The following article is the first in a series featuring student journalism from Communications 177K/277K Specialized Writing And Reporting: Human Rights Journalism, a Stanford Graduate Program in Journalism course taught by Glenn Frankel. To read more articles from the class visit this Wiki page.

Pacific Solution:
How Australia Reversed Course on Its Treatment of Asylum Seekers

By Francesca Freeman

As she approached Woomera Detention Center for the first time, Lyn Bender saw the graves. Shallow and dusty, they lay open to the 100-degree desert sun.   However, they did not contain corpses. Inside them lay the dehydrated figures of Iraqi detainees, protesting their mandatory detention. To the side, the men had erected signs:  "Give Us Freedom or Let Us Die."

Bender, a psychologist from Melbourne, had a six-week contract as a mental health worker at Woomera, a remote detention center for asylum seekers in the South Australia desert. In the weeks prior to her move, she had looked forward to the opportunity. 

"In some ways, I moved in parallel process with the refugees," said Bender in an account published in the 2007 book, Acting from the Heart, a collection of first-person stories from inside Australia's asylum facilities. "I had expected a base level of integrity to be observed, at least in the Health Services.  I had expected respect for my professional capacity. I presumed ethical treatment would be given to the detainees."  

But Bender's experience at Woomera was far from what she had hoped for. In an interview, she describes how inside the facility she found neglect, "inadequate attention to mental illness" and, in some cases, a disdain for the detainees, many of whom had suffered torture and persecution in their homelands prior to arriving in Australia. In one case, she said, she witnessed staff mocking a detainee who had attempted to hang himself.  When large numbers of detainees began protesting their incarceration - some with hunger strikes and symbolic lip-sewing - she describes how extra security personnel, adorned in blue boiler suits bearing the letters CERT (Critical Events Response Team), were flown in. "These reinforcements were not part of the normal camp environment and had no relationship with detainees or staff," wrote Bender in "The Woomera Experience", a human rights paper published later. "They bore with them the ambience of  ‘the heavies flown in' for the ‘war'."

Reports of human rights abuses in Australia's asylum system are not unique to Woomera. The facility is part of a network of Australian detention centers - the majority of which, including Woomera, are now closed - that cast a shadow over the latter years of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's increasingly rocky reign. Through the actions of whistleblowers like Bender, human rights groups and an increasingly critical Australian press, between 2001 and 2007 Howard's government witnessed the politicization of a policy that once enjoyed strong public support.  In seven years, Howard's trump card became his Achilles heel.

*   *   *

Although it is in not uncommon for asylum seekers to be held temporarily while their documents are processed, Australia's mandatory detention system has been widely criticized for its length of detention, poor conditions and effect on the mental health of detainees. Australia receives far less asylum seekers than the United States or Europe - in 2008, Australia processed around 4,750 asylum applications, while Britain processed 30,545, France 35,164 and the United States 49,280 - but Australia's system of mandatory detention has attracted heavy criticism from human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and various Australia-based groups such as Liberty Victoria and The Justice Project. Journalists, lawyers and academics have been among the loudest voices in protest of the system.

Some of the key criticisms of Australia's asylum system under Howard were that it was mandatory, indefinite and, according to some observers, violated articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Critics have cited Article 9 (protection from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile), Article 10 (the right to a fair trial), Article 14 (the right to seek asylum from persecution) and Article 16 (protection of the family unit). 

As a result, in 2002 Melbourne-based human rights lawyer Julian Burnside publicly accused Howard and his Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock of "crimes against humanity." 

Like America, Australia is a nation founded on immigration, but its history is filled with attempts to stem the flow of foreign arrivals. 

Following the gold rush of the 19^th century and an influx of immigrants from Asia, the Australian government instituted the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act, most famously known as the "White Australia Policy." The Act severely restricted non-white immigration to Australia between 1901 and 1973 and was only fully repealed in 1975 when the Racial Discrimination Act was passed, prohibiting immigration decisions based on racial criteria.

In 1992, in reaction to a rising number of asylum seekers arriving from Indonesia, China and Cambodia, Prime Minister Paul Keating's government began the system of mandatory detention for asylum seekers, building several detention camps in the Australia desert. At first the time limit for detention was set at 273 days but the limit was later removed in 1994, paving the way for indefinite detention.

The 2001, the Norwegian freighter, MV Tampa, attempted to land 438 asylum seekers - rescued from a shipwreck - on Australian territory. The "Tampa Affair" became a landmark moment in Australian immigration policy. 

International law mandates that shipwreck survivors be taken to the nearest port for medical treatment, but Howard's government refused to grant the ship entry into Australian waters, even though the nearest port was on the Australian territory of Christmas Island, six hours away. Howard ordered that the ship return to Indonesia, a 12-hour trip.

To cover his actions, Howard introduced in Parliament a retroactive Border Protection Bill, which would have allowed the government to use "reasonable force" to remove any ship from Australian waters. The bill did not pass.

Despite orders, the Tampa's captain refused to turn back - his ship was overloaded and the passengers were in urgent need of medical treatment - and it continued to Christmas Island, where he landed successfully.

In response, Howard passed the Pacific Solution, a three-pronged bill that excised Australia's Pacific islands from its immigration zones, tasked Australian Defense Force patrol boats to intercept arrivals and set up asylum camps on these islands where detainees would be processed before being removed to third countries when their status was determined. Essentially, he was making sure that the boat's passengers could not land on Australian soil.

Although the international community spoke out against Howard's actions - Norway reported Australia to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Maritime Organization for alleged breaches of international human rights law - public opinion in Australia was generally behind the measure.  The proximity of the Tampa Affair to the September 11 attacks in the United States only served to bolster anti-immigration rhetoric. When Howard stood for reelection shortly after, he declared, "We decide who comes into this country and the circumstances in which they come," and easily won. In the 2001 Nielsen Polls, Howard's personal approval rating increased from 57 per cent in August 2001 to 66 per cent in October, its highest point in his two terms as prime minister.

*   *   * 

While the majority of early press coverage focused on the issue of boat arrivals rather than mandatory detention, as time went on and the first detainees were released into the community the rhetoric began to change. Newspapers such as The Age challenged the government's decision to prevent the press from visiting detention centers. "He [Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock] insists they are not prisons. In that case, why are the media and the public denied access to them?" asked an article in The Age in 2002.

Just days before her planned departure from the center, Lyn Bender's contract was terminated, after she challenged prison staff about their treatment of a 13-year-old boy who had attempted suicide. Unbeknown to her superiors at the time, Bender had already violated the terms of her contact. Days earlier, in a house in the nearby Woomera township, Bender broke a legally binding gag order to give a 30 minute interview about her experiences with ABC Radio National.

Not long after, Bender was contacted again by ABC with a request to appear on the network's "Lateline" show. The broadcaster had obtained a video, filmed in the Curtin Detention Center in Western Australia, showing what appeared to be mistreatment of mentally disturbed detainees. Lateline invited three former Woomera psychologists, including Bender, to comment.

The 20-minute clip, filmed in June 2001, was not intended for public release. It  showed scenes of two Afghan prisoners who had mutilated themselves while in isolation. As the footage begins, the camera, held by a prison guard, points at a reinforced door. Behind it, the men can be heard screaming and hitting their heads repeatedly against the cell walls. The guards, armed with mace, handcuffs and riot gear, address the detainees through the door and ask them to hand over any sharp objects before coming out. As they emerge, the prisoners are bleeding heavily from their heads. The Afghans, who were from the Hazara ethnic group, had arrived in Australia the previous year, after the Taliban had massacred many of their people. Having been denied refugee status in Australia, they asked for access to lawyers.  When they were told them that they would have to pay legal fees, they went on hunger strike.  The 10 men involved were then transferred to Curtin's Isolation Unit.

At the ABC studio in Sydney, the host of Lateline asked the three psychologists if the scenes from the Curtin video were familiar. Glenda Koutroulis, a clinical psychologist and sociologist, described the scenes as an "every day occurrence" at Woomera. Although she said the Curtin footage was "extreme" because of the number of people involved, she added, "there would probably not be a day go by in Woomera where someone didn't self-harm or attempt to suicide in some way."

Self-harm was a particular problem in children, clinical psychologist Terry Zeecher added.: "I myself actually witnessed in a compound, a child of either 11 or 12, a little boy, trying to hang himself." This was "not the only instance" of attempted hanging in a child of that age, she said.

Bender agreed. "In the last week I was there, I actually spent time with four young children who'd attempted suicide. Serious attempts in my view. These children were highly distressed."

The host asked the women why self-harm was so prevalent. "I think that it's more than anything, a sign of desperation," said Zeecher.  "I think it's really important to look at their circumstances. They are in a hostile, isolated environment and they have absolutely no control over what happens to them. Basically it's the sort of situation that would push anyone to a point -- any vulnerable person to a point -- where they can't adequately control themselves any longer. "

ABC news broadcaster Peter Mares has been a vocal critic of Australia's detention of asylum seekers. He stresses the importance not only of refugee stories but of staff leaks, such as Bender's, in changing the attitude of the Australian press. "Over time, as people were recognized as refugees and released from detention to live in the community, reporting began to shift and we saw individual stories reported in some detail," says Mares.  "Staff also began to speak out about conditions in detention." 

This led to the exposure of issues such as child detention. "The media eventually began asking serious questions about the detention of children and families," says Mares in an interview. "Many parts of the media provided sympathetic coverage of the dissident views of government backbenchers like Petro Georgiou, who emerged as a leading critic of government policy in this area."

Although anti-asylum rhetoric continued, particularly in publications such as The Australian and the Melbourne Herald Sun, by the time general elections came round in 2007, Labor Party candidate Kevin Rudd won support for his pledge to roll back Howard's harsh asylum policies.

After Rudd won, he dismantled the Pacific Solution, reinstituted the Pacific islands into Australia's immigration zone and put an end to practice of turning boats away from Australian shores. Unauthorized arrivals on Pacific islands are now given the same rights as those arriving on the mainland. In addition, Rudd closed the remaining asylum camps on the mainland, leaving only those on the Pacific islands.

Although mandatory detention is still in force for some arrivals, where possible asylum seekers are processed in the community and only those who are deemed to  pose a direct threat to society or are undergoing health or identity checks are held in detention. A timeline of 90 days has been set for the processing of asylum seekers in detention.

However, concerns remain over the existing island facilities. "The offshore centers cannot be monitored," says Bender. "In the past these centers were even worse." 

Mares agrees. Although he believes that "initial detention" for health and security checks are justified, he calls for the closure of facilities on Christmas Island. "It is a very expensive and impractical way to manage the issue of asylum seekers arriving by boat," he says. The center at Christmas Island cost $139 million in 2009.

Where will Australia go from here? Will a more relaxed attitude breed a new wave of apprehension and conservatism?  Will Rudd close more centers? 

At the presentations of the 2010 Australian of the Years Awards, Melbourne University professor Patrick McGorry challenged Rudd to a conversation over the "factories for producing mental illness," his term for Australia's remaining asylum facilities. In response, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard quipped, "Obviously, Mr McGorry has got his views on immigration and mandatory detention.

"The views of the Government are clear," Gillard added. "We believe mandatory detention is necessary when people arrive unauthorized, for security reasons, in order to do health checks and in order to check identity, and we will continue to have a mandatory detention policy. Mr McGorry, as Australian of the Year, is there in a very special role that enables him to engage in community debate, and so he should. We're not necessarily going to all have the same views at every part of that conversation."

Francesca Freeman is a student in the Master's in Journalism program at Stanford. She wrote this article for the Comm 177K/277K course in human rights journalism.