CURRENT ISSUES

Alternatives to detention

Policy Proposal for adjustments to Australia’s Asylum seeking process: Model presented by the Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes (NSW)

13th June, 2001

1. Background

1.1 The Australian Government has, since the early 1990s, maintained a bipartisan policy of detaining unauthorised arrivals. This policy claims to be directed at managing the influx of asylum seekers and other potential immigrants while ensuring Australia’s security during the refugee determination process.

1.2 During the tenure of the current government detention policies have become more restrictive, and are seen as a way of deterring others who may wish to seek asylum onshore.[1]

1.3 This approach to detention has evoked criticism from the United Nations Human Rights Committee[2], the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees[3] and Amnesty International, as well as the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

1.4 The current Coalition Government has, through its recent comments on the UN Treaty System and other structures of international accountability, further damaged Australia’s international reputation as a country respectful of human rights and dignity.

1.5 A future Government, by making a full review of the current detention policy, may be in a position to help restore our international reputation and to respond to the concerns of many Australians.

1.6 The majority of unauthorised aliens in Australia are people who have overstayed tourist visas. Unauthorised arrivals seeking asylum are a small minority, and the majority of these people are eventually granted permission to stay.

1.7 Alternatives to custodial sentences researched and offered by correctional services could offer a way of maintaining security while allowing asylum seekers to live in the community and access services available there. By building a reception policy designed to facilitate settlement, the large majority of currently detained asylum seekers who are accepted as refugees will have a better change of fast acclimatizing to Australian conditions and norms.2. Rationale

2.1 Who are Refugees?

2.1.1 The 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who:
owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.[4]

2.1.1 The Australian Migration Act 1958 uses the same definition for people granted protection visas in Australia.[5]

2.1.2 Most refugees remain in the region they came from and hope to return home as soon as the conflict that led them to run allows them to[6].

2.1.3 Australia offers resettlement places through a variety of programs to people who are safe enough to wait in their first country of asylum, but who could benefit from moving here. They may be eligible for such consideration because they are still not really safe in their first country of asylum, or because they fit within one of the Australian categories, such as for our “Women at Risk” or “Humanitarian” Programs.

2.1.4 Those who come to Australia directly and who are granted protection here still fit within the definition of a refugee. They may have fled because they were not safe enough to wait in their neighbouring country for the two years it can take to be resettled, or because there was no hope for a safe future in their home or region. There may be no where to apply for resettlement in the place they have fled to. People have many reasons for deciding to risk the journey.

2.1.5 Those who come know the risks of the journey, and many know about our detention program. They have usually made the decision after weighing up many factors. None the less, they have put their trust in us to treat them according to our commitments and humanity.

2.1.6 Many refugees are not rich but borrow at high rates against future earnings to come here. Willingness to do this could be seen as a mark of their desperation. None the less, material wealth cannot always protect from persecution.

2.1.7 There are people who try to take advantage of the refugee program, and to enter Australia for reasons other than a history of persecution. It should be noted that they face the same dangers as the refugees and are almost certainly coming from severe difficulty. None the less, they are not refugees and are returned to their country as soon as their status can be made clear.

2.1.8 According to the statistics[7], these people are the minority of “boat people”, people who have come without authorisation, and should not be allowed to taint the experience of those who need our support most.

2.2 Numbers of Refugees and Asylum Seekers

2.2.1 In 1999-2000, 4,174 people arrived in Australia by boat.[8] This is a four fold increase since the year before. The 2000-2001 Humanitarian Program allowed places for 4000 on-shore asylum applicants.[9]

2.2.2 Until 1999, the approximate percentage of people from Detention Centres (unauthorised arrivals) being granted asylum was 70-75%, while the figure for the remainder (those who arrived with visas) was closer to 15%.[10] Thus, even without a marked increase in places, Australia already planned to welcome the numbers currently arriving.

2.2.3 In the last two months of the 1999-2000 fiscal year, 55% of unauthorised asylum seekers arriving in Australia came from Iran, and 32% from Afghanistan. Of those, over 90% are eventually granted asylum. The minister has recently quoted figures as high as 97%.[11]

2.2.4 In 1999, approximately 53,000 people were living in Australia without a visa. Of that number, approximately 27% had been here more than nine years.[12] 10.08% of these people come from the United Kingdom and 8.7% from the United States.[13] The government points out that this is in part because we have more visitors from these countries than from any other and that the rate of overstay for other countries is higher. None the less, most of the ten countries with the highest rate are not among our highest refugee producing countries.[14]

2.2.5 In 1999, Australia received 9,500 requests for asylum, compared with 30,100 in Canada, 95,100 in Germany and 35,800 in Belgium.[15] On December 31, 1999, Tanzania was host to over 622000 refugees.[16]

2.2.6 Our current increase in arrivals is one of several such rises over the last twenty years[17], and could be expected to drop as other peaks did, once the countries of origin begin to make peace. For this reason, it is in Australia’s best interest to focus attention on encouraging peace and good governance internationally so as to stop the people’s need to flee.

2.2.7 Another aspect of a forward thinking refugee policy is to more assiduously work to improve conditions in refugee camps world wide, so as to give people fewer reasons to flee to cities where they are more likely to encounter people smugglers.

2.3 Effect of Detention on Detainees

2.3.1 Research into the experiences of asylum seekers indicates that as many as 30% of refugees and between 67 and 80% of women have experienced torture prior to their arrival in Australia. In the case of women torture most often takes the form of sexual abuse.[18]

2.3.2 Of those asylum seekers allowed to remain in the community, as many as 80% in one study had experienced serious trauma in their own countries, and over 50% experienced major stress after their arrival in Australia.[19]

2.3.3 “There is at least prima facie evidence that detention may be a powerful direct contributor to severity of psychological distress in asylum seekers”[20]. This is particularly worrying since the same study suggested that those who suffered the most severe persecution in their home country may be more likely to be detained in Australia, perhaps because they needed to flee in greatest haste.[21]

2.3.4 In addition, there is evidence that “environmental differences in detention may account for some differences in emotional well-being”[22], so that the harsher the detention centre, the greater the ill effects on the inhabitants.

2.3.5 Refugees report that the longer they remain in detention in Australia the more they begin to experience feelings of frustration and even hostility[23]. This effect of long term restriction and uncertainty may account for the recent spate of incidents in detention centers.

2.3.6 A significant time in detention can produce suicidal thoughts in some refugees, and is seen as a key factor in the number of the suicides attempted and achieved in detention centers in recent years.[24]

2.3.7 The UNHCR Executive Committee “Noted with serious concern the detrimental effects that extended stays in camps have on the development of refugee children and called for international action to mitigate such effects and provide durable solutions as soon as possible.”[25]

2.4 Inconsistency within the current system

2.4.1 The current system for seeking asylum on-shore distinguishes between those arriving with passports and visas and those arriving without. The distinction is maintained even if the documents are found to be false upon further study.[26]

2.4.2 Those who arrive without documentation are immediately detained and those who arrive with documentation are granted bridging visas which allow them to reside in the community and to access limited government services.

2.4.3 The difference in treatment is maintained to the detriment of those who apply without proper documents even though section 31 of the Geneva Convention of 1951 stipulates that
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary…

2.4.4 In recent years, the proportion of unauthorised asylum seekers granted protection by Australia has far exceeded the proportion of those applicants who have entered the country with legal documents.[27]

2.4.5 One of the reasons for this discrepancy must be that that few refugee-producing states are able and willing to provide their nationals with travel documents, with which people can apply directly to Australia for a visa. Statistically, the greatest numbers of asylum seekers currently in Australia are fleeing Iran and Afghanistan and one of the elements of their persecution is a prohibition on travel and travel documents.[28]

2.4.6 This parallel system means that genuine asylum seekers even after being released from detention and granted refugee status in Australia[29], are only granted a three-year residency permit, the Temporary Protection Visa.

2.4.7 The TPV gives only limited access to social services immediately available to those who arrived in Australia with documentation[30].

Family Reunion

2.4.8 TPV holders unable to seek family reunification, thus ensuring further insecurity.

2.4.9 In 1977, The UNHCR Executive Committee “Reiterated the fundamental importance of the principle of family reunion.”[31]

2.4.10 This denial of family reunification rights can be in breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child article 9, “a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will”[32] and article 10, which demands that A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances, personal relations and direct contacts with both parents.

2.5 International Law and Detention

2.5.1 Australia maintains a system of mandatory detention of Asylum seekers.

2.5.2 “Detention should only be resorted to in cases of necessity.” “Prolonged Detention should…only be resorted to if this is clearly justified, eg. where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting criminal conduct or a likelihood of absconding.”[33]

2.5.3 The United National Guidelines on Detention of Asylum Seekers (1985) made clear that to detain people as part of a policy to deter future asylum seekers is contrary to the principles of international protection.[34]

2.5.4 International Law, through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, confers a freedom from arbitrary detention[35]. In 1990, the Human Rights Commission stated that
‘arbitrariness’ is not to be equated with against the law, but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice and lack of predictability. This means that remand in custody pursuant to lawful arrest must not only be lawful but reasonable in all the circumstances. Further, remand in custody must be necessary in all circumstances, for example, to prevent flight, interference with evidence, or the recurrence of crime[36]

2.5.5 While in detention an element of justice, is access to legal counsel[37] and to the “free assistance of an interpreter”[38]. Since the ICCPR requirements are designed for those in detention on criminal charges, it is paramount that asylum seekers not accused of any crime receive at least the same facilities offered to offenders.

2.5.6 The current system holds the newest unauthorized arrivals separate from other detainees. This has the effect of keeping from these people the exact formula for requesting legal assistance and even the right to seek asylum.[39]

2.5.7 The Convention on the Rights of the Child demands that
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.[40]

No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.[41]

2.5.8 The UNHCR’s Executive committee
(d) Stressed that all action taken on behalf of refugee children must be guided by the
principle of the best interests of the child as well as by the principle of family unity.

3. Research into alternatives to high security, custodial detention for criminal offenders can be applied to detention of asylum seekers and refugees

3.1.1 Chris Sidoti, former Australian Human Rights Commissioner, stated that conditions in Australian Detention Centres are “worse than any Australian Prison I have visited.”[42]

3.1.2 Like International law, Australia’s domestic criminal law maintains the presumption that imprisonment must be used as a last resort[43]. This common requirement demands that non- custodial alternatives be considered for asylum seekers before they are forcibly detained.

3.1.3 Recent research into alternatives to custodial sentences for criminal offenders has produced a wealth of information that can be readily applied to the detention of asylum seekers and other unauthorised arrivals.

3.1.4 Government’s requirement that asylum seekers are monitored for security purposes and are prevented from absconding close to their decision date can be addressed through methods designed for the supervision of criminal offenders. Security provisions can be tailored to suit the “flight risk” of individuals or groups.

3.1.5 The use of alternatives to detention can mean that the high number of people who are finally accepted as refugees have already begun to settle into Australian society by the time they are free to live as they chose.

3.1.6 Alternatives such as transitional housing and parole arrangements can be adjusted to meet the needs of asylum seekers and refugees, as well as government.

Location

3.2.1 Most of the alternatives to custodial sentences offered in NSW are available only or primarily in Sydney. This is in part because of the wider range of connected services available in cities. Given the availability of services it would be more convenient to provide facilities for asylum seekers in urban areas.

3.2.2 Placing refugees and asylum seekers in urban areas better enables access to legal counsel and to appropriate interpreters who can be present at interviews. It is important that interpreters, translating for counsel and DIMA staff, are familiar with the customs and traditions of the interviewee. Improved interviews and initial case-work can limit the number of appeals.

3.2.3 One necessary part of settling into a new country is the need to feel connected to an established community. Facilities close to current refugee communities would be able to offer non-government assistance to asylum seekers because refugee communities have a greater understanding of the experiences and needs of asylum seekers.

3.2.4 The health needs of asylum seekers include trauma counseling and sometimes specialized medical care. These services are more available and more economical in urban areas.

3.2.5 It is not necessary for Sydney to play host to all newcomers. There are communities of newly arrived refugees living all over Australia, and placing people in transitional housing in urban areas other than Sydney may encourage people to stay in those areas when they are granted refugee status and permission to live where they chose.

Parole and Home Detention
3.3.1 Alternatives to mandatory detention can be found in the current parole system. For those released into the community without the use of transitional housing, a system of intensive parole[44] could increase security arrangements while granting freedom to live with community members and to work or study.

3.3.2 Home Detention, a variety of parole used in NSW, Qld, WA, SA and the NT, and being considered in Victoria, could provide a more tightly monitored environment while still allowing asylum seekers to live in the community.[45]

3.3.3 Home Detention uses a combination of surveillance methods, including regular personal monitoring and electronic surveillance, to monitor compliance with the program. Inmates work with their supervisor to plan upcoming events and are monitored according to their flight risk.[46]

3.3.4 Such a program, while maintaining the restrictive nature of the asylum seeking process would none the less allow asylum seekers to benefit from community contact and the services available outside the centres. These services include counseling, language training, and Australian schools for children.

Transitional Housing
3.4.1 In transitional housing designed for criminal offenders, such as bail hostels, the Department for Correctional Services is responsible for creating a secure premises and monitoring system, and has hired “Transitional Centre Workers” to fulfil the non custodial roles.[47]

3.4.2 Transitional Centres, like the Home Detention Program, are designed to make use of community services and facilities. Most training, health, work and other opportunities available to inmates are provided outside the centre, within the community.

3.4.3 Children living with their parents in transitional housing can attend local schools and playgroups.

3.4.4 Where offenders in residential facilities require social services in the areas of drug rehabilitation and vocational training, refugees and asylum seekers will need a greater emphasis on trauma counseling and assistance settling in to Australian society.

3.4.5 By allowing families to remain together in transitional housing throughout the difficult application process, the Australian Government would be complying with standard disaster management practices, which demand that families are kept together and allowed to manage their own basic requirements. The principle behind these provisions is that when adults are treated as adults, and when children see their parents as objects of authority, both are more likely to respond best to alien or challenging environments.[48]

3.4.6 Transitional housing facilities are similar in concept to the residential facilities currently being piloted in Woomera for 25 mothers and children. Family members could live together in these facilities, thus enabling women unable to leave their husbands and families for religious and cultural reasons to take advantage of the program. Families living together through their settling-in process can better buffer each other from the initial stress of a new home.[49]

Cost
3.8.1 The cost of the sentencing alternatives available in NSW, as calculated by the NSW Parliament’s Select Committee on the

Increase in Prison Population:
· Maximum Security Prison: $177.43 per day, $64,762 per year per person
· Medium Security Prison: $161.35 per day, $58,893 per year per person
· Minimum Security Prison: $121.09 per day, $47,118 per year per person[50]

Community Based programs[51], average: $8.63 per day,
· Parole: $5.39 per day, $1,967.35 per year per person
· Probation: $3.94 per day, $1,438.10 per year per person
· Home Detention[52]: $58.83 per day, $21,472.95 per year per person
· Guthrie House $95.89 per day, $35,000 per year per person (most do not stay so long)[53]

The committee believes that a secure transitional facility, although more expensive than Guthrie House, would still be a “workable financial option” [54]

3.8.2 The cost of detention centres, since many of them are far from urban centres and require almost all resources and staff to be flown in, approximates the cost of many Australian Prisons. Mr Con Sciacca, opposition spokesman for immigration, recently put the figure at $104 per person per day, for basic detention[55]. As the current government increases security (Port Headland and Woomera are now surrounded by three rings of barbed wire with attendant security), these costs will increase.

3.8.3 By contrast, the alternatives are considerably cheaper[56] and would allow better access to services at the same time.

3.8.4 All community-based alternatives would allow some members of the refugee community the opportunity to work while awaiting their finding. This could help to lower the cost of maintaining new arrivals.

4. Proposed Policy

4.1 Humanitarian Program Applicants

4.1.1 That a new Government institutes a policy of early screening for those seeking entry under the Humanitarian, rather than the Refugee program. That those who are identified as suitable for the Humanitarian Program are assessed by a process separate from the present Refugee Review Tribunal.

4.1.2 That those awaiting assessment as humanitarian program applicants are eligible for the same release programs here proposed for asylum seekers.

4.2 Detention

4.2.1 That a new Government mandates an extension of the bridging visa program to allow families and individuals who have been cleared by immigration to be moved immediately to transitional housing while their claims are being completed.

4.2.2 That a new Government institutes a policy of granting bridging visas for those whose cases are being heard on appeal

4.2.3 That a new Government initiates pilot programs allowing asylum seekers to live in transitional housing facilities in the communities where they may settle once granted status.

4.2.4 That a new Government initiates pilot programs allowing community release under parole conditions designed for the needs of refugees and asylum seekers

4.2.5 That the Alternative Detention Model[57] be applied ensuring that priority for early release be given to those who:
a. Are children or the close relatives of children. Where children are less than 18 years of age.
b. Are over 75 years of age
a. Are unaccompanied minors.
c. Are single women.
d. Have a special need based upon health, certified by a medical specialist (and/or a qualified medical practitioner) stating that the applicant cannot be card for properly in a detention environment.
e. Have a special need based on previous experience of torture or trauma certified by a medical specialist (and/or a qualified medical practitioner) stating that the applicant cannot be card for properly in a detention environment.

4.3 Facilities provided to participants in pilot programs

4.3.1 That transitional housing be instituted to provide a degree of security similar to that required for probation hostels[58]. The restrictions needed could vary according to the needs and situations of the facility’s inhabitants’

4.3.2 That the transitional housing be provided with a range of services including:
a. Language Classes
b. Employment search assistance and permission to work
c. Medicare
d. Social Security benefits, with the understanding that the provision made for rent and board be deducted from any benefits.
e. Access to education
That the bulk of these services be offered through Centrelink and other existing service provision agencies.
4.3.3 That, in particular, community programs offer health services, trauma counseling and settlement assistance for those in need.

[1] “The Government is determined that a clear signal be sent that migration to Australia may not be achieved by simply arriving in this country and expecting to be allowed into the community.” Second Reading Speech for Migration Amendment Bill, then Minister for Immigration, The Hon Gerry Hand, MP. House of Representatives, Hansard 5 May 1992, Pg 2371
[2] A v Australia, HRC 59th Session. Communication no 560/1993, UN Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/1993 (30 April 1997). The Court found that while there was no rule of customary international law which would render detention of asylum seekers arbitrary (para 9.3), and so contrary to article 14, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, “remand in custody could be considered arbitrary if it is not necessary in all the circumstances of the case” (Para 9.2).
[3][3] The UNHCR Executive Committee conclusion No. 44 (XXXVII) - 1986 - Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers:
(a) Noted with deep concern that large numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers in different areas of the world are currently the subject of detention or similar restrictive measures by reason of their illegal entry or presence in search of asylum, pending resolution of their situation;
(b) Expressed the opinion that in view of the hardship which it involves, detention should normally be avoided. If necessary, detention may be resorted to only on grounds prescribed by law to verify identity; to determine the elements on which the claim to refugee status or asylum is based; to deal with cases where refugees or asylum-seekers have destroyed their travel and/or identity documents or have used fraudulent documents in order to mislead the authorities of the State in which they intend to claim asylum; or to protect national security or public order;
[4] Article 1(2), Convention Relating to ] Article 9.
[36] Alphen v The Netherlands Communication no 305/1988, Human Rights Committee Report 1990, Volume II: UN Doc. A/45/40, paragraph 5.8. From Those who’ve come acr
[5] Section 36(2)
[6] UNHCR, The State of the World’s Refugees: Fifty years of humanitarian action. Oxford University Press, 2000. Annexe 6, p316.
[7] See Part 2.2
[8] HREOC, Face the Facts, Sydney, March 2001. p17
[9] HREOC, Face the Facts, p16
[10]Confirmed by DIMA Public Affairs Department, Wednesday 4 April 2001
[11] Confirmed by DIMA, Wed 4 April. See also Department of Immigration Annual Report at www.dima.gov.au
[12] DIMA, Review of Illegal Workers In Australia: Improving immigration compliance in the workplace. DIMA, Commonwealth of Australia, 1999. p13
[13] DIMA, Review. p19
[14] DIMA, Review. p20. Only China and Yugoslavia are significant refugee producing countries for Australia
[15] UNHCR, The State of the World’s Refugees: Fifty years of humanitarian action. Oxford University Press, 2000. Annexe 9, p321.
[16] UNHCR, The State of the World’s Refugees, p306
[17] UNHCR, The State of the World’s Refugees, p321.
[18] Pittaway, Eileen. “Refugee Women Still at risk in Australia: a study of the first two years if resettlement in the Sydney metropolitan area.” Canberra, Australian Government Publications Service, 1991. p26-7.
[19] Silove, Derrick and Zachery Steel. “The Mental Health and Well Being of On-Shore Asylum Seekers in Australia. Psychiatry Research and Teaching Unit, University of NSW. 1998. p10.
[20] Silove, Derrick and Zachery Steel. “The Mental Health and Well Being of On-Shore Asylum Seekers in Australia. Psychiatry Research and Teaching Unit, University of NSW. 1998. p30
[21] Silove, Derrick and Zachery Steel. p33
[22] Becker, Rise. “Punishment without crime: The Effects of Detention.” A paper prepared for a Refugee Week Seminar on detention of asylum seekers. Quote from Mollica, RF et al. -Repatriation and Disability: A community study of health, Mental Health and Social Functioning of the Khmer Residents of Site Two Vol 1 Khmer Adults and Vol 2 Khmer Children (12-13 yrs)
[23] Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Those who’ve come across the seas: detention of unauthorised arrivals. Commonwealth of Australia, 1998. pp221-223.
[24]HREOC, Those who’ve come across the seas, pp220-221
[25] Excomm Conclusion 47, 1987. Section (M).
[26] As long as people declare their intention to apply for refugee protection within 40 days. ASI meeting, May 18, 2001
[27] Approximately See part 2.2
[28] See part 2.2
[29] Visa Subclass 785, the Temporary Entry Visa
[30] Authorised arrivals are granted permanent resident visas when eligible for refugee status, visa subclass 866.
[31] Executive Committee Conclusion No. 9 (XXVIII) - 1977 - Family Reunion
[32] Article 9.1
[33] The High Commissioner for Refugees, “Note on International Protection”. Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme 35th Session. 9 August 1984. As it follows from Article 31 of the 1951 Convention. But “there is a tendency on the part of a number of States to apply this notion of “necessity” in an unduly broad manner with the consequence that refugees are almost automatically detained.”
[34] in Detention of Asylum Seekers in Europe, UNHCR, Regional Bureau for Europe, 2nd Ed, Geneva, 1995, pg 7 Guideline 3: Exceptional Grounds of Detention.
[35] Article 9.
[36] Alphen v The Netherlands Communication no 305/1988, Human Rights Committee Report 1990, Volume II: UN Doc. A/45/40, paragraph 5.8. From Those who’ve come across the seas, HREOC, Clth of Australia 1998, p47.
[37] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, Article 14(3)(b), Excomm Conclusion No. 8 (XXVIII) - 1977 - Determination of Refugee Status: (iv) The applicant should be given the necessary facilities, including the services of a competent interpreter, for submitting his case to the authorities concerned. Applicants should also be given the opportunity, of which they should be duly informed, to contact a representative of UNHCR.
[38] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, Article 14(3)(f)
[39] In one case, detainees wrote to Centre Management in July, specifically requesting legal counsel and the right to apply for Asylum in Australia and did not see a lawyer until September the same year. P129, HREOC Those who’ve come across the seas. Clth of Australia, 1998.
[40] Article 3.1
[41] Article 37(b)
[42] Speech at UNSW. April 9, 2001. He explained about men who were pleased to have been placed in Broome’s 19th century jail after a walk-out because their arrival there marked the first time since arrival in Australia that they were referred to by their names instead of numbers.
[43] s5 (1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act NSW 1999. Also s17A(1) Crimes Act 1914, Cth: “shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment on any person for a federal offense…unless the court, after having considered all other available sentences, is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all circumstances of the case.”
[44] Such as that advocated for criminal offenders by Dr Eileen Baldry and Proff. Tony Vinson in their Submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Increase in Prison Population, 2000. pp12-13
[45] Ken Studerus, Head, Home Detention Program, NSW Department of Corrective Services. May 1, 2001.
[46] Ken Studerus
[47] Interview, Fiona Hastings, Department of Corrective Services. May 1, 2001.
[48] American Red Cross, Disaster Services. Family Services training manual. 1996, USA.
[49] The Convention on the Rights of the Child demands that “States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.” Article 18(1).
[50] Interim Report on the increase in Prison Population, Issues Relating to Women. June 200, NSW Parliament., 6.59
[51] Interim Report 6.60
[52] Ken Studerus, Head of the Home Detention Program, NSW Correctional Services, believes that while a fully supported program would not be inexpensive, it would be cheaper than maintaining people in detention centres. 1 May, 2001
[53] Interim Report 6.46
[54] Interim Report 6.47
[55] SBS News, Friday June 22, 2001.
[56] One estimate puts the cost of electronic surveillance (wrist bands with a tracking facility) at $3.99 per day but this has not been substantiated
[57] The Alternative Detention Model, Detention Working Group, Refugee Interagency, 1996.
[58] Eileen Baldry and Tony Vinson, Submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Increase in Prison Population 2