Immigration policy under fire
In his annual report for 2000/2001, the Commonwealth Ombudsman Ron McLeod issued a strong criticism of the treatment of refugee asylum seekers under the Howard Government. The following is an exert from his report. Increases in the number of people held in immigration detention facilities and some disturbances in certain centres focussed considerable public attention on immigration detention during the year. A number of systemic reviews were conducted of aspects of DIMA's (Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) practices over the past year with particular emphasis on detention. My report on Immigration Detention Centres (IDCs) examined both conditions in IDCs and the treatment of detainees. I was particularly concerned about the treatment of people at risk during their detention, such as women and children. In this regard, I recommended that DIMA pursue alternatives to detention for families, women and children and individuals with special needs. My investigation found evidence at every IDC of self-harm by detainees, damage to property and fights and assaults, which suggested that there were systemic deficiencies in the management of detainees. Although 1999-2000 was a difficult year for DIMA, with large numbers of unauthorised arrivals in Australia, my investigation found that the facilities provided for detainees were not adequate at the time, especially at Woomera, where large numbers were held. I was particularly concerned to find that at 30 June 2000, nearly 800 women and children were in detention and that there was little distinction between their treatment and that of the predominantly single male population of IDCs. I found that women and children in particular were at risk in the detention environment. I also expressed the view that immigration detainees have lesser rights than convicted criminals held in jails and that they were being held in an environment that appeared to have a weaker accountability framework. I made a number of recommendations to DIMA, including: * reassessing the accommodation and conditions in IDCs to avoid overcrowding; * providing appropriately for families, women, children and individuals with special needs, to ensure that they are not exposed to harm; * pursuing alternatives to detention for families, women at risk, children and individuals with special needs, outside the major detention centres; * developing memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with State, Federal and Territory police services and other agencies regarding their involvement with IDCs and detainees; * improving security at IDCs; and * improving morale within IDCs by addressing training and the quality of management. DIMA has advised that it is implementing my recommendations. I propose to continue to conduct inspections as the need arises. The investigation examined the administrative detention of individuals in State and Territory prisons under the Migration Act 1958. The main issues considered were the grounds for holding immigration detainees in prisons who are not convicted of criminal offences, and whether the policies and procedures established by DIMA, at least partly in response to my predecessor's 1995 report concerning the transfer of immigration detainees to State and Territory prisons, were being followed in practice. Complaints received by my office suggested that the length of detention contributes to the incidence of behaviour problems among the detainees and may exacerbate mental health problems. Difficult behaviour by a detainee, in turn, can lead to a decision to transfer the detainee to a State prison. Although a transfer to prison is a serious decision and is meant to occur only as a last resort, evidence showed that when immigration detainees are transferred, their welfare and circumstances within the prison system are not always monitored closely. While a prison can be a place of detention under the Migration Act 1958, State and Territory prisons are designed to accommodate convicted offenders, not immigration detainees.