When Andrew Robb announced that he was stepping down from front bench in order to deal with long-standing depression, he received an appropriately sympathetic public response and praise for his willingness to speak out about a widely stigmatised medical condition.
But well enough to join the fray of a particularly savage leadership contest is well enough to engage in a little self-reflection – so I have a question for Andrew Robb regarding his former role as parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.
As was widely reported at the time, the widespread mandatory detention of asylum seekers under the Howard govenment was “toxic for mental health” and a cause of self-harm and suicide attemmpts among both adults and children. Having recognising the need to address the impact of depression in his own life, has Mr Robb (who pronounced mandatory detention to be a necessary safeguard against queue-jumping) considered whether detaining people in conditions where depression was inevitable was perhaps too high a price to pay for “sending a message” about the evils of queue-jumping?
2 Comments
If he needs his memory jogged, this is from the Ombudman’s 2009 annual report:
“Mr A was an Iranian citizen who was detained for four years and four months from 2001 to 2005. While he was detained with his daughter in Baxter IDC there were allegations of sexual abuse that were investigated and dismissed. Subsequently his daughter was removed from Australia without his knowledge. The Ombudsman’s report no. 516/09 under s 486O of the Migration Act noted that Mr A had been deceived into allowing DIAC staff to take his daughter from the IDC; that DIAC had proceeded with the removal contrary to its own legal advice; that DIAC had ignored advice that Mr A and his daughter should be transferred from the IDC at the earliest opportunity; that the removal had wrongly been recorded as having taken place with the custodial parent’s consent; and that DIAC staff may have breached the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.
The Ombudsman’s report recommended that DIAC, through internal review, reflect on the case and use it to identify weaknesses or gaps in its policy and procedures. The report also recommended that DIAC should assist the daughter’s migration to Australia to be reunited with her father and that an apology be sent to Mr A and his daughter. The Ombudsman formally drew the attention of the Secretary of DIAC to a possible breach of the Code of Conduct as a result of DIAC staff giving misleading advice to Mr A.
Mr A was granted a permanent protection visa in April 2008.
In his statement to Parliament when the report was tabled in May 2009, the Minister remarked that the report was most disturbing and highlighted the adverse impact of long– term detention on both the physical and mental health of detainees like Mr A and his child. The Minister noted that the policy of this government was not to hold children in immigration detention centres.
The Minister noted that an internal management review of Mr A’s case had commenced and that a letter of apology had been sent to Mr A and would be sent to his daughter. He acknowledged that there may be a case to compensate Mr A and his daughter, and asked DIAC to pro–actively assist Mr A’s daughter and ex–wife to obtain a visa to migrate to Australia should they wish to do so.”
I think consistency – at this stage – is a bit much to ask of them.