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.