; and
- there are few organised activities or recreational facilities at most centres. Women and children are rarely taken out of the centre, men never.
The frankness of the two reports has proved a headache for the federal government. It commissioned the Flood report as a way of deflecting criticism of the centres, not to fuel them.
The impetus for the inquiry was the outrage at the bungling of child abuse claims at the Woomera detention centre. Needing to appear to act, Ruddock used the tried and true method of ordering an "independent" inquiry, and then giving it terms of reference so limited that it made it impossible for the report to condemn government policy.
Flood was instructed to limit his inquiry to the processes in place for monitoring and dealing with abuse of children in detention centres. Ruddock anticipated that the report would criticise minor administrative procedures at the Woomera centre.
Unfortunately for Ruddock, Flood was under pressure from humanitarian groups and interpreted the terms of reference to include an examination of whether incarceration in the detention centres itself constituted child abuse.
Flood's most damning findings concerned the ACM staff at the Woomera detention centre. "In the course of 2000, a small proportion of detention officers were treating detainees as if they were criminals, intimidation and abuse also occurred and detainees were not sufficiently aware of their right of complaint to the Ombudsman", reported Flood.
Flood also criticised the lack of education available to children at the centres, and the inadequate play equipment in all detention centres except Curtin and Port Hedland.
The summary of incident reports from the detention centres, summarised by Flood, indicate things are even worse than the report describes. Between October 1999 and November 2000, ACM recorded 68 hunger strikes and 62 protests — 29 being "major incidents" — in Australia's refugee detention centres. This is despite ACM records showing only 15 complaints from refugees over the same period.
Justification
Although almost all the evidence — anecdotal and otherwise — Flood presents is negative, he devotes considerable space to justifying the government's mandatory detention policy.
The Convention of the Rights of the Child, which has been binding on Australia since 1991, states that, "No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of children ... shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time."
However, Flood came to the puzzling conclusion that the detention of children — many for more than 12 months with no systematic educational program — does not breach the convention. He argued that detention is not arbitrary, or against the best interests of the child, because DIMA has the discretionary power to remove a child from detention.
Flood also demonises the refugees in the concentration camps. Without providing evidence, he baldly states that in the camps there are "former terrorists, former senior officers in Saddam Hussein's regime, people who are themselves suspected of crimes against humanity, people who have a criminal record, organisers of people smuggling rackets ... and many who have no legitimate protection claims and whose principal motive is to secure a better and safer future for their families."
One of the few moments of humour in the report is Flood's furious description of his first visit to the Curtin detention centre. About 100 Afghani new arrivals were being held in isolation to avoid being "coached" by other refugees about their rights under Australian law. While Flood was speaking to the Afghanis, a soccer-ball shot over the wall. The ball was covered in Farsi script, providing information to the arrivals on the correct way to apply for asylum.
Flood was not amused. He cited the example as an indication of the "difficulties" faced by DIMA.
Given Flood's clear bias against the refugees, it is not surprising that his report's 16 recommendations are restricted to improved training for staff, better facilities at the centres and increased DIMA monitoring of ACM.
His most contentious recommendation is that DIMA's contract with ACM be reviewed so that it no longer contains financial penalties when incidents of abuse at the centres are reported. At the moment, ACM's funding is linked to performance, which is adversely effected by the number of abusive incidents reported.
Ruddock has already told parliament that he will implement the "vast majority" of Flood's recommendations.
While Flood's criticisms and detailed examination of the centres was a little too thorough for Ruddock s liking, the report contained enough refugee-baiting and apologies for the government's detention policy for Ruddock to declare it "thorough and balanced".
Ombudsman's report
The Ombudsman's inquiry was self-initiated after his office received 85 complaints over nine months about the management of the detention centres.
Ruddock is hopping mad at the content of the Ombudsman's report because it does not seek to placate the Coalition government. The Ombudsman's criticisms do not differ in substance from the Flood report, but does not attempt to justify the negative findings.
The report goes into significant detail about the extent of refugee persecution in the centres. It cites examples of refugees' rooms being trashed under the pretext of being 'searched", of threatening "poems" being pinned to notice boards by ACM staff and the persistent denial of legal access to refugees on spurious grounds.
'Systemic' deficiencies
Unlike Flood, the Ombudsman does not regard problems in the centres as anomalies that can be fixed with better training, but rather as "systemic" deficiencies. This is the conclusion Ruddock has been trying to avoid.
Released within a week of Flood's report, the Ombudsman's report has made it difficult for Ruddock to accept the Flood report on the one hand, and then brand the Ombudsman's report, which has essentially the same criticisms, as biased (although it has not stopped him from trying).
The Ombudsman's recommendations are also more forceful than those in the Flood report. They include ending overcrowding and considering the removal of ACM's legal authority to physically restrain and strip-search detainees.
Ruddock has no intention of implementing these recommendations. That is why he will not give the Ombudsman's report any validity. Ironically, the Ombudsman's report gives unqualified support to Ruddock's key attempt to make the system appear more humane — the removal of women and children from detention centres.
Ruddock plans to trial a relocation program for women and children in the township of Woomera. Many refugees are concerned at the psychological impact that breaking up families will have. It is questionable whether refugees will be better off confined to the tiny army town of Woomera (population 300) than in the centres. Even Flood had to admit that every female refugee he spoke to would not willingly leave the centre unless their male relatives were allowed to go with them.
Mandatory detention
The Ombudsman's report's introduction states clearly that it does not question the policy of mandatory detention of refugees which "successive governments" have endorsed. Nor does it question the policy that locates refugee detention centres in remote areas. Instead, the Ombudsman states that the report addresses "what should be required of reasonable administration in terms of the structure and nature of detention".
There is no "humane" way to implement mandatory detention. The most shocking material in both reports comes in the appendices that detail the policies the inquiries decline to criticise.
These include the systematic isolation of refugees from each other and the outside world. DIMA regulations specify that new arrivals will be isolated from contact with human rights groups and other refugees until they have "invoked Australia's international protection obligations" in the correct language.
According to ACM management, threatening behaviour by a staff member towards a refugee is considered a "minor incident", while the presence of media reporters at the facility is classified as a "major incident" requiring immediate action.
DIMA regulations also specify that refugees being transferred from one facility to another must be kept out of sight of the general public. Regulations authorise "routine restraint" of all refugees (including children) to ensure this.
Far from criticising these provisions, the Ombudsman calls for increased "security" at the centres, including building more fences "to improve relations with local residents".
As Ruddock openly admitted on ABC TV's Lateline program, refugees are treated like criminals because they are locked up like criminals.
Hunger strikes will continue because they are the only method available to refugees to bring their plight to the notice of the Australian people. Children will continue to suffer unless they are able to participate in Australian society with the support of all of their family members.
Both the Flood report and the Ombudsman's report, while providing valuable information on conditions in the centres, fail to provide meaningful solutions.
The detention of refugees cannot be made humane; it must be abolished and the detention centres closed.