Amnesty International condemns asylum seeker policy following detention inspection
The destructive effects of Australia’s policy of mandatory indefinite detention for asylum seekers have been revealed today in an initial report of findings from Amnesty International’s visit to some of the country’s most remote detention centres.
Following a 13-day fact finding mission this month to detention centres in Christmas Island, Curtin, Perth and Darwin, Amnesty International has once again condemned a failed policy which is in direct contravention of Australia’s human rights obligations.
“After speaking with countless asylum seekers whose mental health has been destroyed by this system, it is morally reprehensible that this policy has continued for so long,” said Dr Graham Thom, Amnesty International’s refugee spokesman.
“Across every facility we visited what was evident was the stress caused by prolonged detention and the uncertainty which continues to traumatise innocent people who are still waiting behind fences.
Minister Bowen: get vulnerable people out of detention now
“The Northwest Point centre on Christmas Island and the new Wickham Point centre unnecessarily look and feel like prisons. The high-security compounds of Christmas Island housing hundreds of men who have committed no crime are particularly concerning.”
“In Curtin and also Christmas Island, the harsh and isolated environments of the centres escalate the difficulties in providing basic services and supplies like medical attention, communications and access to support networks,” said Dr Thom.
While Amnesty International acknowledges efforts made to improve the physical environments of facilities, the delegation was repeatedly told by asylum seekers that after a certain period of time, the negative mental health impact of long-term detention becomes impossible to mitigate with improvements to detention conditions.
“There was a striking contrast between men we met who had only been detained for a few months describing the trauma experienced in their home countries, compared with the men who had been held for up to three years telling us of the trauma caused by their detention,” said Dr Thom.
The use of sleeping pills is still widespread throughout all of the centres, with many people explaining to the delegation how they rely on medication to pass the days away.
An Iranian man told Amnesty International: “When I came to this country I was strong and healthy, now I am ill. I am taking sleeping pills, I am weak.”
Amnesty International is calling for the immediate closure of remote detention centres and a maximum 30-day time limit placed on detention, with community processing to occur once initial heath and security checks are complete. The organisation is also urging the Government to prioritise community processing for long-term detainees, families and unaccompanied children.
Comments
Dominic Sidor | Posted on 5 March 2012, 08:02PM | Report comment
Andrew J: The Western world has soaked up vast amounts of wealth from non-Western countries over the past 500 years through slavery, wars, espionage and economic bullying. Our government through our alliance with the US has indirectly participated in de-stabilising the Middle East, supporting dictators (i.e. billions in training the Taliban, proping up Saddam with weapons to invade Iran, supporting other dictators such as Mubarak). Western countries have created the wealth scarcity that is the root of the problem.
Now we complain that the countries we have helped to destabilise have desperate people pouring out of them in search for a better life? Iraq isn’t a happy and safe place to raise a family at last glance.
There’s a simple reason why refugees need a bit of an extra hand when they come here, and it’s unfair to be called a ‘free hand out.’ Let’s say refugees were dumped into the community without any support services, accomodation and extra health services. How would they get work? Assimilate into the economy? Could they work in their true profession or have to work a job to ‘just get by’?
Personally I don’t mind my taxes going towards helping refugees, as a) my tax dollars have also gone to creating and sustaining war, b) we’re a wealthy nation and with wealth comes responsibility to those in need, c) while yes some of us struggle most of us are spoilt relative to the rest of the world (luxury of materialism vs what’s needed to survive) and those that do struggle can and should be further supported to reach their potential.
Pains me to see refugees in worse conditions than murderers, drug dealers and rapists. Women, children and families on our shores wanting a better life from countries that we have helped mess up, then treated as if they had murdered, robbed or raped. It’s basic human empathy that puts in in perspective.
James Sharp | Posted on 28 February 2012, 03:09PM | Report comment
Excellent report Graham!
A great contribution to what passes for a debate about asylum seeker/refugee issues.
It is comforting to see Amnesty increasing its monitoring of detention centres, especially given the unfortunate withdrawal of the Australian Human Rights Commission from its monitoring role.
‘Out of sight and out of mind’ is a particularly offensive and nasty aspect of our treatment of asylum seekers.
Douglas Edhouse | Posted on 27 February 2012, 10:56AM | Report comment
Gentlemen. It is wonderful that we have an open forum to debate this issue. All of your comments are worth there weight in gold. I just hope this is not your only medium of action. Make the change you want to see in the world. Talk the talk and walk the walk.
Andrew J S | Posted on 27 February 2012, 09:36AM | Report comment
Daniel: I think you understand my point, However i am not against refugees for getting the universal health care we all would want - after all they had no say in it, I am against the government for providing them with far superior and comprehensive health care regime than it gives its own citizens. The unjustness of favouring one group over another is core to the animosity created in the community - In the current environment your last comment would be the fairest approach, ie the free market should dictate what kind of healthcare the refugees can enjoy - essentially the same access to health care should be afforded to refugees as is afforded to the rest of the community - same goes for access to public housing etc. Yes detention centres are bad, but in many cases they are superior to homeless shelters - these people have as much a right to public housing as refugees.
Again, no issue at all with refugees, however the allocation of finite resources needs to be applied more fairly and equitably across everyone in the community, not snigled out for just one group.
Daniel Kasak | Posted on 24 February 2012, 02:17PM | Report comment
Andrew J S: your views on this medical care are contradictory. Consider this: both labor and liberals are all for PRIVATE health care. Only labor believes that there should be ‘somewhat’ of a safety net for people who can’t afford private health insurance. Those people who think there should be high quality universal health care are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to the left of labor. Perhaps they don’t VOTE that way, but that’s down to their own stupidity. And so ... for people who DO support high quality universal health care, they have no problem with refugees receiving the same. The have a problem with the fact that Australians don’t get it. But again, they don’t go around attacking refugees for it. For everyone else who votes labor / liberal ... they should just admit that they want to see public healthcare eroded for EVERYONE, and let the free market dictate what kind of health care refugees can afford themselves and their children.
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 February 2012, 02:02PM | Report comment
Miesko
Free Mediical for a refugee is:
Free dental care, including orthadontics to correct bite, free specialist visits, all pharmaceutical costs, free psychiatric services. Free house/home visit by the GP. There is no means testing or co payment for the provision of any medical services. The waiting list for medical services is also far shorter than what a full fee paying Australian citizen can enjoy. Who wouldn’t want medicare to provide all that to everyone? but as it stands there are co payments necessary for medicine, co payments for many doctor and specialist visits and no free dental for Australian citizens with Medicare. And now the government wants to increase the medicare surcharge for high income earners without private cover - so they can pay even more for services inferior to that given to a refugee. Why wouldn’t this make people angry?
Daniel Kasak | Posted on 24 February 2012, 01:52PM | Report comment
Andrew J S: We are as guilty as the US and UK in starting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also I COMPLETELY reject the idea that Afghanis have ‘asled’ us to stay. They didn’t ask us to COME in the first place, and it’s only the puppet regime of former war-lords that are asking anyone to stay. Everyone else wants the occupation over. See this interview with a female Afghani activist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EedFcqRMQuQ ... and in all seriousness, try to get your news from multiple sources, including some actual independant sources, such as Democracy Now. I appreciate that your opposition to current policy seems to revolve around the cost issues and fairness to Australian people and tax-payers. I can only repeat that a vast majority of these people ARE legitimate and desperately need a ‘fair go’. Please be aware of the danger of attacking support we give them on the basis of it not being available to others, for 2 reasons - 1) their situation IS significantly different, and 2) this is simply a race to the bottom in terms of who we support and how much support they get. I agree that others who need help don’t get what they deserve. But I don’t argue that we should remove support from the most vulnerable people around. Also you mention that there is only limited tax money to go around. This is true, but again, don’t target the most needy and let the most affluent off the hook. We are in the middle of an unprecedented mining boom. We are still very much the lucky country. If our politicians are too cowardly to suggest tax reforms that would more fairly distribute super-profits to help the most needy in society, then it’s up to people to put the blame on them, and not on refugees or any other recipient of badly needed welfare.
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 February 2012, 01:21PM | Report comment
So many assumptions from everyone, where do i start?
1. I have strong beleifs in equality, no gender, race or other bias. This very much extends to economics too. I do not like compensation/affirmative action or other benefits that are not provided equally to all.
2. I do know iranians and a somalian boat refugee (who incidentaly i go fishing with), no issue with the people at all - What in my comments leads to the conclusion that i am against them?
3. Maralyn - i am actually against the locking up of refugees too, with the exception of security clearance first - which surely should not take longer than 8 weeks.
4. Like it or not, there is a limited amount of tax revenue to go around - The home the refugee live in in the northern beaches would rent for $700 minimum per week. No issue with this person, but why is their need greater than a single mother escaping domestic violence with nowhere to escape to with her children? what about the family who lost everything in a bushfire and now struggle with rent payments and unemployment - no free housing here either, and this hardship will extend to the upbringing of their kids. Everybody has different hardships and circumstances, but the domestic cases are not eligible for anyhing near like what the refugees get - this is not fair.
5. Daniel, what war did Australia start? Afghanistan has asked Australia to stay and help - and yeah i have an issue with tax dollars going to this too. And yes, there is a torrent of Refugees in the world and giving free housing, Dental (who else gets that?), internet and living costs IS sending a signal to come, they have even said this in interviews.
6. So essentially, i have no issue with them coming here, just have an issue with showering benefits that the rest of the community do not enjoy. They should work and pay taxes like everybody else does.
Jan Evans | Posted on 24 February 2012, 10:13AM | Report comment
If it were just economics, it woud be much cheaper for us to process Asylum Seekers within a few months..How many reviews could be got through compared to the cost of running all the detention centres. Of course Sewrco may go broke!
The asylum seekers I know personally,receive $200 a fortnight to feed,clothe ay electricity phone etc.I think if there was the opportunity for Andrew to get to know some Afghan,Iranian etc peiople he would find the reality different from the medfia rants he has heard. He can do this by contacting any refugee community organisation
Michael Wild | Posted on 23 February 2012, 11:23PM | Report comment
Hi David. Actually Amnesty International was founded to combat any regime: its job has always been to protect important basic rights regardless of where. As a patriotic Australian I feel not at all pleased to see us sink to the level that Amnesty is making adverse comments.
My understanding is that the majority of asylum seekers turn out to be genuine refugees-that is fleeing from the sort of repression that comfortable Australians could never imagine. “Economic refugees” (that is non refugees) are returned. Knocking up ships to accommodate 1 000 odd people (plus jailers because that’s what it will be) is very expensive, still gives the navy a horrible task and the Indonesians may very well refuse to take them anyway. From their point of view it would be boat people coming from a country that could just as accommodate them as Indonesia; in fact better given our wealth.
Dennis Callaghan | Posted on 23 February 2012, 10:59PM | Report comment
Amnesty International lost its credibility when it started targetting democracies such as Australia instead of the truly ghastly regimes it, presumably, was established to combat.
Too many boat-people are not genuine refugees. Clearly, they are economic refugees.
While the boats should be turned back, the problem is that the crew or passengers then scuttle them and have to be rescued by the Navy anyway. Solution: the Australian Government ought to fit out a large ship to accommodate, say, 1000 passengers in reasonable comfort. Instead of the boat people being taken to Christmas Island, they should be put aboard the said vessel. When it’s full, it should sail for an Indonesian port and off-load the people there.
Since the Indonesian Government makes a show of dissuading the boat people from leaving its shores, and has recently accepted a gift of patrol boats from Australia to assist them in that regard,it could look rather silly if it were to oppose such repatriation.
Marilyn Shepherd | Posted on 23 February 2012, 02:38PM | Report comment
So Andrew, come to slum it have you? Asylum seekers have committed no crime, they are victims of crime jailed without charge in a country that promised to protect them.
I wonder Andrew if you have ever known any Afghans or Iraqis or Iranians? I do and they are marvellous human beings with great compassion and love which is why they leave those violent countries.
WE have squandered billions jailing innocent people for years longer than necessary because DIAC get Afghan cases wrong 87% of the time
Mieszko | Posted on 23 February 2012, 12:13PM | Report comment
Andrew, I don’t think the free housing continues indefinitely - I think its pretty limited. My understanding is they also have the same access to medicare as every Australian.
Above all I don’t think this should be seen as an either/or scenario. Australia should be able to care for it’s own disadvantages citizens, and provide humane treatment for refugees. We are one of the most prosperous nations on earth.
As for the dangerous sea voyages - they’re also fleeing from dangerous environments; countries shattered by war, or victims of persecution. I think discouraging sea voyages should be a concern, but it shouldn’t be given undue focus and power over all humanitarian concerns.
Mieszko | Posted on 23 February 2012, 12:10PM | Report comment
I think the concerns Andrew raised are reasonable and fair. And he’d probably be more inclined to reconsider his position with calmly worded answers.
Daniel Kasak | Posted on 23 February 2012, 12:01PM | Report comment
Andrew J S: Refugees have been through a LOT worse than any working-class families in Australia. Get some perspective. Submitting them to forced labour in concentration camps isn’t the answer either. If you want them to pay for their way ( you seem to have a *real* complex about people ripping you off ... perhaps you should look at the OTHER end of the spectrum for once ), then maybe you would agree to giving them basic services *now*, which they pay back later, once they have been granted refugee status and can start working. As for encouraging more to come ... 1) there is not the torrent of refugees that you think we are being swamped with, and 2) if we help more people to escape war-torn places - particularly where WE started the war, then I would consider that a GOOD thing. If you have a problem with that, or with the cost of supporting them, consider the amount we spend destroying their countries and lives to start with. They most likely deserve war reparations FAR exceeding the small amount we spend on incarcerating them.
Kathy | Posted on 23 February 2012, 11:11AM | Report comment
Andrew, you need to check your facts. This article gives more accurate information:
http://www.championsofchange.org.au/?p=827
Andrew J S | Posted on 23 February 2012, 10:14AM | Report comment
A maximum detention period of 30 days is a great idea, however for this to be viable and fair, Asylum seekers should not get rent free housing, dental care and other benefits above what other citizens enjoy. They should however be free to work and pay taxes like every other Australian citizen. Unaccompanied minors should enjoy all the benefits of being a ward of the state. Giving free rent and living expenses and communication costs to families living in Sydneys Northern Beaches is grossly unfair to struggling working families paying taxes supporting these benefits paid to others whilst they miss out themselves, and only encourages many more to take a dangerous sea voyage to our shores. Why are those from overseas worthy of more of the public purse than those in our community who have been disadvantaged by domestic violence, total loss of uninsured home, long term unemployment and those on an old age or disability pension?.