This is a poem written by one of our supporters Royce Levi. Sadly it is as fitting today as it was 7 years ago...

 

In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply

can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death.

Anne Frank

 

Refugee Child

 

My mother bore me

In this detention camp.

This was my cradle

Which was distant from every place.

Here I have faltered into childhood

Wondering what I am.

Slowly, slowly I have learned

That the world is flat,

A very small place

Where the sun casts shadows

Of wires across your face

And clocks are dead

And the sound of keys is their tic tock

And footsteps come and go

Never to stay.

Here I have learned

Slowly, ever so slowly,

That faces can be read

Like tragic books

And their eyes have no other fate

Than anguished looks.

Here hope is a caged and troubled creature

Rattling the bars of existence,

Shaking them but never breaking them

Until in the end

It gives up the ghost of itself

And sinks,

With whimpering resignation,

Into the shifting sands of seclusion.

Here I have discovered,

In the painful ooze of days,

That indifference wears a uniform,

Keeps strict rules of time and place,

Heeds higher authority,

And yet has never to meet it face to face.

Here no one ever hears

The tangled messages of my dreams

Entwined in the unrelenting tumult of my muffled, silent screams.

My mother bore me

In the shadows

Of other people's contempt.

Yet, from her warmth

I have felt love

Tame the savage beasts of sadness

And in the comfort of her arms

I have felt the peace of what was once an everywhere.

She now is my only wisdom

And, if ever I am free,

I will have learnt through her fatal longing

Never again to wander

Into the dark hostility

Of someone else's promised land.

May 2005

Royce Levi

 

Yesterday I went for a visit to Villawood Residential Housing – a detention facility for families in immigration detention. Officially I was there on behalf of ChilOut lobbying to release children from immigration detention. But unofficially I was there as a friend.

I’d been looking forward to this for weeks; I wanted to see the smiles on the faces of the thirteen children who live there as they unwrapped their Christmas presents. But the experience was overshadowed by the poor health and mental state of the mothers, in particular Ranjiny who will give birth on 6 January.

I’d met Ranjiny on previous visits, learning the story of the young mother and her two children via ChilOut. They’d been assessed as refugees but detained on the basis of a secret negative ASIO assessment, which they could not defend themselves against.

I thought I was prepared for what I’d see. But I wasn’t.

Ranjiny came out from her house to meet me on a park bench. As she walked towards me I could see the pain and discomfort etched on her face. Her baby belly round and full was disproportionate to her tiny frame.

She held my hands as I helped her to the seat. But before I could even ask tears ran down her face. ‘There are so many problems, I don't know what to do, no one is listening to me.’ I told her I would listen.

During our conversation her two boys circled around their mother, obviously effected by her tears and very protective of her and their unborn baby brother. Ranjiny is hard on herself disappointed by her tears. ‘I have to be strong for them, I don't like to cry because I know they get sad too … They also get sick when I'm sick … Sometimes they don't go to school as they are too worried.’ And they have much to be worried about.

Ranjiny is suffering from extreme back pain and has had trouble sleeping for weeks. ‘If I wake up in the middle of the night I cannot go back to sleep, maybe the more I sleep the more the baby will grow and he is already too big.’

She was given medication for extremely low iron levels but she couldn't swallow it and it made her sick. When she asked for smaller capsules she was told, ‘Everyone has those tablets so you will too.’ She thought ‘Well everyone isn't pregnant.’

Ranjiny described going to the doctors as a daunting experience, ‘I feel like people have told my doctor, I am …a  terrorist because that is how I am treated... this is how I'm made to feel.’

Doctors requested in writing that detention guards not to wave the metal detector over her belly as it may be harmful to the baby. The guards ignore this request. Ranjiny tells them ‘There is nothing in there but my baby …  Please stop harming him.’

Ranjimy is due  to give birth in two weeks, yet she still does not have a birth plan. She doesn't know what will happen when she goes into labour or what will become of her two young boys. She has been told that 'someone' will care for her children while she is in hospital. But who that someone is will be decided on the day. I know I'd feel uneasy to say the least, if a complete stranger was charged with the care of my children. And it gets worse. Once Ranjini returns to the detention facility, she'll be left to care for three children alone. All the while trying to recover from her recent birth and settle a newborn baby. 


She is terrified about this, ‘When I gave birth to my last son he was very big and it took me a long time to recover, I couldn't walk or lift my eldest son … I am older this time so I am worried things will be worse, my children already miss out on going on excursions because I am too sick to take them. This is not fair, I feel bad for them.’


As is customary in her culture, Ranjini will remain at home for three weeks with her newborn baby. Her husband is denied access to her house, which invariably means she'll be caring for three children, without any help or support. As she shared this with me I remember her saying: ‘I wish they could spend time with my husband, he is a good man, and has become the only father they can remember, they need a man in their life, they need a parent to give them attention and care for them while I'll feed and recover with the new baby.’


Other detainees approach me during our conversation and stress that Ranjiny needs help. They all have their own plights but are united in getting Ranjiny through this tough time. When one is down the others step up, a true spirit of compassion and loyalty among them. It’s heartening to see.

Ranjiny is one of the strongest women I've ever met and her children are blessed to have such a mother. I tell her that we care about her and want her in the community where she has many friends. She smiles and asks when I'm going to give my husband a baby. We laugh and I'm convinced she’s in cahoots with my mother. One day I hope our children will play.

In all those hours I spent listening I did not cry in front of Ranjiny and the kids. I wanted to give strength and hope not add to their sadness. I will cry tears of joy the day this mother and her three children meet me outside detention. They are not a threat to Australia. ASIO, the Australian government are responsible for damaging these young lives and this beautiful family. It’s time for the game to stop. It’s time to let these people go.

ChilOut will continue to resiliently advocate for the rights of children until they are avidly enshrined in both law and practice. The public have a right to know exactly what is happening in Australia's detention facilities and we will fervently hold to account those responsible for the gap between what policy supposedly promises and what is actually delivers.  

Stay tuned for our upcoming campaign –  'born free’ – to support Ranjini.

Leila Druery, Campaign Director, ChilOut

On 21 November 2012 the Australian government started exporting children and their families to offshore detention facilities. The first four children went to Manus Island, a place notorious for it's deadly form of malaria. Others will be slated for transfer to Nauru and Manus. The physical and psychological price of detaining these children cannot be calculated. But the dollar price can. According to the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers the estimated cost of housing asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island will be $2.3 billion over four years (more if the number of boat arrivals continue to rise). That amounts to $575,000,000 a year, $1,575,342.46 a day, $65,639.27 per hour, $1093.99 per minute or $18.23 a second.

$

Refugees who have received a negative assessment from ASIO – over 50 people – can now have those results reviewed by an independent assessor on an annual basis.  For the first time, refugees deemed ‘threats’  to Australia will be told why such a decision was made.

The Government says it’s designed to better balance Australia’s need to uphold its national security while also satisfying its international obligations to protect and provide for refugees who arrive on our shores.

The reviewer will be granted access to new documentation provided by the asylum seeker, which can then be sent to ASIO for a response.

These reforms will affect over 50 refugees who have been living in detention facilities for up to three years. Including Ranjini, a Sri Lankan mother who is now expecting her third child and her two other children. They have been in detention since May.

Even if a reviewer puts forward a recommendation for community residency, ASIO can still overturn this decision and maintain that refugees need to be kept in detention indefinitely.

ASIO also maintain the right to withhold documentation from refugees, if it would ‘justify’ why they were deemed a security threat in the first place.

While introducing a review mechanism is certainly a step in the right direction, ASIO’s unfettered power to overturn any finding renders the exercise null and void. It gives vulnerable people hope and blatantly dismisses it in the next breath.

The 55 refugees held in indefinite detention due to adverse security assessments include families and six children. One of these children was born in detention and another will soon suffer the same fate.

How on earth can young children pose a legitimate threat to national security? These families have been found to be refugees; clearly they need assistance and protection. Instead they’re trapped in a never-ending limbo of mandatory indefinite detention.

The Immigration Minister, Mr Bowen may legally exercise his discretion to grant community residency. So why has this not yet been done? The fact that families with children as young as two can be deemed a legitimate national security threat is beyond ridiculous. Just another heartbreaking display of inhumane politics; the mental health and development of beautiful and intelligent children is placed at tremendous risk. The Minister has the power to end indefinite detention; for the sake of these people, he can and should do so immediately.

Click here and scroll down to the appeal to Minister Bowen. Ask him to free these families today.

 

Further reading

 

‘Hope for refugees deemed to be threats’, Michael Gordon, National Affairs Editor, The Age, 15 October 2012

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/hope-for-refugees-deemed-to-be-threats-20121015-27mw9.html

‘ASIO retains final say on refugees deemed a threat’, Daniel Flitton, The Age, 16 October 2012
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/asio-retains-final-say-on-refugees-deemed-a-threat-20121016-27pi7.html

Attorney-General for Australia, Independent Reviewer for Adverse Security Assessments, 16 October 2012
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Media-releases/Pages/2012/Fourth%20Quarter/16-October-2012---Independent-Reviewer-for-Adverse-Security-Assessments.aspx

Last week Chilout representatives spent an afternoon with detained families listening to their stories of hardship living in confinement and uncertainty. The families visited are all from Sri Lanka, having fled persecution and civil war, and now with the war over, alleged government abuses. Between them they have eight children and have been detained for at least two years. Although they have all been recognised as genuine refugees, these families have been deemed a security threat by ASIO. They therefore face indefinite detention, because as refugees they cannot be sent back to Sri Lanka, but as "security threats" they cannot be released into the community.

They have been denied natural justice; without any information about why they are such a threat, and without any opportunity for judicial review or the right to defend themselves against the ASIO assessments. As a result, eight children are being locked up behind barbed wire, having never committed a crime, or even been anywhere where a crime was being committed - let along threatening mine or your safety. Think carefully on this, eight children are such a threat to us that they are detained indefinitely, without trial. Everyday the parents of these children fear for their welfare and struggle to answer their questions about Australia, about their situation, about their life. 

We spoke to one of the Sri Lankan women who has been detained with her husband and three children for the past three years. She held her youngest who was born into this life in her arms as she expressed her deepest sorrow for her children who know nothing of freedom: a life beyond barbed wire.  Her sadness is not unwarranted, her five year old boy is in his first year at school and not coping, confused by the reality of his ‘home’ confinement compared to the daily school yard liberation. The young boy expresses his confusion:

"This is not the real world mummy, do you know there is a real world out there?”

He doesn't understand why his friends at school can play in the park, go to the shops for ice cream, go to each others houses for birthday parties whenever they want, but he can't. We were told Fathers Day was particularly difficult for this young boy as he came home quite distressed about what he had learned at school that day. The teacher had explained to all the students that it was the  fathers role to make the money and support the family. The teacher then went around the room and asked the children what their fathers did for work. Classmates told stories of fathers that built houses, worked on computers and fixed things. When it came to this little boy he had nothing to say, he could not even comprehend what a job was. What is money? He came home with many questions for his mother, the most difficult being whether his father was a "bad daddy" because he did not go to work each day and provide for his family.  I could see the sadness in the mothers eyes; how could she possibly answer such difficult, complex questions? How could she comfort her baby? Where does she begin to explain why they are unable to live normal lives as a family, when she does not know the answers herself? 


When we asked about how her 8 year old daughter was coping with school the answer was also very concerning. She explained that some weeks her daughter does not go to school as she wakes up in the morning and says “I know I have to get up but I just can't”.  Some days while the other children are playing together, the young girl will just lay on the lounge staring in silence. This bright young  girl understands all too well the reality of her situation. She is left feeling different, isolated, alone and like she has done something wrong. We can only imagine the damage such thoughts and feelings, at such a tender young age will have on this beautiful girls future. 


The children arrive home from school with an entourage of Serco officers and we watched as each child is given a once over the metal detector wand before they enter the facility. This was a ridiculous sight as the children barely big enough to support the bags on their backs and hats on their heads were checked more rigorously than we were at the security gates. We notice this is also hard for the parents to see as such youth and innocence is questioned.

We shared chocolate cake for afternoon tea. Our hearts warmed as the children 'dug in' licking the icing and picking the strawberries from the top of the cake. One young boy said "it feels like a birthday party!" so we celebrated our time together as if it was. With a face and a school uniform covered in chocolate one young boy announced "Do you know hot wheel?" I realized he was talking about the toy cars and answered an enthusiastic "yes!" The young boy continued with excitement "When I get out of here I'm going to buy me and my brother a hot wheels to play with!" His words resonate with me, what a simple request. I am reminded that he is just a child, that should be able to play, dream, learn and make friends freely. He should not have to consider a life outside of detention, he shouldn't be here to begin with, what heavy thoughts for such a a young innocent mind.

We are unable to visit the families homes and are restricted to the visitor room. All the women express sadness about this, they call it the house because it does not feel like home. The most alarming fact was as one of the women explains her mother, the children's grand mother, is not allowed to visit them in their home. Meaning grandma cannot share a meal, read a story or tuck the children into bed. The children ask why Serco offices are able to come and raid through the house on a daily basis but family is made to wait in the common room. For us this restriction serves no purpose but to keep the families feeling alienated and reminds them of their indefinite imprisonment. 

As we leave Villawood, all that's left to do is make a promise. The promise to not let these families stories go untold, the promise that with us they will not be forgotten and we will continue to fight until Australia decides to do better.  These children are in no way a security threat to Australia and continue to be banished to a life without hope and without a future.




For more information: The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists produced a press release which explores the long term impact of indefinite detention on the social and emotional development of children.

 

On Sunday night a woman gave birth to a baby girl in a Darwin hospital. This little family is now four and destined for Nauru. The mother and her little one will leave hospital to rejoin husband and daughter Shabnan in detention at the DAL. Currently there are eleven babies held there with more to come.

The poem below was written by a new father in 2004 and serves as a timely reminder of the human cost to such cruel, inhumane policies. Unfortunatley since then nothing has changed in a country where innocent babies are still being born into imprisonment.

Bringing her home

She is our first born, and has changed our world for ever,

Hope infuses my spirit, as I feel her heart beat against mine.

Her pink hands and tiny fingers, are they for real?

She gurgles happily...was that a smile, meant for me?

After all the waiting, she arrived quite quickly -

On Sunday we went to the hospital, and on Monday she was here!

Phone calls, messages to happy grand-parents – it was all a whirl

Our lives upended - by this beautiful innocent girl!

Friends arriving with gifts, some brought decorations too;

To decorate the room where she will be -

Surrounded by our love, with hopes for a life so free....

Can we always surround her with affection?

When will she ask questions that we cannot answer?

Will she learn harsh words, and callous disregard?

These thoughts burn within me, as I make arrangements

To take my wife and our daughter, to our room -

Inside the Electric fences........

 Ranjan

Dedicated especially to David, Ghazal & Camrod, born in Port Augusta Hospital, during recent weeks, and to all the innocent children incarcerated in ‘The Lucky Country’, and it’s surrounding islands.

 

 

 

In 2012 the Gillard Government asked an Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers to provide a report on how best to prevent asylum seekers undertaking dangerous boat journeys to Australia.

 Six weeks later the Panel delivered its report on Monday 13 August. Positive recommendations included: 

• significant increases in resettlement places for refugees (from 13,000 to 20,000)
• an integrated, regional approach (including Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia, plus NGOs, the UNHCR etc) to the processing and settlement of asylum seekers who arrive by boat. 

The recommendations also contained punitive elements to discourage asylum seekers attempting the journey by boat. It recommended: 

• that people who arrive by boat be detained in offshore facilities such as Nauru and PNG
• a so called ‘no-advantage’ provision: asylum seekers who arrive by boat will be given no advantage over people using the ‘regular channels’
• the removal of accelerated family reunion for refugees, with visas for families of refugees to be dealt with in the normal family reunion program.

The Expert Panel stated that all recommendations needed to be adopted as a package for the plan to work.

Two days later, on Wednesday 15 August, the government introduced legislation to give effect to some of the recommendations: mainly its punitive measures, known as ‘disincentives’.

The Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was passed by the Australian Senate on 16 August 2012. Offshore processing was key.

 The Greens tried to introduce: 

• a regular system of independent scrutiny of the new arrangements 
• a sunset clause and 
• basic human rights provisions (the same protections identified by the Expert Panel) into the Bill

but all were rejected.

 In Senator Kate Lundy’s words:

“... the strongest protection we have is that, in the agreements to be negotiated between Australia and designated countries, these negotiations take place with the involvement of stakeholders including the UNHCR and other entities. For these agreements to then be presented to both houses of parliament I believe offers the best prospect for transparency, for scrutiny …”

A close look at the legislation reveals that if the minister does not provide documents, or indeed if he provides documents, and they do not agree with his designation of a certain place for offshore processing:“nothing in the documents affects the validity of the designation". 

Similarly, the fact that some or all of those documents do not exist does not affect the validity of the designation.” 

In short, the minister still has the power to go ahead, whether stakeholders agree with him or not.

‘Natural justice’ was specifically excluded from the Bill. When questioned why this was necessary Senator Lundy stated that:

“The exemption from natural justice provides for an environment which we believe is necessary to make the legislation workable.”

In practical terms this means people could be held in offshore processing centres for five years or more. UNHCR classifies six million refugees in what is known as ‘protracted situations’; the average length of time spent in a refugee camp is 17 years. There are no time limits on detention.  

A previous High Court ruling which put a stop to the so-called Malaysia swap deal has been circumvented by the new bill. The Hon Judi Moylan stated on 15 August:

“In the unfettered power that this legislation confers on the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, transfers of asylum seekers to third countries can take place without restriction or without consideration of the adequacy or the existence of human rights laws in the country to which asylum seekers may be transferred.”

The CEO of the Refugee Council of Australia voiced concerns regarding the rush to adopt punitive measures on the passing of the legislation:

“The Prime Minister has raised questions about the cost of additional refugee places but cost did not seem to be a factor at all in establishing offshore processing in Nauru and PNG. Our concern is that an all-too-familiar double standard may be applied – that positive measures are dismissed as unaffordable while there is no limit to the funds available for deterrence and detention.”

Worryingly none of the refugee protections recommended by the Expert Panel have been enshrined in the new laws.

Features of the legislation

• A detention location, nation, can be chosen as Parliament sees fit. No minimum standard – such as signatory to the Refugee Convention, Convention Against Torture or the Convention on the Rights of the Child – required. 
• Minister for Immigration has discretionary powers unfettered by natural justice.
• Unaccompanied minors sent to an offshore processing location will have no guardian. Not even the Minister for Immigration as is presently the case for children in Australian detention centres without an adult relative.
• There is no time limit on detention. 
• The principle of 'no advantage' means a person could be remotely detained by Australia for decades.
• No basic benchmarks on detention conditions, eg, what constitutes 'appropriate' housing, healthcare, education and the like. 

Practicalities

• There will not be arbitrary detention in these third countries. In practice, we do not know what this means: asylum seekers wandering freely in island nations? Children with no guardian able to come and go? Locals on Manus Island have raised concerns about Australia again sending asylum seekers there. Indefinite detention, even with the ability to walk around an island with a 20 km circumference (Nauru) is still detention and is still going to be incredibly damaging.
• Nauru and Manus Island – the two nominated detention locations – would take a total of 2100 asylum seekers. 
• Nauru’s foreign minister has been assured that detained asylum seekers will be processed as quickly as possible. However, the Prime Minister continues to insist that there will be ‘no advantage’ and no restrictions placed on  the amount of time an individual could spend in detention. 
• UNHCR have stated that they will monitor Nauru from afar and will not support the legislation.

What about the children?

Children are to be sent away from Australia as a measure of first resort. At the time of publication of this blog – the legislation has just been passed – unaccompanied children have already been slated for transfer to Nauru. There is a suggestion that arbitrary detention will not apply. The practicalities of this, the protection of vulnerable children and the sheer fact that they are denied the right to leave the island in effect, amounts to detention.

The legislation makes provision for ‘vulnerable’ groups, we assume this means children and others. But at the date of publication, we know no details.

In April of this year a Parliamentary Committee recommended children only be held for minimum periods and in metropolitan locations. The government had already considered a recommendation on this issue, they had not even formally responded to the Committee. Now we see this advice (and all the background that went into delivering it) being ignored. 

The High Court previously ruled that because the minister was the guardian of unaccompanied children, he had the liabilities of a natural guardian. So while the minister had that guardianship responsibility the government couldn’t send an unaccompanied child out of Australia. That has all changed now. Once the children leave Australian soil under the new legislation they will have no guardian. They can be moved without the permission of any guardian. 

We’ve witnessed for many years, the damage caused to children by detaining them in remote locations such as Leonora, and in the past; Woomera and Baxter for indefinite periods. ChilOut and so many other groups were witness to the failures of the Pacific Solution under John Howard’s Coalition Government. The lack of adequate counselling, educational opportunities, training, other activities and oversight were a major concern. Groups witnessed children held for years on end to their detriment.

What we’ve seen so far with the passage of new legislation in August 2012 could be even worse. Nauru and Manus Island are even further removed from Australian scrutiny. The few protections and avenues that do exist for children locked in our mainland detention facilities are completely removed for the children we plan to send to other nations. 

The fast adoption of punitive measures without recourse to natural justice or any of the safety mechanisms recommended by the Greens or Expert Panel place the future of the children  detained at serious risk.

ChilOut remains firm in its convictions. Children should be detained only as a measure of last resort and only for health and safety checks for the shortest period of time on mainland Australia. The movement of children to offshore processing centres, ‘out of sight and out of mind’ for unlimited periods, with no recourse to natural justice or principles outlined in the Refugee Convention 1951 and without a formal guardian is without doubt not in the best interests of the children.

Some have argued over the last few weeks that a damaged child is better than a child drowned at sea. No parent would accept the indefinite overseas detention of their child with or without Refugee Convention  protections. Nor should we accept that for the children of others. If the best we can aspire to is a damaged child, we do not deserve to be called a modern compassionate or clever country. 

We encourage the government to adopt protections for all people detained, but to especially keep in mind the most vulnerable, children. And to not repeat the mistakes of the first Pacific Solution.

 Questions still unanswered

• Who will be permitted to visit Australian operated detention facilities in third countries? (under the first 'Pacific Solution', Australian Parliamentary Committee members and the Australian Human Rights Commission were both denied access to the Nauru facility).
• How will men, women and children be forced onto planes to be transferred to indefinite arbitrary detention on Nauru?
• Is there adequate power on Nauru and Manus Island? Last time large generators were needed and power was unreliable at best.
• Are showers on Nauru still saltwater? The only water source was desalinated water and people in the detention centre said their showers tasted salty.
• What protections are there against malaria (an issue known to affect children detained on Manus Island under the first 'Pacific Solution')?
• Where will people go when they are found to be refugees?

Confidential Report Exposed

Internal documents have come to hand about the state of the Nauru facility. ChilOut is deeply concerned about reports describing no permanent water supply, no shade, no recreational facilities, no operating waste water treatment plant and a kitchen with no walls and rotting floors. This report shows that despite both the Australian government and Opposition pushing for immediate transfer of asylum seekers Nauru is far from being ready. It will take an estimated 5 months to get Topside camp up to barely livable conditions with the very real possibility of asylum seekers been placed in tents just a few hundred metres down the road from a rubbish tip, exposed to sweltering heat. 

Why is Australia – a wealthy and privileged nation – exposing asylum seekers to conditions similar to that of refugee camps?

The estimated cost of restoration and transfer of asylum seekers will be upwards of $5 billion over the next 4 years. What an extravagant amount of taxpayers’ money to spend on implementing a policy to lock up vulnerable men, women and children seeking refuge from persecution.

UNHCR rejects Pacific Solution Mark II

In a slap in the face for Australia’s ‘Pacific Solution Mark II’ the regional representative of the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner (UNHCR) has told Australia it will on have oversight from afar, and no immediate contact with asylum seekers sent to Nauru. UNHCR has stated that shipping women, children and unaccompanied minors off to remote locations in the Pacific will inevitably cause further suffering. 

Richard Towle, regional representative of UNHCR, stated in an interview with ‘The World Today’:

“Our objective as an organisation is not in itself to stop boats, our objective primarily is to ensure that people who need protection get it.”

Mr Towle was clearly echoing Australia’s forgotten obligations under the Refugee Convention. Those that have been fundamentally scrapped in the new legislation passed by the House of Representatives and Senate last week.

UNHRC strongly believes that detention should only be used as a last resort to satisfy health and security concerns. Freedom is a fundamental right of every human being and any detention-based regime is essentially stripping vulnerable people of this liberty.

History has shown us the devastating effects of offshore processing to the mental and physical state of children and adults. Australian leaders are still willing to implement a policy that sees already vulnerable people in a state of limbo, without knowledge of the progress of their application or access to crucial services for many years. 

Clearly this policy does not stand up to the obligations Australia signed up to in the Refugee Convention. Today’s announcement by the UNHRC confirms this. 

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3575073.htm

 

What assurances do we have that the physical situation on Nauru or Manus Island will be in any way improved from the last time Australia maintained detention facilities in these locations? Have there been improvements to water de-salination on Nauru, is the power source now reliable? Will there be respite from the constant mosquito attacks that people detained there spoke of?

 

What is meant by ‘appropriate accommodation’? Could the Prime Minister’s suggestion of tents on Manus Island constitute ‘reasonable’? The Christmas Island unrest happened after people were held for lengthy periods in tents.

 

What of the sovereignty issues encountered under the ‘Pacific Solution’ era in terms of visiting Nauru. Human Rights Commissioner along with our Parliamentarians denied visitation not to mention lawyers, concerned citizens, family, friends and community members who may all have wished to visit people detained in these locations but could not. What visitation and oversight mechanisms will be put in place and will these be safeguarded whilst ever the detention facilities are in operation?

 

Non-arbitrary detention on Manus and Nauru.

What does this mean in reality? What do the local populations think of it? There are known tensions amongst Manus Island locals about their hosting of the detention population.

It takes 20minutes to drive around the whole island of Nauru, there is not exactly freedom in leaving people to roam the island especially when it is for an indefinite period.

 

There is very little detail on what will happen to children under the Panel’s recommendations:

Will all children be considered 'vulnerable' and therefore able to come to Australia on the proposed special visas? Will children face indefinite detention on Nauru? What education will be provided for them?

ALP National conference agreed that unaccompanied minors seeking asylum needed an independent guardian – not the Minister for Immigration and not NO guardian whatsoever!

Attachment 10: Legislation changes required: amend Migration Act to say people can be transferred to any location outside Australia. Any location? What restrictions will Parliament put in place to ensure safeguards, what are the minimum standards?

At point 2.17 the Expert Panel report states that we shouldn't restrict ourselves to only dealing with Refugee Convention countries. That we should instead work towards "appropriate safeguards". Who determines these and how do we ensure that if a high benchmark is set it does not slide.

Parliamentary debate presently suggests that parliament itself will act as the oversight and will vote to ensure safeguards. This is very difficult to fathom. The same parliament that voted to send the children away in the first place, the parliament with all manner of political pressures on a number of issues and the same parliament whose make up we cannot be assured of even in the near future.

What assurances do we have that the humanitarian intake will rise to 27,000 in five years? 

Parliament resumes on 14 August, the Expert Panel on asylum seekers is due to give its recommendations to the cross-party reference group... the asylum "debate" is likely to flare up again. 

I will not pre-empt the Panel's reccommendations. I do truly hope they reflect the many, many submissions received, oral evidence gathered and mountain of evidence poitning to humane policy options as being effective and sustainable. 

On the other side however, it will be fairly predictable that the Opposition will come out with another push for Nauru as a 'solution' to the policy impasse. The Opposition chose not to take part in the cross-party reference group with whom the Expert Panel met. Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison seem committed to the notion that Nauru is the panacea to all. Alaramingly, they present it as the solution to saving lives. This is is a ridiculous notion as their proposal involves people getting on boats in the first place! No-one is taken to Nauru until they have already engaged a people smuggler and boarded a (most-likely) dangerous boat. 

In anticipation of this Nauru push ChilOut has brought together a group of prominent Australians to head over to Tony Abbott's electorate and discuss the realities of detention on Nauru. 

• the realities of long-term, remote detention on people's mental health
• the reality that Australia will most likely end up settling people we have damaged becasue no other country will take people seen clearly as Australia's responsibility
• Australia's international obligations
• the question of how we can treat children in this manner. 
• reminders of numbers, outcomes and stories from Nauru when it last operated as a detention facility under the Coalition government 
• discussion of why people fleeing for their lives are not deterred by the prospect of detention

Wendy Bacon, Andrew Bartlett and Bruce Haigh will share their observations, analysis and ideas on the Nauru option.  Free event. Tuesday 14th August. Mosman Art Gallery. More info Wendy Bacon's recent timeline on immigration detention on Nauru Pg 2 of this doc has a brief explanation of what each party was calling for at the end of last Parliamentary session.