Minister for Immigration, Senator Amanda Vanstone, answers questions on notice.
In Hansard, March 2004.
(Question No. 2360)
Senator Allison asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 5 November 2003:
Senator Vanstone: The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1) As at 1 October 2003: (a) how many children and young people aged less than 18 years were being held in each of the mainland and offshore detention centres; (b) how long has each of these children been in detention; and (c) how many of these children, by detention centre, are currently proposed or being considered for moving to alternative places of detention in accordance with Migration Series Instruction No. 371: (i) during November 2003, (ii) during November and December 2003, and (iii) at any other time.
(1) Offshore asylum seekers are not held in detention, but rather are accommodated in processing facilities, administered by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), and they hold special purpose visas. Details relating to minors located at Offshore Processing Centres (OPCs) are included below with details relating to minors located in detention
centres.
(a) As at 3 October 2003, there were 113 minors in immigration detention, including alternative detention arrangements. As at 3 October 2003, there were 93 minors in the Nauru OPC. There were no minors at the Manus Island processing facility.
(b) As at 3 October 2003, the minors in immigration detention, both in centres and in alternative arrangements, had been in detention for the following periods:
| Under 6 months | 34 |
| Between 6-12 months | 10 |
| Between 12-36 months | 56 |
| Over 36 Months | 13 |
| Total | 113 |
Of the 93 minors in the Nauru OPC, 14 of these minors were born to offshore asylum seekers after their arrival at the OPCs on Nauru and Manus Island in late 2001. The remaining 79 have been in residence in these facilities since late 2001.
(c) (i)-(iii) My Department continues to actively promote alternative detention models to eligible detainees, specifically the Residential Housing Projects (RHPs), foster care placements for unaccompanied minors and community based arrangements for people with special needs.
All women and children have been, and continue to be, considered for an alternative place of detention, such as a RHP, in line with the guidelines set out in Migration Series Instruction No. 371 (MSI - 371). Participation in a RHP is voluntary. The offer to transfer to a RHP remains open at all times.
In October 2003, 5 children transferred from a detention centre to an alternative place of detention, such as a RHP, foster care with a State Welfare Agency, and for short-term stays in motels where IDCs do not cater for children. In November 2003, a further 15 children transferred into alternative detention. In December 2003, 4 children were transferred into alternative detention. As at 22 February 2004, a further 4 children have been transferred into alternative detention in the 2004 calendar year.
It is noteworthy that in the period since July 2003 there has been an overall increase in the proportion of women and children held in alternative detention arrangements. Of the total number of women and children in immigration detention on 31 July 2003, 16% of children detained were in alternative detention arrangements, including in RHPs. As at 26 February 2004, 38% of children detained are in alternative detention arrangements including RHPs. This includes the placement of a family in suburban Melbourne under the supervision of a community organisation.
Arrangements continue to be pursued to place additional detainees with special needs into community based alternative detention arrangements under the supervision of community organisations.
(2) In each case, why are those children currently being held in mainland detention centres not already placed in alternative detention arrangements in accordance with the Migration Series Instruction No. 371.
(2) Participation in the RHPs is voluntary, and although many women and children are eligible for this form of alternative detention, offers to participate are often refused by detainees. Reasons given include a desire to keep all family members, including males, together; a reluctance to disturb children's schooling arrangements; and the convenience of meals being prepared for detainees in centres rather than undertaking their own cooking arrangements.
Consistent with the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC), the Australian Government believes it will usually be in the best interests of the child to remain with their parents. However, where a child welfare agency recommends separation from parents, to the extent possible within the legal framework, this advice will be accepted. The children remaining in detention centres either do not meet the guidelines outlined in MSI - 371 or are part of a family group who have declined the voluntary offer to relocate to alternative detention. The offer of voluntary relocation to a RHP remains open at all times for eligible detainees.
(3) Does the Minister acknowledge the long term mental and emotional damage these children are suffering as a result of being held in detention centres.
(3) My Department takes very seriously its responsibilities to meet the fundamental needs of detainees, especially with regard to children who are in immigration detention.
Detention services are provided in accordance with the Immigration Detention Standards (IDS), which underpin both the provision of the detention function and the standard of care to be provided. The IDS help to ensure that the individual care needs of detainees, including children, are met.
My Department and the Detention Services Provider (DSP) are also aware of their responsibilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) and do their utmost to ensure that children are treated in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
(4) Given that the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Royal Australian College of Physicians, the Committee of Presidents of Combined Medical Colleges, the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Psychological Society all oppose the policy of indefinite mandatory detention will the Government change its policy; if not, why not.
(4) Australia does not have a policy of indefinite mandatory detention.
For those in immigration detention, their time in detention is governed by their progress through the legal and administrative determination processes that they engage which may include seeking asylum. A number of factors can contribute to extended detention periods, including difficulty in establishing identity, litigation, difficulties in obtaining travel documentation and non-cooperation by the detainee. Applications for protection from people in detention receive priority processing. Those people found to be refugees who engage Australia's international protection obligations are granted visas and released into the community.
People can leave immigration detention by agreeing to leave Australia. Many people in detention who have been found not to satisfy the requirements for the grant of a Protection Visa choose to pursue several avenues of appeal. As a consequence, their period of immigration detention
can be extended.
(5) Does the Government agree with the National Rural Health Alliance argument, as reported in the Alliance's newsletter of September 2003, that in relation to Australasian Correctional Management, which run immigration detention centres, 'A culture of profit, lack of transparent accountability, conflict of interest (the source of the distress provides the service that purports to treat it) and resulting compromises of professional ethics, affect all health treatment decision'; if not, why not.
(5) The 'National Rural Health Alliance argument' reported in the National Rural Health Alliance newsletter is a statement of opinion made by an advocacy group.
Service delivery by the DSP in all detention centres must meet the quality levels established in the IDS. These standards set out the contractors' obligations to meet the individual care needs of detainees in a culturally appropriate way while at the same time providing safe and secure detention.
The standards were developed in consultation with the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office and ensure consistency with Australia's international treaty obligations. The contract includes a range of incentives and sanctions as a means of ensuring high quality service provision, which clearly links payment to performance standards.
(6) Does the Government agree that the creation of temporary protection visas appears to compound pre-existing psychological trauma; if not, what evidence does the Government have to demonstrate otherwise.
No. The conditions afforded to refugees on temporary protection visas (TPVs) in Australia compare very favourably with those available to the millions of refugees in countries of first asylum throughout the world, and with the conditions provided in some other countries comparable to Australia. All TPV holders in Australia receive the benefits required by the Refugees Convention and are guaranteed protection for as long as it is needed. TPV holders receive an array of benefits including full work rights, access to Special Benefit payments and Medicare.
The majority will have access to permanent residence after three years if still owed protection. By obtaining permanent residence they are eligible to sponsor family members to join them and concurrently qualifying for citizenship, on conditions which are amongst the most generous in the
world.
Not surprisingly, many TPV holders are doing very well in Australia. For example, I am aware of a high school student in Adelaide who was made dux of his high school. TPV holders are working in our cities and in rural areas such as Dubbo, Griffith and Murray Bridge.