The red light question for me after watching last night's Four Corners program was 'What the hell is a private company doing managing our detention centres?'

Reducing Australian values to private profit

We're talking allegations of systematic fraud (pretending staffing levels were higher than they were and pocketing the excess profits), routine destruction of records (protecting the operator from exposure to duty of care breaches and financial penalties), and reckless indifference to preventing riots (it got paid more when there was one).

We're talking about the State depriving people of liberty through incarceration of adults and children (eighty percent of whom were found to be refugees) then handing the right to assault them with batons and water cannons to a private company whose bottom line is not about duty and responsibility but profit maximisation.

What possible role could a private company have in managing asylum seekers in detention, a job which helps define to us and the world who we are as a nation and what we stand for? There's a hopeless confusion of roles and responsibilities in this public/private "partnership".

Cynics would say the government outsourced management of detention centres not in furtherance of its ideological imperative of small government or to save money, but for a sinister purpose. The contract with ACM is secret, so accountability is lessened. ACM doesn't speak to the media or the public, and the government can hide behind contract confidentiality and the inordinate time it takes between saying they don't know about the latest allegations and seeking advice from ACM.

But what's the philosophical justification for privatisation? Surely managing people incarcerated by the state — let alone people charged with no crime, most of whom are fleeing persecution — is a core duty of the state?

In search of answers, I read Labor's refugee policy, released late last year after much soul searching in the Party. Here's what it says about private sector management of detention centres:

In September 1997 the Howard Government contracted out the running of detention centres to Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd (ACS), with ACM as the wholly owned subsidiary of ACS delivering the service. The privatisation of detention facilities has led to a loss of public accountability. The Howard Government has never disclosed the full details of payments to ACM and in particular how ACM is fined for incidents such as escapes and self harm and for what conduct ACM is rewarded.

The Howard Government is in the process of re-tendering the contract for management of detention facilities with the successful tenderer to be announced later in the year. Only four companies were shortlisted. ACM and Group 4 Falck Global Solutions Pty Ltd are both shortlisted, but a wholly owned subsidiary of the latter merged with the Wackenhut Corporation (the parent company of Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and owner of ACS and ACM) in May 2002 81 . The third bidder is Management & Training Co Pty Ltd which runs one correctional facility in Australia. The remaining shortlisted bidder was Australian Protective Service, the public sector body formerly responsible for management of detention facilities. APS has now withdrawn from the tender partly because of resource constraints and partly because of fears of conflicts of interests given its recent amalgamation with the AFP. (Margo: The government has since dumped ACM as operator, and appointed Group 4, but the contract has still not been finalised and ACM is still operating Australia's detention centres. So, it's not good enough to get another guernsey, but keeps running our centres anyway, with no incentive to do a good job. Government, in contrast, would have a continuing responsibility to do its job, and be continuously and directly accountable to the Australian people for its performance.)

Labor has consistently called on the Government to halt the tender round and return detention centre management to the public sector. If the Howard Government continues with the tender, an incoming Labor Government will honour that contract but will return detention centre management to the public sector as soon as legally possible. Efforts will be made to ensure job security for employees involved in providing detention services during this transition.

In returning detention centre management to the public sector, Labor will ensure that the public sector body is adequately resourced and does not face conflict of interest problems.

Labor's refugee policy, while conservative, looks very good in the light of the Four Corners revelations, but it does not say why Labor believes public sector management of our detention centres is necessary or desirable. Labor's spokeswoman, Julia Gillard, has agreed to explain Labor's reasoning in a piece smh.com.au will publish tomorrow morning.

After allegations of a cover-up of child abuse in Woomera in late 2000, Ruddock commissioned former senior public servant Philip Flood to investigate procedures for reporting. His report implicitly stated the case for detention centres being managed by the public sector — that the management of these facilities reflects Australian values:

The management of people in detention centres is an incredibly complex and important task. There are many dedicated Australians nurses, doctors, detention officers, teachers, welfare counsellors, managers and public servants helping in this process, often in remote localities, and sometimes encountering misunderstanding in the community for their part in administering policies determined by successive governments and laid down in relevant legislation. There needs to be greater public appreciation for the important and demanding work they undertake.

There also needs to be greater understanding of the values and concerns which underlie the policies being managed. The policies give expression to Australia's long-standing and proven compassion and welcome for genuine refugees. Policies also reflect the conviction that Australia has the right to decide who enters Australia. They also reflect other concerns including maintenance of Australia's high health standards, prudence about the escalating cost of providing accommodation and facilities for unlawful entrants, disapproval of smugglers duping people about entry to Australia and concerns about the attempted manipulation of our compassion by criminals and terrorists. This report also reflects another deeply held Australian value, the abhorrence of abuse of children, indeed of anyone, who is held in a detention centre.

I highly recommend a read of the Four Corners transcript. ACM would not be interviewed for the program, but sent an evasive letter just before the program went to air. But the usual evasions didn't work this time, and ACM got a PR flak on the case who emailed a statement to journalists tonight. I'll publish that statement, which contradicts the original ACM letter on the matter of required staffing levels, in the next entry, along with a Philip Ruddock transcript of interview today.

Whether you agree with mandatory detention or not, the issues raised are vitally important to us as a nation. The highlight of the report for me was the courage of Australians who worked at Woomera for ACM, including the operations manager, in blowing the whistle on this national disgrace. The government might have prospered by ducking its responsibilities, keeping the truth from the public and fanning prejudice about detainee's behaviour, but many Australians at work in Woomera, on the evidence of the Four Corners report, refused to be brutalised by the conditions and the corruption and tried their best do be professional and protect the inmates from harm.

I publish below an extract of Flood's report detailing aspects of the government contract with ACM which encouraged cover-up and maltreatment, and shows the impossibility of reducing the government's duty of care to private sector "performance benchmarks". Bear in mind that the immigration department supposedly has a monitoring role, Add that to the fact that the government pays for all centre assets and the costs of riot control, and it's hard to see how the arrangement could save the taxpayer money when, Four Corners alleges, ACM was pocketing more than $1 million dollars a month in profit!

After that extract, I've published the latest revelations on the child abuse allegation on Four Corners, the South Australian department's report on the matter, and Philip Flood's findings.

Philip Flood's comments on the performance aspects of the contract with ACM, February 2001 (the Flood report is at immigration.)

9.1 The General Agreement between DIMA and ACM obliges ACM to provide its services in accordance with industry best practice and, most importantly, with the Immigration Detention Standards. An abridged version of the detention agreements with ACM has been published separately by DIMA. The Standards make clear that immigration detention is administrative detention and is not a prison or correctional sentence, that the dignity of detainees is to be upheld in ways appropriate to the age, gender, religion, language and culture of detainees. While ultimate responsibility for detainees remains with DIMA at all times, ACM is under a duty of care in relation to detainees. All actions relating to the detention and care of detainees must be consistent with relevant Commonwealth and State/Territory law.

9.2 The separate Service Contract between DIMA and ACM specifies how the delivery of service by ACM is measured against the Immigration Detention Standards. In practice, a small proportion of the service fee for each quarter is a performance linked fee beginning with the quarter commencing on 1 April 1998. Benchmark performance points are specified in the performance linked fee matrix together with a dollar value for each point. The points are calculated at the end of each quarter. The General Agreement provides that the performance linked fee is payable quarterly. DIMA is obliged to issue a certificate to ACM within ten days after the end of each quarter specifying for that quarter any above benchmark and below benchmark points achieved by ACM during that quarter and the performance linked fee (if any) payable.

9.3 In the first instance performance assessment is handled by the Detention Operations Section within the Canberra head office of DIMA. Performance assessment is based on events occurring during the quarter and incident reports received. During the quarter, the Detention Operations Section identifies issues derived from incident reports received from detention facilities for possible inclusion in the performance assessment. In addition, the DIMA Business Managers at each detention facility provide input on the performance of the services provided at their respective facilities. Account is also taken of matters discussed at meetings of the Contract Operations Group. The performance assessment is drafted, and the performance linked fee is calculated by the Detention Operations Section. The draft performance assessment is reviewed in turn by the Director, Detention Operations Section, the Assistant Secretary, Unauthorised Arrivals and Detention Branch, and finally determined by the First Assistant Secretary, Border Control and Compliance Division of DIMA.

9.4 The procedures followed reflect the contract but I note that there has been a significant delay in processing of quarterly reports on ACS performance. Details are as follows:

Quarter Ending Date of Performance Linked Fee Certificate: 30 September 1999, certificate issued 8 November 1999; 31 December 1999, certificate issued 17 February 2000; 31 March 2000, certificate issued 13 June 2000; 30 June 2000, certificate issued 9 December 2000; 30 September 2000, certificate not yet completed.

9.5 The contract arrangements for performance do not include any provision which would give the contractor a financial incentive not to report allegations or reasonable suspicions of child abuse. However, it is possible that management might feel a disincentive to report non-compliance with sections 9.2 and 9.3 concerning care needs of children in the Immigration Detention Standards. More seriously it is possible an ACM Centre Manager might believe he or she has an incentive not to disclose an assault on a child as non-compliance with section 5 (Safety) of the Immigration Detention Standards. In order to remove any possible disincentive and any public doubt on this matter I have recommended that the contract be amended to make it quite explicit that reporting of allegations, instances or suspicions of child abuse has no impact whatsoever on performance payments.

9.6 A broader problem with the performance linked fee matrix is that it is focussed strongly on number of instances of non-compliance, number of assaults on or by detainees, number of disturbances, etc. In my view it is important that the contract penalise the operator for poor handling of disturbances including failure to learn from incidents. By the very nature of detention centres and the inevitable frustration and stress of many of those detained, it is likely that there will be disruptive and even illegal incidents outside the capacity of good management to prevent. How these incidents are managed becomes nearly as important as preventing them in the first place.

Child abuse at Woomera?

Four Corners transcript

DEBBIE WHITMONT: In late 2000, a former nurse claimed that a sexual assault on a child had been hushed up in the centre, but she had no direct evidence and two State Government inquiries found the claim unproven.

PHILLIP RUDDOCK: People drew all sorts of inappropriate conclusions which were fuelled by people who had no first-hand knowledge. No first-hand knowledge.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Now, for the first time, those at the centre of the scandal are speaking publicly. They say that ACM management not only covered up the case, but prevented the child getting the medical help that a nurse said he needed.

ALLEY CRACE: I was very, very, very concerned that he was being sexually abused and used as a male prostitute.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: In February 2000, Alley Crace and others, including a guard, reported concerns, on several occasions, that a 12-year-old Iranian boy was being sexually assaulted by other detainees. Was the matter brought to the attention of the upper centre management?

ALLEY CRACE: Yes. And Immigration. And they made smutty remarks.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: At the time, Alley Crace didn't report the case to the State Child Welfare Authority. Her bosses told her she didn't have to.

ALLEY CRACE: At that stage, I was told that because the people had no identity and that they weren't actual people in Australia, there was no needs, or necessities to report to Family and Community Services — as in FACS.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: For more than a month, nothing was done. Then, one night in mid-March, four guards brought the boy to the medical centre in a critical state. There are some medical details the nurse concerned cannot discuss on camera, for the sake of confidentiality.

ROWENA HENSON: They brought him to me in a visibly shaken state. They were saying to me that they had caught — or almost caught — him being sexually assaulted, that they believed that he had been sexually assaulted and they brought him to me for care. And before I knew it, guards and officers and the centre manager was there with his 2IC and they were taking over...what was to go on. I wanted to then get the boy to the hospital and to the doctor. That was my main aim, was to get the boy to the doctor — out of the detention centre and into the doctor in Woomera Hospital.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Did you say that's what you wanted?

ROWENA HENSON: Yes. Yes, I did, and I was prevented from doing that.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: By whom?

ROWENA HENSON: By the centre manager.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: What did he say to you?

ROWENA HENSON: He said that I was probably wrong and that he would take over the case, that he wanted to interview the boy, I didn't know what I was talking about. Um...and, er, he did - he took the boy into another room and interviewed him with another detainee who could speak the language.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: After that interview, the centre manager said nothing had happened to the boy — he was simply under a lot of stress.

ROWENA HENSON: I was very angry, we fought about it in the...in the clinic. Er, I wrote...while the interview was being done in the other room, I wrote out my incident report — the way I saw it — and he came out and read it and tore it up and threw it in the bin.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Rowena Henson was soon given the sack over another matter.

ALLEY CRACE: That specific file went missing very quickly.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Nearly a year later, an inquiry into procedures at Woomera found "possible interference" in the centre's record-keeping, but by then it was too late find out what had really happened to the boy, or to help him. Did you feel intimidated by all of this?

ROWENA HENSON: Oh yes, yes. Very intimidated and confused, you know - that I felt in my heart I knew what was happening and that these people had told us that he was under watch, that for weeks, we watched this child through all of this problem and then when it was there in their faces, they didn't want it.

Philip Ruddock press release, 22 November 2000

Minister Announces Inquiry into Child Abuse Allegations

The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock today reiterated his concern at allegations of child abuse at the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre.
Mr Ruddock noted he had been advised on 21 November of the decision of the SA Family and Youth Services (FAYS) to make further inquiries at the Woomera centre on the basis of new information which had been made available to it.
"This was information which should have been made available earlier," he said "The Government has a strong interest in ensuring that appropriate procedures are in place, and followed, for the safety and well-being of detainees, in particular children".
There was, he said, an equally strong interest in examining the efficacy of those procedures in the case now being examined by SA FAYS.
"The government has accordingly decided to ask Mr Philip Flood AO to undertake an inquiry", Mr Ruddock announced.
Mr Flood will be asked to examine, and report to the Government on, the processes in place for dealing with and following up allegations or instances of child abuse and the manner in which these processes were followed in cases during the past year.
The inquiry will deal with the role of both the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the company that manages the centre, (ACM). Mr Flood will also be asked to make recommendations on any area where he believes processes need to be improved.
As for the particular case at the centre of recent allegations, the Government has consistently urged anyone with information to make it available to the appropriate authorities.
"My Department has been in close contact with South Australian FAYS which has been making its inquiries and is taking all steps it considers necessary", he said. Mr Flood's inquiry would not cut across any steps being taken by South Australia's FAYS, police or other authorities.
Mr Flood recently retired after a distinguished career, most recently as Australian High Commissioner in London and before that as Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Philip Ruddock press release, 18 December 2000

FAYS Finds Woomera Abuse Allegations Unfounded

The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock, welcomed today's statement from South Australian Family and Youth Services (FAYS) which confirmed that there was no evidence to substantiate allegations of abuse against a 12-year-old boy in the Woomera detention facility.
"We understand that the FAYS investigation involved a comprehensive assessment of the boy and interviews with a range of people involved in the case," Mr Ruddock said. "According to the FAYS report, the child has maintained that at no time did his father or anyone else at Woomera sexually abuse him. "The outcome of this thorough investigation is that there is no evidence to contradict the child's explanation of the events of a specific night or to suggest sexual abuse at any other time while he was at Woomera. "The allegation of sexual abuse was the catalyst for a range a claims by those seeking to unwind Australia's detention arrangements.
"The fact that the FAYS report clearly indicates that there is no substance to these specific allegations means there are now no allegations that have been found to have any merit."
The Minister noted comment in the FAYS report that the department needed to ensure reporting mechanisms involved in such cases were clear.
"This finding vindicates my decision to establish the Flood inquiry to examine the mechanisms for reporting allegations of this nature within Australia's detention facilities.
"The Flood inquiry will also examine reporting in relation to this particular case to determine if all relevant information or documents were provided to authorities at the appropriate time, and to make findings if any instances of failure are found.
"The child and father have been reunited specifically on the advice of the authority charged with the responsibility for the welfare of children, South Australian Family and Youth Services.
"The FAYS report to my department confirms that there are no child protection concerns to support that this arrangement should change.
"It would now be appropriate for the privacy of this family to be respected, particularly as the processing of their claims to remain in Australia is continuing."

Philip Flood conclusions on child abuse allegations, February 2001

10.1 ... I found that at the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre a serious incident of possible child abuse and the broad question of policy on child abuse were not properly handled. There are some weaknesses in current procedures applying to all centres and these are addressed below. There are additional deficiencies in procedures and processes for handling records at the Woomera centre.

10.2 The formal provision of an incident report to the DIMA Central Office was not followed in respect of a medical report by a nurse on the night of 13 March 2000, that she believed a male child may have been sexually abused. In light of the contract between DIMA and ACM and incident reporting procedures laid down by DIMA and ACM the nurses report should have been the subject of an incident report by ACM staff at the Woomera centre to DIMA Canberra. This was not done.

10.3 The nurses recommendation that the child should be seen by a doctor was not acted upon nor was the matter referred to the South Australian Police. Moreover the interview with the boy late at night was not conducted with the Farsi speaking then Health Services Manager at the Centre but with a detainee interpreter, contrary to ACM instructions.

10.4 While the report of 18 December 2000 by the South Australian Department of Family and Youth Services (FAYS) concluded that allegations of sexual abuse of the child could not be substantiated, the report by the responsible nurse should have been followed up by a full and proper investigation by the competent authorities immediately after 13 March 2000 and not delayed until over eight months later. The South Australian Childrens Protection Act 1993 provides for compulsory notification to FAYS by people employed in a number of occupations, if they suspect on reasonable grounds that a child has been or is being abused or neglected.

10.5 It is inexcusable that the relevant report by the responsible nurse was not drawn to the attention of FAYS authorities until 20 November 2000 (and to the attention of the Federal Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs until 21 November 2000). I have investigated when DIMA first received this report and this appears to have occurred on Friday 17 November 2000. The responsible DIMA First Assistant Secretary received the report then and properly arranged for it to be drawn to the attention of State and Federal Ministers.

10.6 It would have been in the best interest of the child and of his father if the competent authorities outside of the Woomera centre had been asked to investigate this matter on 14 March 2000. Even if among ACM staff at the 37 Woomera centre there was a lack of awareness then of South Australian legislative requirements, and doubt about what a Farsi speaking boy had alleged, it would have been sensible and prudent management practice to have involved outside authorities on 14 March 2000 and allowed those authorities to pursue the appropriate action prescribed in South Australian law.

10.7 FAYS and SAPOL were first involved much earlier than November 2000, indeed there were significant investigations in the period July to September 2000, but at no stage then was the important report by the nurse written on 13 March 2000 made known to them.

10.8 The circumstances of the handling of matters on 13 March 2000 was the most important factor in giving rise to misgivings on the part of some nurses about the seriousness of ACM management at the Woomera centre to tackle issues of possible child abuse. These misgivings were not properly addressed. Nurses who recommended subsequently that the ACM's policy and procedures on protection of children in detention needed to be strengthened were correct. When I first met with them in Woomera in December 2000 senior company representatives volunteered to me that extant ACM policy directives concerning the handling of allegations of child abuse were not adequate and they were in the course of revising the policy. This task should have been addressed energetically months earlier by ACM staff in Woomera and Sydney when pointed out by nursing staff even if there was doubt in the minds of management whether child abuse had actually occurred.

10.9 The failure to respond adequately to genuine concerns of nurses appears to have contributed to a situation where exaggerated claims were made for which evidence was lacking about child abuse at the Woomera centre.

...10.11 My investigations highlighted another aspect of Woomera management in that before commencing their duties some ACM staff of the centre were not well briefed on DIMA and ACM policy. Some nurses and counsellors received no formal or informal induction or orientation on arrival to take up duty at the Woomera centre. The centre's management was of course operating under considerable difficulty, especially in the first half of 2000. The Centre began from almost nothing in November 1999 and held over 1400 people from 38 February to June 2000. The immediate requirements were establishing accommodation, providing meals and setting up basic facilities and amenities. It took ACM a considerable period to set up an adequate management team. The Woomera centre was handicapped in 2000 by having a higher proportion of ACM staff on short term six week contracts and a lesser proportion of long term staff than other centres.

10.12 I received more complaints in respect of the Woomera centre than of any other centre that in the course of 2000 a small proportion of detention officer staff were treating detainees including children as if they were criminals, that intimidation and verbal abuse occurred and detainees were not sufficiently aware of their right of complaint to the Ombudsman. Credible witnesses have told me of derogatory remarks to detainees, humiliation of people in room searches and people sworn at in an abusive manner. I am satisfied on the basis of the credibility of these witnesses that these claims are valid. They apply to a small minority of detention officers. Some detention officers failed to understand properly the provisions laid down by DIMA in the Immigration Detention Standards and that they may be the first point of contact for a vast range of issues including security, health, welfare, education, building maintenance, etc.

By Margo Kingston
21 May 2003

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/20/1053196583280.html

home