Teachers, social workers demand right to talk about offshore detention centres
|
Version 0 of 1. Teachers and other past and present employees of Australia’s offshore detention system have called on the federal government to expand its amendment of the Border Force Act and allow them to to speak publicly about their experiences. The demands follow a recent government backdown on its strict legislation that outlawed people from revealing some details about Australia’s immigration centres on Nauru and Manus Island. Under the amendment, revealed on Thursday, doctors and other “health professionals” are no longer bound by the secrecy and disclosure provisions, which carry penalties of up to two years in jail. The head of the immigration department, Michael Pezzullo, signed the amendment at the end of last month, before a high court challenge by the advocacy group Doctors 4 Refugees contesting that specific provision. Guardian Australia understands amending the challenge for teachers and other professionals has not been ruled out. Judith Reen, a former teacher on Nauru who has previously spoken out about the conditions there, said the backdown was welcome but did not go far enough. The department of immigration says the act is not an instrument to “gag lawful disclosures in the public interest”, and does not prevent people from reporting through appropriate channels. “In fact, all staff contracted or employed by the department are expected to comply with their legal and professional obligations to report issues or concerns as appropriate,” a spokeswoman said. Reen said she and her colleagues followed official procedures “strictly” while on Nauru. “Myself and my colleagues lodged literally hundreds of information reports and we had an issues register, which was forwarded to Canberra, and there were issues like family separation, severe health risks, mental health,” she said. “Beyond that I have written to senators, helped to file official complaints to UN special rapporteur, I have tried everything before this very public avenue. It’s not something I take lightly but it has fallen on deaf ears.” She said teachers in particular spent six to seven hours a day with the children, as virtual guardians, and saw the impact family separations were having on the mental health of the children and their families “whose resilience had already been reduced so much”. “Yes we have used the formal procedures, but has anything changed for them? No it hasn’t.” Despite no prosecutions having yet occurred under the act’s provision, it still “hangs over your head”, Reen said. An increasing number of professionals, including high-ranking employees such as Dr Peter Young, the former head of mental health for IHMS, have spoken publicly criticising the conditions inside the centres and the impact indefinite and prolonged detention was having on the health and wellbeing of people. In August, several former teachers, including Reen, spoke to the Guardian as part of the reporting of the Nauru files. Mark Goudkamp from Teachers for Refugees lauded the health and other professionals who had spoken out so far for “defying the Border Force Act”, and welcomed the amendment, which he put down to “intense pressure” on the government. However, he said teachers, social workers and lawyers had to be included. “It’s an emergency, it’s incredibly urgent that the situation on Nauru and Manus Island is brought to light,” he told Guardian Australia. “The teachers have spent a lot of time closely with the children and know what they’ve been going through, and it’s very important they have that right to publicly disclose what they’ve witnessed. “If the government had nothing to hide, it would not need the Border Force Act, and it would allow journalists to freely report about Nauru.” Mat Tinkler from Save the Children told Guardian Australia on Thursday that the backdown was welcomed but left others with “an invidious choice” to risk prosecution if they chose to speak out. The department spokeswoman declined to say if they were considering expanding the amendment. She said it was clear health professionals were not subject to the act’s disclosure and secrecy provisions, but said they were still expected to maintain “their strict ethical, professional and contractual obligations of confidentiality and privacy”. |