Archives
Guest Editorial
'A Last Resort?'
Impacts of the Australian Government's Immigrant Detention Policy breaching the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
Linda Shields
Article Text
An important and far-reaching document has recently crossed my desk. A last resort?: the report of the national inquiry into children in immigration detention (HREOCa, HREOCb 2004) has ramifications not just for Australia but for all countries beset by the problems of recieving people who leave their own countries in search of a place of refuge. Argument rages about how best to deal with asylum seekers, with some countries, such as Iceland (Shields 2002) offering humane systems which see the people supported and families left intact; and others holding people in detention until their right to stay in the country has been assessed. Any person arriving in Australia without a valid visa or right of entry must be detained in custody under Australian immigration law; this applies also to those who overstay or break conditions of a visa. Many asylum seekers are children.
'Deter and deny' policy creates mental and physical health risks for children
For western European countries, with their high standard of living, common borders and the combining effect of the European Union, the problem is of a much larger proportion than for Australia, who in 2002, had four times fewer people seeking asylum than did, for example, Denmark (Shields 2002). This difference has increased in the last two years as the flow of unauthorised arrivals in Australia has dropped with the implementation of the Howard government's 'deter and deny' policy, which strategically sets out to make entry to Australia as difficult as possible, and staying as uncomfortable as possible for those who do arrive (Whitmont 2002). It must be remembered, though, that while the number of asylum seekers has dropped, the figures were never high, with 9160 unauthorised boat arrival between 1999-2002. Of those, 92% were genuine refugees and were granted the right to stay in Australia (Refugee Council of Australia 2004). Between 1999 and 2003, 2,184 children were in immigration detention in Australia, and of these, 92% were found to be genuine refugees (HREOCa 2004).
The centres where the children are held often are in extremely remote locations, are the responsibility of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA), and most are run by a private firm, Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of an American corporation. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) became concerned over the care of children in these centres and in 2002 set up a national inquiry into children in immigration detention. The revelations of the resulting report are scandalous. The commission found that the mental and physical health of the children was at severe risk, and that Australia is abrogating its responsibilities as a signatory to several important international conventions, the most prominent of which is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations 2004). A copy of the report can be found at www.humanrights.gov.au
Fundamental breach of a child's right
The Commission found that 'Australia's immigration detention policy creates a fundamental breach of a child's right to be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time' (HREOCb 2004: 21). HREOC (HREOCa 2004) recommended that Australia's laws should be amended to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to include a presumption against the detention of immigrant children, and that courts and tribunals should ensure that detention is absolutely the last resort, that family unity is preserved, and that a mechanism be provided for the rapid release of families once bridging visas are applied.
Failing to take all appropriate measures to protect children in detention
All children have the right to be safe (United Nations 2004). HREOC found that 'the Commonwealth breached the Convention ... by failing to take all appropriate measures to protect children in detention from physical and mental violence' (HREOCb 2004: 29). It states that the best interests of the children should be the primary consideration and that in immigration detention, often this is not the case, unequivocally stating that 'detention centres are no places for children' (HREOCa 2004: 852). Concomitant with that is the finding that 'the Commonwealth failed to take all appropriate measures to protect and promote the mental health and development of children ...' (HREOCb 2004: 37). The main report (HREOCa 2004) has long passages containing case studies of children as young as 3 years exhibiting violent and self-harming behaviour, similar to findings of a previous report (Steele 2003). The Steele report was ignored and children remained in at risk situations in detention centres, despite the acknowledged fact that most of refugee children have already been significantly mentally traumatised before arrival in Australia. This must be of concern to all paediatric health professionals, particularly those who work in mental health and child protection.
Failure to protect the physical health of children
The physical health of the children also caused alarm. The report states 'Despite the efforts of individual staff members, the Commonwealth failed to take all available measures to ensure that children in immigration detention could enjoy the highest attainable standard of health - especially in the remote detention centres' (HREOCb 2004: 42). Access of asylum seeker children to health staff was often difficult because the centres were sometimes understaffed, and the lack of qualified paediatric nurses and doctors often meant inappropriate care. Children sometimes suffered from conditions not common in Australia, and these were often mistreated or missed. A lack of cultural awareness and interpreters impeded the quality of the health care provided in the centres. The Commission was, however, complimentary to the staff who worked in the detention centres, appreciating the difficulties under which they worked and the failure of the system to provide them with adequate support (HREOCa 2004).
Failing to ensure a 'full and decent life' for children with disabilities
There were two groups of children who were found to be particularly disadvantaged - those with disabilities and those who arrived unaccompanied. 'The Commonwealth breached the Convention ... by failing to ensure a 'full and decent life' for children with disabilities and by failing to ensure they received the special care and assistance they required' (HREOCb 2004: 53). The remoteness of the camps in which the children were incarcerated made it almost impossible to provide the educational, health and disability services the children needed. Disabled children could go undetected for a long time, and aids such as wheelchairs were difficult to access. Also, there was little support for the parents of disabled children who had to cope with living in detention, keeping the family together and having a disabled child (some families had several disabled children). The report states categorically that DIMIA consistently failed to consider alternative options for families with disabled children (HREOCa 2004).
Failing to ensure that unaccompanied children received special protection and assistance
From January 1999 to July 2002, 285 unaccompanied children arrived, 6.5% of whom were under 13 years of age (HREOCa 2004). These children left their families because they and their parents feared for their lives. HREOC found that 'The Commonwealth breached the Convention ... by failing to take all appropriate measures to ensure that unaccompanied children received the special protection and assistance they need ...' (HREOCb 2004: 59). These children are particularly vulnerable, and often participated in violent acts such as drinking shampoo and sewing their lips together. DIMIA provided no guidelines for their care until late 2002, when most of these children had been released and settled with Australian families.
Perception of Australia as a racist state
The report includes objections raised by DIMIA to its recommendations, and these primarily focussed on the Australian government's ultimate goal of keeping Australia free of unauthorised arrivals. DIMIA justified the detention of persons of any age, stating that families who are not detained may abscond, and that it is too costly to support children in the community (HREOCa 2004).
I have been living in Europe for over a year, and while Australian news receives scant attention in the media, I have encountered the perception of Australia as a racist state which is unwelcoming of strangers who are not white and of Caucasian heritage. This report does nothing to ameliorate such perceptions, which contradict what I know to be true: that as Australians, we have a strong sense of social justice and are justly proud of Australia's long commitment to helping those in need, and its commitment to health for all. The incarceration of children provides a moral dilemma for governments, but when a report provides such damning evidence that the health of these children is being jeopardised, that families are being broken up and the long term sequelae of such actions is not being considered, then we must protest. Families do not leave their home countries lightly, parents will not put their children in situations of great risk unless remaining in their own countries provides an even higher degree of risk. As 92% of these children became Australian citizens, it is imperative that their mental and physical health should be protected, as they, along with Australian-born children, are the future of the country. While the flow of asylum seekers to Australia has decreased, it is likely that others will come. As health professionals we have a moral obligation to object to government policy which compromises the health of future generation Australians, and at the same time confirms opinions of Australia as a racist state.
References
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2004a) A last resort?: national inquiry into children in immigration detention. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: Sydney.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2004b) A last resort?: a summary guide to the national inquiry into children in immigration detention. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: Sydney.
Shields L (2002) Report relating to visits to refugee organisations in Europe. National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia.
Steele Z, Momartin S, Bateman C, Hafshejani A, Silove D, Everson N, Salehi JK, Roy K, Dudley M, Newman L, Blick B, Raman S, Everett J. Psychiatric status of asylum seeker families held for a protracted period in a remote detention centre in Australia. In Steele Z, The politics of exclusion and denial: the mental health of Australia's refugee policy. Keynote address, 38th Congress Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Hobart, 12-15 May 2003.
Refugee Council of Australia (2004) Unauthorised boat arrivals compared to successful Asylum claims July 1999 to June 2002. Statistics. Available from URL: www.refugeecouncil.org.au/html/facts_and_stats/stats.html#unauth
Whitmont D (2002) To deter and deny: The inside story of Operation Relex - the defence forces' mission to stop asylum-seekers reaching Australian shores. Four Corners. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Sydney. Available from URL: www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s531993.htm
United Nations (2004). Convention on the Rights of the Child. 20 November 1989. United Nations: Geneva. Available from www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
eContent Home