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?

Juveniles in detention in Australia, 1981-2008

The Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC’s) national Juveniles in Detention Monitoring Program was established to contribute to the evidence base on juvenile detention in Australia, with a particular focus on Indigenous juveniles. Findings date back to 1981 and have been reported annually. This report provides an overview of the numbers and rates of juveniles in detention in Australia since 1981 and juveniles in detention for the financial year 2007–08. As with the AIC’s previous report on juveniles in detention (Taylor 2009), it also provides contextual information on young people sentenced in the children’s courts. The collation of data for these reports is supported by statutory juvenile justice agencies in each of Australia’s jurisdictions, as well as the NSW Department of Corrective Services. As described in more detail in this report, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) administers the Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set and also reports annually on juveniles in detention. Given this development, the AIC is conducting a review of the Juveniles in Detention Monitoring Report in 2010–11, to ensure that AIC’s research and monitoring does not duplicate the AIHW’s work and that it makes a useful contribution to the field and enables more in-depth analysis of key issues.

Trends in juvenile detention in Australia

This paper provides an overview of key trends in juvenile detention in Australia, based on data contained in the Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC’s) Juveniles in Detention in Australia Monitoring Program database and then provides a discussion of two key trends in juvenile detention—the national increase in the proportion of juvenile detainees that is remanded (rather than sentenced) and the increase in the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention.

The challenge of normative influences for program design for youth in detention

Young people in detention are at greater risk of death and disability from injury sustained while not in custody. Injury prevention and mental health programs have been designed for this group but their theoretical basis is rarely discussed. The present study investigates whether the conceptual basis of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is relevant to youth in a detention center. Focus group and observational data were collected. A thematic analysis supported central theoretical constructs and emphasized “Subjective Norms.” The challenge of normative influences must be actively addressed in the design of health interventions for youth in detention.

The doctrine of necessity and the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment: Is there any justification?

In Australia, the legal basis for the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment is ad hoc and unclear. There is no comprehensive legal framework that authorises and regulates the detention of, for example, older people with dementia in locked wards or in residential aged care, people with disability in residential services or people with acquired brain injury in hospital and rehabilitation services. This paper focuses on whether the common law doctrine of necessity (or its statutory equivalents) should have a role in permitting the detention and restraint of people with disabilities. Traditionally, the defence of necessity has been recognised as an excuse, where the defendant, faced by a situation of imminent peril, is excused from the criminal or civil liability because of the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in. In the United Kingdom, however, in In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) and R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L, the House of Lords broadened the defence so that it operated as a justification for treatment, detention and restraint outside of the emergency context. This paper outlines the distinction between necessity as an excuse and as a defence, and identifies a number of concerns with the latter formulation: problems of democracy, integrity, obedience, objectivity and safeguards. Australian courts are urged to reject the United Kingdom approach and retain an excuse-based defence, as the risks of permitting the essentially utilitarian model of necessity as a justification are too great.

Is the Lunatic Detention Act of 1917 appropriate for modern Gambia?

RESUMO: OS distúrbios mentais, neurológicos e devidos ao abuso de substâncias tem uma grande prevalência e peso em todo o Mundo. O objetivo principal deste estudo é contribuir para a melhoria dos direitos humanos das pessoas com deficiências mentais na Gâmbia, através de uma revisão e análise críticas de uma obsoleta legislação de saúde mental do País o "Lunatic Act Detention (LDA) de 1917".----- ABSTRACT: Mental, neurological, and substance use disorders are highly prevalente and burdensome worlwide. The violations of human rights directed towards people with this disorders compound the problam. This study mainly aims to contribute do the improvement of human rights of people with mental disabilities in Gambia by doing a critical review and analysis to the countries outdated mental health legislation - Lunatic Detention ct (LDA) from 1917.

The union of securitisation and demography: immigration detention in Israel

The chapter sets its analysis of the historical and contemporary detention of asylum seekers in Israel against a wider context of that country's national immigration policy. The chapter demonstrates that Israel perceives asylum seekers as a threat to its self-defined Jewish character. Its twofold conclusion argues that the government therefore subjects asylum seekers to harsh detention practices that afford detainees limited procedural guarantees, and that these procedures cut against the justification for detention as a measure to facilitate deportation.