Mr SCIACCA (3:57 PM) —We have seen over the last couple of days in this parliament the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, failing to explain or, indeed, to answer any of the questions I have put to him and, if you like, saying that this is a situation which is not serious. I want to concentrate on what is developing into a sordid affair of mismanagement and negligence within Australia's immigration detention centres, leading to very serious and possibly criminal allegations of sexual abuse of children, and a systematic and institutionalised culture of silencing critics, failing to report incidents and complaints, and possibly covering up evidence to ensure reports to superiors are always rosy.

The first question that was asked of the minister was when did he first learn about the allegations of child was abuse and, indeed, when did they first emerge. The minister says that he first heard in July; yet the Sydney Morning Herald this morning says that a spokesman for the minister said that it was `some time in August'. The reality is that a letter was sent to the head of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in Adelaide, by Mary Lindsay and Associates, and we table that document here today. The fax was sent on 18 April 2000. This was to Mr Smith, who was the minister's deputy secretary to the department in Adelaide at the time, and she says in the first paragraph of her letter:

This is, on 18 April, a letter faxed to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in Adelaide, referring to a conversation of `last Friday'. Checking the calendar, `last Friday' would have been 14 April, so it all fits: it is reasonable to assume that she took the weekend to put it in writing and sent it on the Tuesday. But she did so at the express request of the minister's press secretary and she did this in April this year. In April this year she said, towards the end of the letter—and I think this is very important:

She goes on. During Senate estimates last week, senior DIMA officers claimed that the department was not aware of these allegations until July. The senior officer concerned—a first assistant secretary—claimed she was unaware of when Mr Ruddock was informed. I am not saying that the minister was informed and is misleading the House. I am saying, though, that his department, or someone who was supposed to inform him, did not inform him. Yesterday in question time my colleague the member for Jagajaga made an interjection and said, whilst the minister was answering the question:

Mr Ruddock said:

Ms Macklin said:

I cannot think of anything more serious than the rape of a 12-year-old child and allegations that relate to abuses in detention centres. We are not talking here about adults—people that arrived here illegally. We are talking about children who have come to this country through no fault of their own, if you like. They have been dragged along. They cannot make these sorts of assessments and decisions. I put it to you, Minister, that I cannot believe you would say that this is not serious. Perhaps you were referring to the fact that it is not serious that they did not let you know. But that is another point. You can say that when you reply.

We then asked the minister a question as to the so-called document that was only found last Friday week, I think—according to what the minister said—and handed over to the Department of Human Services in South Australia and the South Australian police last Monday week. Why was it that that document was not handed to the police at the time that this occurred? Why hasn't the document been made public? Why can't the minister say to us what the document is? He says that it is an incident report. If it is the incident report it is obviously one which a nurse got at the time and which the press has been able to find out about and so it has appeared in the press.

The minister pretends that everything has been done properly. If he has not failed in his duty to this boy, certainly someone has. Either it has been the staff at Australasian Correctional Management—ACM—or it has been the department itself in the sense that it has kept that document back for whatever reason. At the very least, it is a breach of guidelines and it is something which should be considered by an inquiry. As I say, it may not be a serious matter in some people's minds but leaving that 12-year-old boy there from the time that the incident was supposed to have happened in March until November—eight months—was a fairly serious matter for him. I think that, in the end, someone needs to be called to account for these goings-on.

There have been a number of other questions asked of this minister over the last couple of days. One related to whether there had been any penalties incurred by Australasian Correctional Management in terms of any breaches. He did not answer the question at all. In fact, he threw us something that was on the Internet—the contract which, I understand, is up for renegotiation. We do not want to see that, Minister. We wanted you to tell us: have Australasian Correctional Management—ACM—ever been breached for anything that they have done? That was the question and you refused to answer it. I do not know why, but you refused to answer it. You do not want to talk about the document. You do not want to tell us why the document took eight months to appear—only when it appeared in the Australian newspaper. You do not want to tell us whether at any time Australasian Correctional Management have been breached. You do not want to tell us any of that stuff. All we can say is that the minister, his department or Australasian Correctional Management obviously have something to hide.

The minister's inability to answer the opposition's direct questions on this issue and his failure to clarify the reasons why reporting procedures and other standard procedures were not followed have resulted in a crisis of confidence in the management of Australia's immigration detention centres. I believe that these events, and the failure to take appropriate action in a timely manner, are a culmination of a culture of lack of interest in and an attitude of abandonment fostered by the government's attitude generally towards asylum seekers and those who enter Australia illegally. Of course the minister does not condone child abuse in the centres under his control. No-one would accuse him of that. The minister and his government, however, are guilty of fostering a culture of mistreatment of detainees by pandering to those sections of the community who believe that those who come to our shores illegally should be considered to be less than human. The demonisation of asylum seekers and refugees has been perpetrated by the Howard government for years in the media. A large part of this has been their attempt to play wedge politics by pandering to those sections of the community who still subscribe to Hansonite policies.

The point here is this—and I want to make it quite clear—Labor believes in maintaining the integrity of the migration program. Maintaining this integrity, I believe, does necessitate some form of compulsory detention of those who arrive in Australia uninvited. However, I also believe that we can have compulsory detention and still maintain acceptable standards of care, especially care towards young children and women who often have had no choice or say in becoming asylum seekers and travelling halfway around the world in leaky boats to then be locked up indefinitely in the middle of the desert. There is no secret agenda here, Minister.

Mr SCIACCA —I have already said what the Labor Party's views are. What you are doing is letting children down. As Saturday's editorial in the Australian stated:

Asylum seekers in detention are being treated worse than the most dangerous criminals in our jails. Evidence of this mind-set is the fact that, under the Howard government's obsession with the privatisation of all public programs, we have seen the administration of immigration detention centres being handed over to the same private corporation that manages some of Australia's toughest jails. Former ACM employees quoted in the Australian have stated that Woomera is being run absolutely on the cheap and that every last dollar has been milked out of the contract, leaving minimum detention standards to suffer. Further, they state that the systematic lack of reporting stems from ACM's fear of being penalised by DIMA under its contractual arrangements. When such external pressures begin to influence the operation of a detention centre, or for that matter any enterprise, it is no wonder that a culture of secrecy, intimidation and conspiracy ensues.

Since the story broke, the opposition has been receiving calls from an increasing number of decent and honest people who have served at Woomera and other detention centres run by Australasian Correctional Management. Each day that this sickening saga is allowed to drag on by this minister more people are coming to talk to us. They are telling us of more horror stories that occurred day after day at these centres. They are appalled by hearing the minister say that these contractors have done an exceptional job. I will list just a few examples of what this minister describes as an `exceptional job done', and we have many more. These decent and honest Australians who worked there, some of whom, at risk both to their livelihoods and of legal action, have come out publicly and divulged some of what has been going on in these remote places, are coming to us in increasing numbers each day. They have all made it plain that they would come forward and give evidence to a properly constituted inquiry with the appropriate powers to afford them protection. In the little time available, I will give you some examples of what is reported to be going on in these places. I will start with the story that has dominated the issue so far; that is, the 12-year-old boy known as, let us say, ABC 12. It is not appropriate to identify him even in this demeaning fashion, because apparently one of the techniques to demoralise detainees is to call them by a code and number. I will paraphrase one nurse's account:

I will paraphrase accounts from former various employees: `After a period of enduring the conduct of the medical officer humiliating, bullying and intimidating nursing staff and detainees alike—such as a chronic diabetic—a number of us nurses submitted a report to the general manager.'

I am told that the point about this report is that it was given to the ACM Centre Manager, Mr Meakins, as an incident report. I am also told that it is ACM company policy that only serious matters are put in an incident report, and that these reports must be copied to the general manager of ACM and to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. What has become of that report? I am told it was given to the operations manager to follow up and see if there was any substance to it. As far as we know, this may be the document that the minister referred to in answering the question. Here are just a few more of these stories:

Here is another one:

These stories go on. I do not know about the veracity of these stories, but this is what these people are ringing and telling us. Over 50 of them have said that they are prepared to go to an inquiry, providing you make it a full judicial inquiry and providing you give it the power to compel and protect witnesses. This is not about your staff; this is above your staff—it is above you. It is about looking after these children. It is about getting to the truth of these allegations. There are other allegations. There is one nurse from Woomera who claims she was raped by an ACM officer. She was devastated and terrified, and she subsequently has left.

The point that I am making and the opposition is making is this: we need a full, open judicial inquiry that will allow these people to come forward to give their stories. The Philip Flood inquiry which you have announced is nothing but a whitewash, a toothless tiger, and you know it will not get to the truth. We want the truth. (Time expired)