Home

About Us

Contact Us

Donations

Contacting
Detainees

Feedback

Christian
Ministry
Group

Useful
Links

Executive Summary

This executive summary is divided into two parts. Part A sets out the major findings and recommendations of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (the Inquiry). Part B provides a chapter summary of the Inquiry\'s report: A last resort?

Part A: Major Findings and Recommendations

Major Findings

The Inquiry has made the following major findings in relation to Australia\'s mandatory immigration detention system as it applied to children who arrived in Australia without a visa (unauthorised arrivals) over the period 1999-2002.

1. Australia\'s immigration detention laws, as administered by the Commonwealth, and applied to unauthorised arrival children, create a detention system that is fundamentally inconsistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

   In particular, Australia\'s mandatory detention system fails to ensure that:

   1. detention is a measure of last resort, for the shortest appropriate period of time and subject to effective independent review (CRC, article 37(b), (d))
   2. the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all actions concerning children (CRC, article 3(1))
   3. children are treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity (CRC, article 37(c))
   4. children seeking asylum receive appropriate assistance (CRC, article 22(1)) to enjoy, \'to the maximum extent possible\' their right to development (CRC, article 6(2)) and their right to live in \'an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity\' of children in order to ensure recovery from past torture and trauma (CRC, article 39).
2. Children in immigration detention for long periods of time are at high risk of serious mental harm. The Commonwealth\'s failure to implement the repeated recommendations by mental health professionals that certain children be removed from the detention environment with their parents, amounted to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of those children in detention (CRC, article 37(a) - Chapter 9).
3. At various times between 1999 and 2002, children in immigration detention were not in a position to fully enjoy the following rights:
1. the right to be protected from all forms of physical or mental violence (CRC, article 19(1) - Chapter 8)
2. the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (CRC, article 24(1) - Chapters 9, 10)
3. the right of children with disabilities to \'enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child\'s active participation in the community\' (CRC, article 23(1) - Chapter 11)
4. the right to an appropriate education on the basis of equal opportunity (CRC, article 28(1) - Chapter 12)

5. the right of unaccompanied children to receive special protection and assistance to ensure the enjoyment of all rights under the CRC (CRC, article 20(1) - Chapters 6, 7, 14).

   A more detailed summary of all the Inquiry\'s findings is set out in the Chapter Summary in Part B.

Recommendations

1. Children in immigration detention centres and residential housing projects as at the date of the tabling of this report should be released with their parents, as soon as possible, but no later than four weeks after tabling.

   The Minister and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (the Department) can effect this recommendation within the current legislative framework by one of the following methods:

   1. transfer into the community (home-based detention)
   2. the exercise of Ministerial discretion to grant humanitarian visas pursuant to section 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act)
   3. the grant of bridging visas (appropriate reporting conditions may be imposed).

   If one or more parents are assessed to be a high security risk, the Department should seek the urgent advice of the relevant child protection authorities regarding the best interests of the child and implement that advice.

2. Australia\'s immigration detention laws should be amended, as a matter of urgency, to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

   In particular, the new laws should incorporate the following minimum features:

1. There should be a presumption against the detention of children for immigration purposes.
2. A court or independent tribunal should assess whether there is a need to detain children for immigration purposes within 72 hours of any initial detention (for example for the purposes of health, identity or security checks).
3. There should be prompt and periodic review by a court of the legality of continuing detention of children for immigration purposes.
4. All courts and independent tribunals should be guided by the following principles:
   1. detention of children must be a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time
   2. the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration
   3. the preservation of family unity
   4. special protection and assistance for unaccompanied children.
5. Bridging visa regulations for unauthorised arrivals should be amended so as to provide a readily available mechanism for the release of children and their parents.
3. An independent guardian should be appointed for unaccompanied children and they should receive appropriate support.
4. Minimum standards of treatment for children in immigration detention should be codified in legislation.
5. There should be a review of the impact on children of legislation that creates \'excised offshore places\' and the \'Pacific Solution\'.

Children still pawns in Government‘s legal game: ChilOut‘s response to High Court decision of 29 April 2004 The High Court today ruled that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the welfare of children in immigration detention. This overturned a Family Court decision that freed five children from immigration detention last year.

”Why are we even fighting this issue in the courts?• asked Dianne Hiles, spokeswoman for ChilOut. ”No child should be kept in detention, that‘s not a legal issue, that‘s plain common sense and decency. The Government has thrown a huge amount of money behind this case, pursuing it to the highest court in Australia, and for what? To keep these children behind bars.•

Today‘s ruling puts Australia in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC). Australia agreed to be legally bound by the CROC in 1990. It is the world‘s most widely ratified human rights treaty, and states that the detention of children must only be as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time (article 37(b)). Article 3 requires Australia to put children‘s welfare first:

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being Πand, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

ChilOut calls on the federal Government to take immediate legislative and administrative measures to ensure that the Family Court can make decisions for the welfare of all children in Australia‘s care. That includes:

70 children imprisoned on the Pacific island country of Nauru;
81 children imprisoned in Australian detention centres/housing projects; up to 100 other children who are in varying forms of community detention (motels, foster care, hospitals, juvenile detention centres).

ChilOut calls on all decent-minded Australians to protest against the indefinite imprisonment of innocent children in the name of ”border protection•.

CONTACT: Dianne Hiles, 0425 244 667 or Alanna Sherry, 0417 177 530.

ChilOut (Children Out Of Detention) is a group of parents and citizens opposed to the mandatory detention of children in Australian immigration detention centres.

The Herald Sun
Jason Frenkel
30apr04

IT costs taxpayers $400,000 a day to support the nation's 1031 interned asylum-seekers.

The cost has risen 150 per cent in 18 months, making a day in detention more expensive than a stay in a top city hotel.

Figures obtained by the Herald Sun show the daily cost of detaining each asylum seeker has risen from $162 in 2001-02 to $376.

The arrival of new boats to Australia has slowed to a trickle in recent times, so many of the nation's eight detention centres are operating at just a fraction of their capacity. But the cost of running them has not dropped accordingly.

The figures do not include the Government's "Pacific Solution" detention centres on Nauru or Manus Island, which already have cost taxpayers $170 million.

The blowout was uncovered by Victorian MP Martin Ferguson and Labor's immigration spokesman, Stephen Smith. The figures show the daily cost of housing and caring for detainees jumped by $113 between June 2002 and 2003, to $273.

It increased a further $103 a day, to $376, in the six months to the end of last year.

The figures show detention is virtually the most expensive form of accommodation in Australia.

A productivity commission report last year found the national daily cost of keeping a prisoner in a maximum security jail is $161.40. A night in a standard room at Crown Towers, complete with marble bathroom, 40 channels of entertainment and a TV above the spa, costs $350.

Mr Ferguson said the growing expense was scandalous.

"It's inexplicable; the skyrocketing costs of detention needs to be explained by the Howard Government if they are going to be accountable to taxpayers," Mr Ferguson said.

"These costs are scandalous given the pressure on Australian families, and their huge difficulties in educating and feeding their children."

Mr Smith said the figures supported Labor's call for Port Hedland -- a 558-bed centre now occupied by just 54 detainees -- to be closed.

"Given that the Baxter detention centre has 230 detainees in a 660-bed facility, it would be sensible to consolidate the population of the two facilities and mothball Port Hedland," he said.

Immigration department assistant secretary Steve Davis told a Senate hearing in February it cost more to look after fewer detainees. Some centres' remote locations also added to operating costs, he said.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9427281%255E662,00.html

top