Submission to National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from The Australian Psychological Society

Executive Summary The Australian Psychological Society categorically condemns the practice of detaining child asylum seekers and their families, on the grounds that it is not commensurate with psychological best practice concerning children’s development and mental health and wellbeing. Detention of children in this fashion is also arguably a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A thorough review of relevant psychological theory and available research findings from international research has led the Australian Psychological Society to conclude that: • Detention is a negative socialisation experience. • Detention is accentuates developmental risks. • Detention threatens the bonds between children and significant caregivers. • Detention limits educational opportunities. • Detention has traumatic impacts on children of asylum seekers. • Detention reduces children’s potential to recover from trauma. • Detention exacerbates the impacts of other traumas. • Detention of children from these families in many respects is worse for them than being imprisoned. In the absence of any indication from the Australian Government that it intends in the near future to alter the practice of holding children in immigration detention, the Australian Psychological Society’s intermediate position is that the facilitation of short-term and long-term psychological development and wellbeing of children is the basic tenet upon which detention centres should be audited and judged. Based on that position, the Society has identified a series of questions and concerns that arise directly from the various psychological perspectives that have been brought to bear on estimating the effects of detention on child asylum seekers. The Society argues that, because these questions and concerns relate specifically to improvement and maintenance of child detainees’ educational, social and psychological wellbeing, they are legitimate matters for the Inquiry to consider and investigate. • What steps are currently being taken to monitor the psyc hological welfare of the children in detention? In particular, what steps are being taken to monitor the psychological wellbeing of children arriving from war-torn countries? • What qualifications and training do staff who care for children and their families in detention centres have? What knowledge do they have of psychological issues faced by people who have been subjected to traumatic experiences and are suffering high degrees of anxiety, stress and uncertainty? • What provisions have been made for psycho-educational assessment of children’s specific learning needs prior to their attending formal educational programmes? • who are suffering chronic and/or vicarious trauma as a result of witnessing threatening behaviour whilst in detention? • What provisions have been made for families who have been seriously affected by displacement to participate in family therapy? • What critical incident debriefing procedures are in place for children who have witnessed their parents, other family members, or social acquaintances engaging in acts of self-harm or being harmed while in detention? What psychotherapeutic support is in place for children who themselves have been harmed or have engaged in self- harmful acts while in detention? • What provisions are in place for parenting programmes that provide support for parents of children under extremely difficult psychological and physical circumstances? • What efforts are being made to provide parents with the opportunity to model traditional family roles for children, such as working to earn an income, meal preparation, other household duties, etc.? • What opportunities are in place for the assessment of safety issues such as bullying, and sexual or physical abuse of children or their mothers in detention centres? • How are resources distributed to children and families in detention centres? • What socialization opportunities are available either within detention centres or in the wider community for children to develop skills and independence, engage in social activities, participate in cultural traditions, and communicate and interaction with same-age peers and adults from similar ethnic and religious backgrounds? • What access do children and families have to videos, music and entertainment from their cultures of origin? • What provisions are in place to ensure the maintenance of privacy in a manner commensurate with usual cultural practice? • What is the Government’s rationale for continuing to implement a policy of mandatory detention of child asylum seekers that on the face of it is likely to have a pernicious impact on these children’s mental health? • In view of the evidence on the potential long-term impact of mandatory detention on children, what processes may be followed by Government to avoid such a practice and, more importantly, to develop policies and practices that will have a positive impact on these children’s psychological development and mental health?

Punitiveness and the criminalisation of the other : State wards, unlawful non-citizens and Indigenous youth

This paper explores the genealogies of bio-power that cut across punitive state interventions aimed at regulating or normalising several distinctive ‘problem’ or ‘suspect’ deviant populations, such as state wards, non-lawful citizens and Indigenous youth. It begins by making some general comments about the theoretical approach to bio-power taken in this paper. It then outlines the distinctive features of bio-power in Australia and how these intersected with the emergence of penal welfarism to govern the unruly, unchaste, unlawful, and the primitive. The paper draws on three examples to illustrate the argument – the gargantuan criminalisation rates of Aboriginal youth, the history of incarcerating state wards in state institutions, and the mandatory detention of unlawful non-citizens and their children. The construction of Indigenous people as a dangerous presence, alongside the construction of the unruly neglected children of the colony — the larrikin descendants of convicts as necessitating special regimes of internal controls and institutions, found a counterpart in the racial and other exclusionary criteria operating through immigration controls for much of the twentieth century. In each case the problem child or population was expelled from the social body through forms of bio-power, rationalised as strengthening, protecting or purifying the Australian population.

When the right to be counted doesn’t count : the politics and challenges of researching the health of asylum seekers

A fundamental prerequisite of population health research is the ability to establish an accurate denominator. This in turn requires that every individual in the study population is counted. However, this seemingly simple principle has become a point of conflict between researchers whose aim is to produce evidence of disparities in population health outcomes and governments whose policies promote(intentionally or not) inequalities that are the underlying causes of health disparities. Research into the health of asylum seekers is a case in point. There is a growing body of evidence documenting the adverse affects of recent changes in asylum-seeking legislation, including mandatory detention. However, much of this evidence has been dismissed by some governments as being unsound, biased and unscientific because, it is argued, evidence is derived from small samples or from case studies. Yet, it is the policies of governments that are the key barrier to the conduct of rigorous population health research on asylum seekers. In this paper, the authors discuss the challenges of counting asylum seekers and the limitations of data reported in some industrialized countries. They argue that the lack of accurate statistical data on asylum seekers has been an effective neo-conservative strategy for erasing the health inequalities in this vulnerable population, indeed a strategy that renders invisible this population. They describe some alternative strategies that may be used by researchers to obtain denominator data on hard-to-reach populations such as asylum seekers.

Stakeholder perspectives regarding the mandatory notification of Australian data breaches

The advent of data breach notification laws in the United States (US) has unearthed a significant problem involving the mismanagement of personal information by a range of public and private sector organisations. At present, there is currently no statutory obligation under Australian law requiring public or private sector organisations to report a data breach of personal information to law enforcement agencies or affected persons. However, following a comprehensive review of Australian privacy law, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has recommended the introduction of a mandatory data breach notification scheme. The issue of data breach notification has ignited fierce debate amongst stakeholders, especially larger private sector entities. The purpose of this article is to document the perspectives of key industry and government representatives to identify their standpoints regarding an appropriate regulatory approach to data breach notification in Australia.

The mandatory notification of data breaches : issues arising for Australian and EU legal developments

Public and private sector organisations are now able to capture and utilise data on a vast scale, thus heightening the importance of adequate measures for protecting unauthorised disclosure of personal information. In this respect, data breach notification has emerged as an issue of increasing importance throughout the world. It has been the subject of law reform in the United States and in other jurisdictions. This article reviews US, Australian and EU legal developments regarding the mandatory notification of data breaches. The authors highlight areas of concern based on the extant US experience that require further consideration in Australia and in the EU.

Untangling the Net : The Scope of Content Caught By Mandatory Internet Filtering

The following report considers a number of key challenges the Australian Federal Government faces in designing the regulatory framework and the reach of its planned mandatory internet filter. Previous reports on the mandatory filtering scheme have concentrated on the filtering technologies, their efficacy, their cost and their likely impact on the broadband environment. This report focuses on the scope and the nature of content that is likely to be caught by the proposed filter and on identifying associated public policy implications.

Sustainability and mandatory disclosure in Queensland : an assessment of the impact on home buyer patterns

Sustainability Declarations were introduced by the Queensland State Government on 1 January 2010 as a compulsory measure for all dwelling sales. The purpose of this policy decision was to improve the relevance of sustainability in the home ownership decision making process. This paper assesses the initial impact of this initiative over its first year in operation. In partnership with the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, real estate agents and salespeople in Queensland were surveyed to determine what impact the Sustainability Declaration has had on home buyer decision making. The level of compliance by the real estate industry was also reviewed. These preliminary findings indicate a high level of compliance from the real estate industry, however results confirm that sustainability is yet to become a criterion of relevance to the majority of home buyers in Queensland. The Sustainability Declarations are a first step in raising awareness in home owners of the importance of sustainability in housing. Further monitoring of this impact will be carried out over time.

Reaction to the mandatory write-down provisions of AASB 1010 : accounting for the revaluation of non-current assets

Commentators in the financial press claimed that the amendments to AASB 1010, Accounting for the Revaluation of Non-Current Assets, issued in September 1991, would have “disastrous” implications for the accounts of companies. This paper is concerned with whether the amendments did indeed affect asset write-down activities. An analysis of write-down practices of 75 Australian companies before and after the amendments were operative suggests that the commentators' judgment could have been hasty.

Home sustainability policy and mandatory disclosure. a survey of buyer and seller participation and awareness in Qld

Sustainability Declarations were introduced by the Queensland State Government on 1 January 2010 as a mandatory disclosure measure for all dwelling sales in the State. The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact this policy decision has had in the homebuyer decision-making process in the first year since its introduction and to consider the effectiveness of the legislation in meeting its policy objectives. This quantitative research comprised a two-part process: the first stage surveyed the level of compliance by the real estate industry with the legislative requirements. Stage two comprised an online survey of Real Estate Institute of Queensland members to determine what impact the Sustainability Declaration has had on home buyer decision making and how effective the legislative mechanisms have been in achieving the policy objectives. This paper assesses the initial impact of this initiative over its first year in operation. These preliminary findings indicate a high level of compliance from the real estate industry, however results confirm that sustainability is yet to become a criterion of relevance to the majority of homebuyers in Queensland. These quantitative findings support anecdotal evidence that the objectives of the legislation to increase homebuyer awareness and relevance of sustainability issues in the home are not being achieved. Sustainability Declarations are a first step in raising homebuyer awareness of the importance of sustainability in housing. Further monitoring of this impact will be carried out over time. This is the first research undertaken to assess the impact of this new mandatory disclosure legislation in Queensland, Australia. The findings will inform policy makers and assist them to assess the effectiveness of the current legislation in achieving its policy objectives.

Exploring the contested role of mandatory reporting laws in the identification of severe child abuse and neglect

Significant numbers of children are severely abused and neglected by parents and caregivers. Infants and very young children are the most vulnerable and are unable to seek help. To identify these situations and enable child protection and the provision of appropriate assistance, many jurisdictions have enacted ‘mandatory reporting laws’ requiring designated professionals such as doctors, nurses, police and teachers to report suspected cases of severe child abuse and neglect. Other jurisdictions have not adopted this legislative approach, at least partly motivated by a concern that the laws produce dramatic increases in unwarranted reports, which, it is argued, lead to investigations which infringe on people’s privacy, cause trauma to innocent parents and families, and divert scarce government resources from deserving cases. The primary purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which opposition to mandatory reporting laws is valid based on the claim that the laws produce ‘overreporting’. The first part of this paper revisits the original mandatory reporting laws, discusses their development into various current forms, explains their relationship with policy and common law reporting obligations, and situates them in the context of their place in modern child protection systems. This part of the paper shows that in general, contemporary reporting laws have expanded far beyond their original conceptualisation, but that there is also now a deeper understanding of the nature, incidence, timing and effects of different types of severe maltreatment, an awareness that the real incidence of maltreatment is far higher than that officially recorded, and that there is strong evidence showing the majority of identified cases of severe maltreatment are the result of reports by mandated reporters. The second part of this paper discusses the apparent effect of mandatory reporting laws on ‘overreporting’ by referring to Australian government data about reporting patterns and outcomes, with a particular focus on New South Wales. It will be seen that raw descriptive data about report numbers and outcomes appear to show that reporting laws produce both desirable consequences (identification of severe cases) and problematic consequences (increased numbers of unsubstantiated reports). Yet, to explore the extent to which the data supports the overreporting claim, and because numbers of unsubstantiated reports alone cannot demonstrate overreporting, this part of the paper asks further questions of the data. Who makes reports, about which maltreatment types, and what are the outcomes of those reports? What is the nature of these reports; for example, to what extent are multiple numbers of reports made about the same child? What meaning can be attached to an ‘unsubstantiated’ report, and can such reports be used to show flaws in reporting effectiveness and problems in reporting laws? It will be suggested that available evidence from Australia is not sufficiently detailed or strong to demonstrate the overreporting claim. However, it is also apparent that, whether adopting an approach based on public health and or other principles, much better evidence about reporting needs to be collected and analyzed. As well, more nuanced research needs to be conducted to identify what can reasonably be said to constitute ‘overreports’, and efforts must be made to minimize unsatisfactory reporting practice, informed by the relevant jurisdiction’s context and aims. It is also concluded that, depending on the jurisdiction, the available data may provide useful indicators of positive, negative and unanticipated effects of specific components of the laws, and of the strengths, weaknesses and needs of the child protection system.

Mandatory auditor rotation : Australian evidence

A key part of the auditor independence reforms in Australia, as represented by Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2004 (Cth) (CLERP 9), mandates audit partner rotation. The change was criticised predominantly due to the costs imposed on both the audit firms and the audit clients. This study examines the Australian experience post-CLERP 9 with mandated auditor rotation. Based on data of audit partner rotation over 2003–2009 (on average 1200 listed Australian companies over the sample period), we show that audit partner tenure sat at a median of 2–3 years, but that the maximum audit partner tenure was as high as 20 years in the pre-CLERP 9 period. For around 85% of the market, audit partner rotation occurred voluntarily at between 1–5 years. The interesting result is that for 15% of the market, the mandated audit partner rotation had a significant impact on corporate governance practice. There is also a greater observed impact of mandatory rotation on audit engagements involving the non-global auditing firms. These findings inform the debate as to the ‘costliness’ of the law reform.