Report to the Australian Human Rights Commission
Inquiry into the Impact of Immigration Detention on Children
Christmas Island Visit, July 14th to July 17th 2014
Elizabeth J Elliott AM MD MPhil MBBS FRACP FRCPCH FRCP
Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney; Consultant Paediatrician, The Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network (Westmead);
Practitioner Fellow, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
Contents
Summary and Conclusions
Introduction
Geographical, historical and political context
Geographical implications
Historical considerations
Governance
The Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre
National Inquiry into children in immigration detention - A last resort? 2004
Visit to Christmas Island by the AHRC in July 2014
Observations relevant to the terms of reference of the Inquiry into children in immigration detention
a.the appropriateness of facilities in which children are detained
The detention centre
Family accommodation
Play areas
Bathrooms
Physical Environment
Nutrition
b.the impact of the length of detention on children
Impact on families
The ‘protest’
Mothers at risk of self-harm
Unaccompanied minors
Mental ill-health in children
c.measures to ensure the safety of children
Christmas Island is not a ‘safe’ environment for children
d.provision of education, recreation, maternal and infant health services
Education
Children on Christmas Island have been denied their right to education
Recreation
Children have limited opportunities for recreation including physical activity, sport and play
Maternal and Infant health services
Maternal and infant health services are inadequate for this highly vulnerable group in this remote location
Transfer to the mainland for medical assessment and treatment
e.the separation of families across detention facilities in Australia
f.the guardianship of unaccompanied children in detention in Australia
g.assessments conducted prior to transferring children to be detained in ‘regional processing countries’
h.progress that has been made during the 10 years since the Commission’s 2004 report: A last resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention.
Summary
Conclusion
Summary and Conclusions
In July 2014, as the one year anniversary of their detention looms for many detainees, tensions are rising on Christmas Island. Young mothers, concerned about living conditions for their infants and children, and overwhelmed by the uncertainty of their ‘sentence’, have been driven to self-harm. Ten women are currently under surveillance to prevent repeat harm. Children continue to be denied basic human rights, including freedom, education and play and,in the case of unaccompanied minors, living with their family. Unaccompanied minors, encroaching on manhood and acutely aware of missed opportunities for education and training, are filled with dread in anticipation of transfer to adult male facilities on Nauru or Manus.
In the cramped living conditions of Christmas Island many children haverecurrent infections. Others have conditions requiring specialist medical care on the Australian mainland. Many have experienced unacceptable delays in accessing treatment. Most concerning, however,are the symptoms of post-traumatic stress and the pervasive anxiety, sadness and hopelessness expressed by many children. These are manifest in delays or regression in development, nightmares, flashbacks, self-harm and social withdrawal. Ongoing trauma,resulting from arbitrary immigration detention and parental depression,compounds the insults that many children have endured in their own countries and en route to Australia. In the eyes of detainees, little has changed in a year, there is no end in sight, and hope has evaporated. In the words of one 12 year old girl ‘My life is really deth...’
It was a great privilege to speak with many families and children and to hear their stories. Their voices must be heard by the Australian people. If we are to retain our international standing as a civilised society, we cannot continue to flaunt conventions of human rights and civil liberties by persecuting innocent children as a deterrent to others. We must find the compassion that has gone missing on Christmas Island.
As a result of my visit to I conclude that detention of children on Christmas Island is in contravention to the Convention of the Rights of the Child, ratified by Australia in 1990. Immigration detention is a form of discrimination and is not in the best interests of children. The role of the Minister of Immigration as the guardian for unaccompanied minors is inappropriate and conflicted. Arbitrary detention is unlawful and prolonged detention, over a year in most cases, is harming the physical, emotional and social development of children. This is indicated by the high rates of physical and mental ill-health. Children are, on occasion treated without respect and the use of numbers rather than names is both inhumane and degrading. The transfer of unaccompanied minors to Manus Island due to incorrect age determination was particularly cruel.
Some children on Christmas Island have been denied access to appropriate, timely health care, with adverse consequences. All children have been denied theirright to education, and have had limited opportunities for play and recreation. This also limits capacity for emotional, intellectual and physical development and sense of well-being. Some children have been separated from important family members. Many have witnessed violence, injury, and self-harm and depression in their mothers. Importantly,appropriate processing of children and their families who are seeking asylum has been unnecessarily delayed, which has contributed to ongoing trauma and inhibited recovery from past trauma.
Introduction
In July 2014 I was invited to accompany a team from the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to the Christmas Island immigration detention facility as part of theirNational Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention. I am a Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health at the University of Sydney and a Consultant Paediatrician at the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network (Westmead), with over 30 years’ experience and expertise in clinical paediatrics, research, medical education, advocacy, health policy, Indigenous child health and child health in developing communities (see brief CV, Appendix 1).
Specifically, I was asked to comment on the terms of reference of the Inquiry as follows:
a. the appropriateness of facilities in which children are detained;
b. the impact of the length of detention on children;
c. measures to ensure the safety of children;
d. provision of education, recreation, maternal and infant health services;
e. the separation of families across detention facilities in Australia;
f. the guardianship of unaccompanied children in detention in Australia;
g. assessments conducted prior to transferring children to be detained in ‘regional processing countries’;
h. progress that has been made during the 10 years since the Commission’s 2004 report: A last resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention.
The intent of this report is to describe the conditions we witnessed on Christmas Island in July 2014 and to convey the voices of children and families to the Australian people.
To place this report in the international context it is important to consider the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child and subsequent determinations made in relation to immigration detention. Article 37, of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child states that:
‘No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily’ and ‘The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time’.
Similarly, the UN guidelines on the detention of refugees states that:
‘Children should not be placed in detention. Minors who are asylum-seekers should not be detained.’
This sentiment is reiterated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by Australia in 1980 and states that:
‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person’ and ‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.’
In light of the above, the UN Human Rights Committeedetermined that:
‘Australia's detention of people in immigration - not just children - is arbitrary and in violation of the civil rights covenant.Asylum-seekers who unlawfully enter a State party's territory may be detained for a brief initial period in order to document their entry, record their claims, and determine their identity if it is in doubt. To detain them further while their claims are being resolved would be arbitrary absent particular reasons specific to the individual, such as an individualised likelihood of absconding, danger of crimes against others, or risk of acts against national security.‘
Geographical, historical and political context
Geographical implications
Christmas Island is described as a ‘natural wonder’ and a ‘bird lover’s paradise.’ It covers 135 km2, two thirds of which is an Australian national park that boasts unique flora and fauna. By virtue of its location in the Indian Ocean, 2650 km northwest of Perth in Western Australia and 2752 km west of Darwin, Christmas Island is classified as ‘very remote.’It is closer to Indonesia than Australia, the nearest city being Jakarta (360 km to the north in Java, Indonesia). The Cocos (Keeling) Islands lie 980km to the south-west. Thus, Christmas Island is both difficult and expensive to access. Virgin Airways normally operates four commercial flights from Perth each week (approximately 4 hours flying time and approximately $1000 return). However, these planes are unable to land if there is damage to the runway or bad weather, which is not uncommon during the wet season.
The island’s inaccessibility was highlighted by the 53 hour delay experienced by the Australian Human Rights Commission team while waiting for a flight from Perth to Christmas Island, the result of a damaged runway which prevented large planes from landing or taking off from the island for 5 days.
Detainees are not flown on commercial flights. Helicopters cannot be used for transfers to the mainland because of the distance and their inability to carry sufficient fuel. The Royal Flying Doctor Service and Air Ambulance are used to transport medical emergencies and charter flights (at an estimated expense in the vicinity of ~$80,000) are used for less urgent medical and other transfers. Government policy dictates that families should accompany children transferred to the mainland for medical assessment or care, which is appropriate. However, this policy is not always rational and, in the case of adults, is at the discretion of the medical officer.
At latitude 100 S, Christmas Island is located in the tropics. The average temperature is 270with little variation throughout the year. The wet season runs from November to May with a daily monsoonal rainfall of about 300mm in the months of January, February and March. The island is vulnerable to tropical cyclones which are associated with high seas and strong winds. The heat becomes intolerable for families living in cramped conditions in makeshift metal accommodation and daily air conditioning is required, particularly when humidity peaks in the wet season. In children with asthma, cold air may irritate sensitive airways and induce and exacerbate cough and wheeze.
Historical considerations
Christmas Island was named by Captain William Mynors when he sailed past on Christmas Day 1643 on the Royal Mary, a ship belonging to the English East India Company. William Dampier, an English navigator on the Cygnetreached the island in March 1688. His crew was the first to land on the island and declared it uninhabited. Subsequent visitors documented the fauna and flora, surveyed the island and discovered abundant deposits of pure phosphate, which prompted Britain to annex the island in 1888.
The original settlers on Christmas Island were Chinese and Malay workers for the phosphate mines who arrived with their European employers. Because of its rich phosphate deposits Christmas Island became a target of, and was in 1943 occupied by, the Japanese for several years. Sovereignty of Christmas Island was transferred to Australia in 1958. The company Phosphate Resources Limited (PRL) commenced open-cut mining of phosphate ore on Christmas Island in 1990 and mining leases cover approximately 14% of the island. PRL claims to export ~700,000 tonnes phosphate product each year to Australia, NZ and Asia. The phosphate rock on Christmas Island comprises fluorohydroxyapatite, calcium iron and aluminium phosphates, which is in demand because its properties result in the production of high quality fertiliser. Once mined, the phosphate ore is dried and crushed, creating fine white dust particles in the process. Detainees complain of the ubiquitous dust which is known to be an irritant to the skin, eyes and airways.
Governance
Christmas Island is a ‘non self-governing Territory’ of Australia, run by an Administrator appointed by the Governor General. Residents who are Australian citizens are entitled to vote. According to the 2011 census, the population comprises2072 people, predominantly of Chinese and Malay origin, many of whom live in settlements on the north of the Island.
Western Australian courts have judicial power in Christmas Island, but only some WA laws apply to Christmas Island, this being at the discretion of the Federal Government. The island is regarded as an ‘International’ destination for Australian Customs and Quarantine purposes and Australians require a passport to enter the Island. Bizarrely one’s departure card states AUSTRALIA as both the destination and the country of origin. Services that would normally be provided by State governments elsewhere in Australia are provided either by the government of Western Australian or by contractors, in which case the costs are covered by the Federal government.Health services for detainees are contracted to the International Health and Medical Services (IHMS).All fresh food must be imported.
The Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre
Boats carrying asylum seekers – who usually embarkin Indonesia - have been arriving on Christmas Island since the late 1980s. The island was the site of the ‘Children Overboard’ incident in 2001, involving the Norwegian boat Tampa which was carrying 433 refugees. Prime Minister John Howard’s government subsequently passed legislation to excise Christmas Island from Australia’s migration zone, following which asylum seekers arriving there could not apply automatically for refugee status and could be relocated off the Australian mainland (e.g. Manus Island and Nauru in Papua New Guinea) if intercepted by the Royal Australian Navy. This strategy was called the ‘Pacific Solution.’ In 2006, a detention centre with 800 beds was built on Christmas Island at a cost of over $400 million. In 2007 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared that the detention centres in PNG would be closed and all processing of asylum seekers would be undertaken on Christmas Island. In 2010, about 50 asylum seekers drowned when their boat crashed into rocks off Flying Fish Cove on Christmas Island.
In July 2014, 1102 asylum seekers were resident on Christmas Island including 174 children. Visitors to the centre undergo security checks and are asked to forfeit their phones, cameras and passports at the entrance to the camps. Detainees are not free to move outside of the camps without a security guard.
National Inquiry into children in immigration detention - A last resort? 2004
The 2004 report that followed the Australian Human Rights Commission’s National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention – A last resort?, highlighted human rights injustices pertinent to the detention of children, citing the UN Convention for the Rights of the Childand declaring that detention of a child ‘shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.’In the Inquiry report the AHRC emphasised both that detention centres were ‘traumatising places which subject children to enormous mental distress’ and that the detention of children would not resolve the global issue of refugee movements. In 2005,the Migration Act 1958 was amended to affirm that, in principle, children should only be detained as a last resort. Subsequently all children and their families and unaccompanied minors were released from high security detention centres into community detention.
This policy was reversed in 2013 when, in response to an increase in the number of boats entering Australian waters that year, the Rudd government declared that the high security immigration detention facility on Christmas Island (and others in WA and NT) would be modified to provide accommodation for children and their families. On July 19, 2013 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced a new policy for processing asylum seekers and declared that no asylumseeker arriving by boat would be settled on mainland Australia. This policy has resulted in the prolonged detention, without timely assessment of refugee status, of children, their families and unaccompanied minors on Christmas Island.
Visit to Christmas Island by the AHRC in July 2014
The AHRC visit to Christmas Island in July 2014 followed reports that twelve asylum seekers - all mothers of young infants - had attempted suicide or harmed themselves. These claims were met with cynicism by the government. The Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison said the reports were ‘not correct’ and Prime Minister Tony Abbott described the acts of self-harm as attempts at ‘moral blackmail.’
At the time of our visit the Christmas Island detention centre was ‘home’ to 1102 asylum seekers, including 174 children (many infants) and 26 unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years. These included people originating from Nepal, Somalia, Malaysia, Sri Lanker, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Burma, and Vietnam. All had arrived by boat, most after July 19 2013, the date of the recent change of government policy.
Observations relevant to the terms of reference of the Inquiry into children in immigration detention
a.the appropriateness of facilities in which children are detained
The detention centre
Child detainees and their families are housed either in The Phosphate Hill Alternative Place of Detention (APOD), which accommodates up to 434 people, or Construction Camp APOD (450 capacity). Construction Camp has a medical wing, suitable for isolating people with infectious diseases and surveillance of people deemed at risk of self-harm. The camps are adjacent to a community recreation facility which includes a swimming pool to which detainees do not have free access. We visited the rooms where children and families are housed within Construction Camp, where they are detained within a secure environment under the watch of guards. They are not free to leave the camp unaccompanied.