|
Current Issues
Children in Detention
E-Brief: Online Only issued 13 October 2003; updated 23 November 2005
Janet Phillips, Information/E-links
Social Policy Group
Catherine Lorimer, Information/E-links
Law and Bills Digest Group
Introduction
The United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates
that there are currently 25 million children who have been uprooted from
their homes worldwide and that unaccompanied
children make up approximately four per cent of people seeking asylum
in European countries. The 2002 UNHCR Population
Statistics provide a breakdown of populations of concern by age and
country of asylum.
The mandatory detention of all asylum seekers who arrive unauthorised
in Australia—a measure introduced in 1992—has attracted a great deal of
attention and debate over the last few years both at home and internationally.
Many countries in the Western world are adopting harsher measures in an
attempt to deter illegal immigrants, and many countries have onshore immigration
detention centres or reception centres to deal with those who do arrive,
including children. However, Australia
is still the only country where detention is mandatory for adults and
children seeking asylum for the duration of their processing by the Department
of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). Particular
concerns have been expressed by many, including members of the medical
profession, over the detention of children in Australia's
Immigration Detention Centres.
This e-brief is intended as an overview and a guide to the internet resources,
research and comment on the issue of the detention of children in Australia.
It includes current numbers of children in detention, an outline of the
services provided in each Immigration Detention Centre (IDC), relevant
court cases and legislation, and links to key international documents.
International Protection
The international framework for the protection of child refugees is covered
by a UN human rights treaty, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CROC). This convention has been ratified by almost every country in the
world (including Australia on
17 December 1990) and it articulates civil, political, economic, social
and cultural human rights and obligations for those countries. Article
37 of this convention requires States Parties to ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor
life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for
offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;
(b) 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;
(c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity
and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner
which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In
particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from
adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do
so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family
through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances;
(d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right
to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well
as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or
her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial
authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.
A child's right to protection, education, recreation, medical care and
humanitarian consideration are also covered in this convention.
Other international agreements relevant to the detention of refugees
(all ratified by Australia) are the 1951 UN Convention relating to the
Status of Refugees, the 1967 UN Protocol relating to the
Status of Refugees and the 1984 UN Convention against Torture.
The UNHCR has produced guidelines
for the protection and care of refugee children to assist countries around
the world to implement UNHCR policy
on refugee children. In recent years the UNHCR has implemented various
strategies and policies that focus on refugee children outlined in a 2002
Summary
Note on UNHCR's Strategy and Activities Concerning Refugee Children.
Another 2002 report
and the executive
summary (Meeting the Needs and Protection Rights of Refugee Children:
an Independent Evaluation of the Impact of UNHCR's Activities) outlines
UNHCR activities and recommendations for the future.
Immigration Detention
While many countries detain illegal immigrants for varying periods of
time, to date Australia is the
only country where detention is mandatory for adults and children for
the duration of processing by DIMIA. Mandatory detention for unlawful
non-citizens was introduced in Australia
in 1992. A history of the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, including
children, in Australia is outlined
in The Detention
of Boat People (Adrienne Millbank, Current Issues Brief, no.
8, Parliamentary Library, 2000–01).
Most Western countries, in reviewing their responses to asylum seekers
and illegal migrants, are now favouring detention:
- This year the European Union (EU) considered a proposal to introduce
'offshore' processing camps in the Balkans to process all asylum claims
for EU countries. See, for example, 'Secret
Balkan Camp Built to Hold UK Asylum Seekers', (The Observer,
15 June 2003).
- In the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on its
Detention and Removals page states that the US 'detains aliens who
enter the United States illegally or otherwise violate immigration laws
who are not otherwise released on bond or personal recognizance pending
disposition of their case'.
- The UK has introduced various
measures, including immigration detention, in order to clamp down on
the number of illegal immigrants entering the country, giving rise to
criticism of the practice of detaining children in press articles such
as 'Children
held in asylum nightmare', (The Guardian, 27 February 2005).
Children in Detention in Australia
In Australia today, the numbers
of children in detention fluctuate with the asylum seeker population.
Most child detainees are in the company of adults who have overstayed
their visa or who are seeking asylum. Only a handful of child detainees
are unaccompanied. On 25 September 2003 there were 83 children in detention
on the Australian mainland and 16 offshore on Christmas Island—99 children
in all out of a total of 1117 immigration detainees. Three of the children
detained on Christmas Island, four at Villawood
IDC and one at Port Hedland IDC were unaccompanied. Regular
updates of current detention figures are posted on the Border Protection
page of the Minister for Immigration, Senator Amanda Vanstone. This site
links to the individual IDCs and their current detention populations.
The DIMIA Women
and Children in Immigration Detention page shows that there has been
a decrease in the number of children in immigration detention facilities
in recent years due to:
- decreasing numbers of unauthorised air and sea arrivals to Australia
- an increase in persons being released from immigration detention,
particularly unaccompanied minors
- minors who have turned 18 years of age while in detention
In an answer to a Question
on Notice on 5 February 2003, the then Minister, the Hon. Phillip
Ruddock MP, stated that at that time the average period
of detention for a child detained in an Immigration Detention Centre was
1 year, 3 months and 17 days. In Senate
Estimates on 28 May 2003 it was estimated that approximately half
of the children in detention at that time had been in detention for two
to three years.
Immigration Detention: Facilities and Care
A summary of Australia's detention
facilities and services, including regularly updated detention figures
for each Immigration Detention Centre, is available from the Minister's
Border Protection
page.
The management of Immigration Detention Centres was outsourced by DIMIA
in 1997 and an Immigration Detention Agreement
was signed in February 1998. The latest Detention Standards
on the department's website outlines the responsibilities of the service
providers, including the safety, care and welfare of detainee children.
An alternative detention program recently introduced for women and children
was the Woomera Residential Housing Project (RHP). The project, established
by DIMIA in August 2001, was an alternative detention arrangement that
enabled eligible women and children to live in family-style accommodation
at Woomera while remaining in immigration detention. In a press release
on 9 May 2003 the Minister announced the expansion
of the Woomera RHP from 20 to 40 places. On 25 September 2003 there
were five women and four children in residence at the Woomera RHP. The
Woomera RHP has since closed following a transition period for those residents
who will be progressively accomodated in the Port
Augusta Residential Housing Project (opened in November 2003). In
another press release on 15 May 2003 Consultations
on Alternative Detention Arrangements in Port Hedland the Minister
announced the commencement of a similar project at Port Hedland, and on
18 September 2003 the Port Hedland alternative detention project became
operational, New
Residential Housing for Port Hedland Detainees.
The Women and Children in Immigration
Detention page on the department's website includes a list of health
and education services. Specific services and assistance for unaccompanied
minors are outlined on the department's Caring for Unaccompanied
Minors fact sheet. More general services for all detainees are given
on the department's Immigration Detention
fact sheet.
The Education of Children in Detention
The Immigration Detention Centre service providers are obliged to ensure
that child detainees have access to education services. These obligations
are outlined in the Detention Standards.
According to the Minister in an answer to a Question
on Notice on 5 February 2003, over half of the children in immigration
detention as at 15 November 2002 were attending external schools. The
remainder had access to education within immigration detention facilities.
He went on to say:
The IDS (Immigration Detention
Standards) require that all detainees have access to education programs,
and that social and education programs appropriate to the child's age
and abilities is available to all children in detention.
Within this framework, services for children include:
- Programs for pre-school, primary and secondary aged children;
- Provision of 'after school' activities such as sports, arts and
crafts;
- Entertainment facilities, such as videos and computers;
- Playgrounds;
- Regular excursions; and
- Case management of unaccompanied minors and other children with
special needs (such as learning difficulties).
The Psychological Health and Welfare
of Child Detainees
There has been much discussion in the press
and the community on the mental health implications of detaining children
and there is an increasing body of medical literature on the psychological
effects of detention on children:
- A 2002 study
of the mental health of refugee children in the UK (reported in the
British Medical Journal, vol. 327, 19 July 2003) found that more
than a quarter of refugee children had significant psychological disturbance—more
than three times the national average.
- In Australia, similar findings
have been reported in the medical journals. In Seeking
Refuge, Losing Hope: Parents and Children in Immigration Detention,
(Australian Psychiatry, vol. 10, no. 2, June 2002) the authors
found:
Parents and children in immigration detention are often vulnerable
to mental health problems before they reach Australia. Experiences
in prolonged detention add to their burden of trauma, which has
an impact not only on the individual adults and children, but on
the family process itself. Immigration detention profoundly undermines
the parental role, renders the parent impotent and leaves the child
without protection or comfort in already unpredictable surroundings
where basic needs for safe play and education are unmet. This potentially
exposes the child to physical and emotional neglect in a degrading
and hostile environment.
- In a recent article, A Child
in Detention: Dilemmas faced by Health Professionals, (Medical
Journal of Australia, 15 September 2003) the authors discuss the
clinical and ethical dilemmas faced by clinicians treating child detainees.
- The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) recently
issued a position
statement expressing concerns for the psychological health of children
in detention.
- The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP)
has also expressed concerns in press releases over the last few years,
including this May 2003 press
release:
The mandatory detention of refugees
is detrimental to the mental health of children and adults with
an alarming rate of mental disorder developing, according to figures
to be released today at the 38th International Congress of the Australian
and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP). RANZCP delegate,
Zachary Steel, who has researched the mental health of children
and adults in remote detention centres across Australia
will present for the first time, the results of his study. 'Twenty
children and 14 adults were assessed for their psychological well-being
and it was found that there was a 10-fold increase and a three-fold
increase in the number of psychological disorders respectively,
over a two year period', Mr Steel said.
- In 2002 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)
conducted a national
inquiry into the human rights of children in Immigration Detention
Centres. The final report A
Last Resort: a Report of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration
Detention was released in May 2004 and includes discussion
of educational needs and mental health issues. As part of this inquiry
a paper (Psychological
Well Being of Child and Adolescent Refugee and Asylum Seekers: Overview
of Major Research Findings of the Past Ten Years) was prepared summarising
the research findings on this issue. In a press release (Literature
Review on the Mental Health and Development of Child Refugees and Asylum
Seekers) the Commission expresses concern for the mental health
of child detainees and concludes that 'particular groups in asylum seeker
and refugee populations constitute higher psychological risk than others,
namely those with extended trauma experience, unaccompanied or separated
children and adolescents and those still in the process of seeking asylum'.
As part of this inquiry HREOC also commented more generally on the welfare
of children in detention. In a press release (Detention
Still No Good for Children) the Human Rights Commissioner said '[a]
detention centre is no home for a child. Action needs to be taken to ensure
the removal of children from detention is of the highest priority.'
The general welfare of child detainees has
also been the topic of much discussion in the general community. In Australia's
Child Asylum Seekers (Alternative Law Journal, vol. 27, no.
4, August 2002), Judith Bessant notes that there is:
documented evidence of child sexual abuse,
maltreatment, self-harm, serious health and social pathologies among
young detainees; and the provision of inadequate health, social and
educational services for child and teenage detainees. If any civil parent
or guardian acted in the way the Australian government has towards children
in immigration centres, they would be immediately subject to child care
and protection orders.
The government has responded
to the HREOC inquiry findings on the department's website. The Women and Children in Detention
page on the Minister's Border Protection website discusses some of the
child welfare issues for children in detention.
The UNHCR has reported on conditions for
adults and children in immigration detention facilities in Australia.
In June 2002, Justice P. Bhagwati reported on a mission to Australian
immigration detention centres in his report Human
Rights and Immigration Detention in Australia. Louis Joinet released
a follow-up report in October 2002, Civil
and Political Rights, including the Question of Torture and Detention:
report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: addendum: visit to
Australia.
On 13 October 2003 the Joint Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Human Rights Sub-Committee presented
a 'Statement
to the Parliament on the JSCFADT Human Rights Sub-Committee's recent activities
concerning conditions within immigration detention centres and the treatment
of detainees'. The statement expresses concerns over the housing of
childen in 'inappropriate detention facilities'.
Child Protection Legislation in Australia
In Australia child protection
is governed primarily by state and territory legislation. The table below
sets out the relevant legislation which contain mandatory protection provisions
and also the agencies to which actual or suspected abuse can be reported.
With respect to children in detention, DIMIA requires that all incidents,
suspicions or allegations of abuse or neglect are reported both to local
child welfare authorities, and under the detention services contract,
to DIMIA. In most states, the child welfare authority will decide if other
parties, such as the police, need to be involved. In a response to the
Children out of Detention lobby group (ChilOut)
2002 report to DIMIA (The Heart of the
Nation's Existence: a Review of Reports on the Treatment of Children in
Australian Detention Centres), the department outlined in some detail
the child protection measures taken by the department in every detention
centre.
State and Territory legislation applies in detention centres, except
where there is inconsistency with Commonwealth law.
Commonwealth Laws
Commonwealth legislation relevant to children in detention includes:
Immigration
(Guardianship of Children) Act 1946
SECTION 6
Guardianship of non-citizen children
The Minister shall be the guardian of the person, and of the estate
in Australia, of every non-citizen child who arrives in Australia after
the commencement of this Act to the exclusion of the father and mother
and every other guardian of the child, and shall have, as guardian,
the same rights, powers, duties, obligations and liabilities as a natural
guardian of the child would have, until the child reaches the age of
18 years or leaves Australia permanently, or until the provisions of
this Act cease to apply to and in relation to the child, whichever first
happens.
Immigration (Guardianship
of Children) Regulations 2001
Migration Act 1958
Migration
Regulations 1994
Family Law Act
1975
This Act contains provisions relevant to the rights of children; notably
section
43(c) which directs specific attention to the issue.
Migration Amendment
(Duration of Detention) Act 2003
This Act seeks to prevent or limit courts from issuing interim orders
for the release of immigration detainees. The Minister presented the second
reading speech to the House of Representatives on 18 June 2003. The
Bill passed through the House of Representatives on 26 June 2003. In the
Senate, the Opposition
did not support the Bill in its original form and strongly argued for
children in detention to be released immediately. However, it supported
government amendments limiting the application of the Bill. The Bill now
only applies to people in detention because of criminal offences or security
risks, and people who have had their visas cancelled on character grounds.
These people cannot be released on an interim basis by the courts and
must wait for final determination. The Bill passed the Senate with amendments
on 8 September 2003. The Bill received Royal Assent on 23 September 2003.
Recent Cases
There have been several recent cases heard in the Family Court of Australia
which have sought orders to have children released from detention centres:
This was an appeal against a decision of Justice Dawe given in October
2002 to the effect that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to make orders
in respect of certain children held in immigration detention.
The Full Court's Decision—Summary
On appeal, the Full Court (Chief Justice Nicholson and Justices Ellis
and O'Ryan) considered whether the Family Court, in exercising its welfare
jurisdiction and injunction powers, can make orders to release the children
from detention. If the Court could not make such orders, they also considered
whether the Court had the power to make other types of orders for the
protection of the children.
The Court found that the Family Court has a broad jurisdiction in relation
to the welfare of children. This power is akin to the ancient parens patriae
jurisdiction of the English Courts exercised on behalf of the Sovereign
who was considered to have the power to protect those who could not otherwise
care for themselves. It extends to protection against prospective as well
as present harm and to orders generally which affect the welfare of children.
The Court agreed that its welfare jurisdiction extended to the protection
of children in immigration detention
In addition the majority of the Court (Chief Justice Nicholson and Justice
O'Ryan) with Justice Ellis dissenting, found that for the purposes of
this case the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC)
(which was ratified by Australia in January 1991), had been incorporated
into the Family Law Act by the Family Law Reform Act 1995 pursuant to
the external affairs power contained in the Constitution. They considered
that the external affairs power is therefore an additional source of the
Family Court's power (together with the marriage, divorce and incidental
powers) when it is considering the welfare of children.
The majority of Judges found that, if they are wrong in determining that
the Family Court has the power to order the release of the children, the
Court may still give directions about the nature and type of detention
in which the children are held, and may also decide issues relating to
the medical and educational facilities available to them while in immigration
detention.
The Court set aside the relevant orders of Justice Dawe
and ordered that the case be remitted for rehearing as a matter of urgency.
Since the making of that order the Full Court issued a certificate allowing
an appeal by the Minister for Immigration to the High Court of Australia
but declined to stay the operation of its orders pending the hearing of
that appeal. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 30 September 2003.
B and B v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs [unreported] 1 & 5 August 2003
This was an application for release from detention on an interim basis
by five children held in the South Australian Baxter Detention Centre.
Justice Strickland found that the children were being
held indefinitely in unlawful detention. However, Strickland J found it
was not in their best interests to order their short-term release. His
reasons for refusing to order the release of the children included that
they would not be separated from their parents and he was not convinced
that the proposed arrangements for the children on release were adequate.
This was an appeal from the decision of Strickland J made on 5 August
2003. The Full Court of the Family Court (Kay,
Coleman and Collier JJ) ordered the immediate release
of the children from detention. The Family Court claimed jurisdiction
over the welfare of children in detention.
However, the Commonwealth is appealing to the High Court against the
Family Court's jurisdiction in this matter.
Recent
developments
In May 2005, the Prime Minister faced significant
pressure from his back bench when concerned Coalition MPs, Petro Georgiou,
Judi Moylan, Bruce Baird and Russell Broadbent, revealed plans to introduce
two Private Member’s Bills—the Migration
Amendment (Act of Compassion) Bill and the Migration
Amendment (Mandatory Detention) Bill. One of the aims of the proposed
Bills was to achieve the release of all children and their parents from
Immigration Detention Centres: ‘Children under 18 and their immediate
families will be released from detention immediately, pending determination
of their applications, unless a judicial officer finds that they pose
a danger to the public or are likely to abscond’ (Petro Georgiou ‘Why
we need a new policy on refugees’ The
Age, 26 May 2005).
By June 2005,
after weeks of negotiations, the Prime Minister had agreed to soften the
government’s detention policy, whilst still retaining the principle of
mandatory detention. On 17 June, he announced
a number of changes to both the law and the handling of matters relating
to people in immigration detention. This includes an amendment to the
Migration
Act 1958 which stated that a child should only be detained as
a measure of last resort. The objective of these changes was to ensure
that all families with children in detention could be placed in the community,
under community detention arrangements. The resulting Migration
Amendment (Detention Arrangements) Act 2005 came into effect on
29 June 2005.
On 29 July 2005 the Minister for Immigration,
Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone,
announced
that all families with children in detention had moved into ‘residence
determination arrangements’ within the community in Melbourne, Sydney
and Perth. Twenty families, including 42 children, were released under
the new arrangements from Immigration
Detention Centres (IDCs) and Residential Housing Projects
(RHPs). RHPs are alternative immigration detention facilities—usually
community housing or motel accommodation—available for eligible women
and children detainees. The Minister also announced that the 11 people
remaining in immigration detention on Christmas Island, including 3 children,
would be granted Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs). Senator Vanstone
stated that the residence determination arrangements would function in
partnership with Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), which will be funded
by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
(DIMIA) to provide housing and living expenses for the families. The NGOs
will also provide case officers to assist the families and to ensure they
have access to appropriate services. Under the new
arrangements, families will live in the community and will be required
to report in to DIMIA at regular intervals.
On 14 October
2005 Senator Vanstone also announced
that 25 of the 27 people left in the Offshore Processing Centre (OPC)
on Nauru would be brought to
Australia. Thirteen of these
people, all adults, had been determined to be refugees, but the other
twelve, who had been found not to be in need of protection by the Australian
Government, were to be placed in detention on the mainland. The last seven
children detained in Nauru (four
children from the one family and three cousins) were granted Temporary
Protection Visas and arrived
in Australia on 29 June 2005.
Statistics
The total number
of unauthorised boat arrival children taken into immigration detention
from 1991 to 2005 was provided recently by DIMIA in an answer to a Question
on Notice from May 2005 Senate
Estimates (see table below). Figures do not include those taken into
immigration detention through compliance action (for example people who
have overstayed their visas).
| Year |
Number
of unauthorised boat arrival children placed in detention |
Number
of children born after arrival |
Total |
| 1991 |
59 |
16 |
75 |
| 1992 |
24 |
4 |
28 |
| 1993 |
27 |
5 |
32 |
| 1994 |
318 |
24 |
342 |
| 1995 |
67 |
5 |
72 |
| 1996 |
190 |
1 |
191 |
| 2003 |
15 |
5 |
20 |
| 2004 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
| 2005 |
0 |
1 |
1
(at 1 August 2005) |
Parliamentary Library Publications
Hancock, N.,'Refugee Law:
Recent Legislative Developments', Current Issues Brief, no. 5, 2001–02.
Millbank, A., 'The Detention
of Boat People', Current Issues Brief, no. 8, 2000–01.
Millbank, A., 'The Problem with
the 1951 Refugee Convention', Research Paper, no. 5, 2000–01.
Millbank, A., 'Boat
People, Illegal Migration and Asylum Seekers: In Perspective', Current
Issues Brief, no. 13, 1999–2000.
Millbank, A. and Phillips. J. The
detention and removal of asylum seekers, Ebrief, July 2005
Phillips, J. Australia's
Humanitarian Program, Research Note, no. 9, 2005-06
Phillips, J. Protecting
Australia's Borders, Research Note, no. 22, 2003-04
Phillips, J. Temporary
Protection Visas, Research Note, no. 51, 2003-04
York, B., 'Australia
and Refugees, 1901–2002: Annotated Chronology Based on Official Sources'.
A summary
is also available (Chronology, no. 2, 2002–03).
Links
Australia
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA)
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)
Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Not the
Hilton: Immigration Detention Centres: Inspection Report, September
2000
Ombudsman reports
and publications page for reports on detention centres and related
issues
Refugee Council of Australia
Refugee Review Tribunal
International
Amnesty International Children in Detention
page with comment on the detention of children in Australia
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIS) Refugee page, Asylum page and
the Canadian Immigration
and Refugee Board
Human Rights Watch Refugee
Children page with comment on Australia
and a report on Australian
Asylum Policy
New Zealand Immigration Service and
Removal Review Authority
UK Home Office Immigration Asylum page
UK Children out of Detention
(ChilOut) (there is also an Australian
lobby group of this name)
UK Refugee Council Child
refugee
United Nations documents:
UNHCR Child
Refugee page
UN, Human Rights and Immigration Detention in Australia:
report
of Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Regional Advisor for Asia and the Pacific of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, mission to Australia,
24 May to 2 June 2002
UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, visit to Australia
report,
led by Mr Louis Joinet, Chairman/Rapporteur of the Working Group, January
2002
US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly the INS,
now the USCIS) Detention page, Asylum
page and Refugee
page.
References
Bessant, J., 'Australia's
Child Asylum Seekers', Alternative Law Journal, vol. 27, no.
4, August 2002.
Fazel, M. and A. Stein, 'Mental
Health of Refugee Children: Comparative Study', British Medical
Journal, vol. 327, 19 July 2003.
Goodchild, S. and J. Dillon, 'The Scandal
of Britain's Asylum Children', The Independent, 15 June 2003.
Millbank, A., 'The Detention
of Boat People', Current Issues Brief, no. 8, Department
of the Parliamentary Library, 2000–01.
Newman, L. et al., 'Seeking
Refuge, Losing Hope: Parents and Children in Immigration Detention',
Australian Psychiatry, vol. 10, no. 2, June 2002.
Zwi, K. et al., 'A Child
in Detention: Dilemmas faced by Health Professionals, Medical Journal
of Australia, vol. 179, no. 6, 15 September 2003.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to
Members of Parliament.
|
