FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #1
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Manus Island Regional Processing Centre
Initial Assessment Report
Save the Children
17th October 2012
1. Introduction
s. 33(a)(iii)
Save the Children was engaged by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to undertake an
assessment of the RPC site, facilities and planned services to determine the extent to which they are
appropriate to meet the needs of children and young people. This assessment will also be used in
order to determine the scope of work for future service provision by Save the Children in the RPC
with a specific focus on the needs of children and young people.
The other organisations engaged by the Government of Australia to support the establishment of
the RPC are:
G4S – responsible for infrastructure, security and facilities
IHMS – responsible for the provision of health and medical services
The Salvation Army – responsible for general welfare services and case management
Save the Children will develop and define the scope of its services following this assessment and any
services provided will be done so in an integrated manner with the other organisations. Save the
Children has developed positive relationships with these organisations which place us in strong
position to ensure that all parties involved in the RPC operations are able to ensure positive
outcomes for children and young people.
This assessment will be updated as further information is obtained, key informant interviews are
undertaken, and beneficiary interviews are conducted once the first transfers have occurred. It
should also be acknowledged that the facility is still being developed, and therefore some of the
infrastructure issues may be addressed as the development of the site progresses.
A copy of this report will be provided to clearly identified internal and external stakeholders
including the organisations involved in the operations of the RPC, as well as the Australian
Department of Immigration and Citizenship. This report is not intended for distribution outside of
the clearly identified stakeholders.
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #1
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
2. Scope of work
The purpose of the assessment was to:
review the processes, facilities and services at the Regional Processing Centre on Manus Island
to determine the centre’s ability to uphold the rights of children and young people; and
provide recommendations as to how the processes, facilities and services could be enhanced to
better meet the needs of children and young people; and
to provide an evidence base from which Save the Children can define the scope and scale of
potential service provision in the RPC and host community.
The assessment focused on the following areas:
Child safeguarding systems and processes: Conduct a review of existing operational policies to
determine the extent to which child safeguarding considerations are taken into account, with a
particular emphasis on:
o
Child protection and education
o
Child participation
o
Child‐friendly complaint processes
Infrastructure and amenities: Review of current and planned site infrastructure to determine
the extent to which it meets the physical and psycho‐social needs of children and young people,
with a particular emphasis on
o
Accommodation – location and allocation
o
Water and sanitation facilities
o
Safety and security, including freedom of movement, lighting, pathways and access
o
Recreational facilities (indoor and outdoor)
o
Educational facilities
Provision of services: Work with all service providers to review the planned provision of social
services, including recreational activities (outdoor and indoor), education and vocational
training, case management, health (physical and psycho‐social), plans for community interaction
and integration.
s. 47C(1)
3. Methodology
The assessment team visited Manus Island from 14 October 2012 ‐ 17 October 2012 and was
compromised of:
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #1
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
s. 47F(1)
s. 47F(1)
s. 47F(1)
s. 47F(1)
s. 47F(1)
The assessment was conducted through:
Initial Literature Review of relevant materials regarding detention of Asylum Seekers from
Christmas Island
Site visits and observations
Discussions with key stakeholders involved in the operation of the RPC, including:
o
Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship
o
G4S
o
The Salvation Army
o
International Health Medical Services
o
Principle s. 47F(1)
and students of Lombrum Primary School
There was a limited availability of key external stakeholders from the host community and
beneficiaries/clients to interview or have discussions with during the initial stages. This report
will be updated as the opportunity arises to engage with these stakeholders.
All service providers have been willing to engage in information sharing and are open to
collaborative practices.
Recommendations are prioritised according to the colour system:
Red – critical risk which must be remedied prior to the arrival of children and young people
Orange – significant risk but may be remedied in a timely manner once children and young
people are on site
Yellow – further information required to determined level of risk.
s. 47C(1)
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #1
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
s. 47C(1)
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #1
Document 1, pages 5 to 14 have been removed as exempt information under
section 47C and 33(a)(iii) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act (1982)
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #2
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Manus Island Regional Processing Centre
Final Assessment Report
Save the Children
21st October 2012
1. Introduction
s. 33(a)(iii)
Save the Children was engaged by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) to
undertake an assessment of the RPC site, facilities and planned services to determine the extent to
which they are appropriate to meet the needs of children and young people. This assessment will
also be used to determine the scope of work for future service provision by Save the Children in the
RPC with a specific focus on the needs of children and young people.
The other organisations engaged by the Government of Australia to support the establishment of
the RPC are:
G4S – responsible for infrastructure, security and facilities
IHMS – responsible for the provision of health and medical services
The Salvation Army – responsible for general welfare services and case management
Save the Children will develop and define the scope of its services following this assessment and any
services provided will be done so in an integrated manner with the other organisations. Save the
Children has developed positive relationships with these organisations which place us in a strong
position to ensure that all parties involved in the RPC operations are able to ensure positive
outcomes for children and young people.
This assessment will be updated as further information is obtained, key informant interviews are
undertaken, and beneficiary interviews are conducted once the first transfers have occurred. It
should also be acknowledged that the facility is still being developed, and therefore some of the
infrastructure issues may be addressed as the development of the site progresses.
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #2
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
A copy of this report will be provided to DIAC and a limited number of internal personnel associated
with the project. This report is not intended for distribution outside of DIAC or Save the Children,
however DIAC may choose to make it available to other service providers.
DIAC may wish to consider involving service providers such as Save the Children earlier in the
planning phase of the permanent camp so that many of the issues identified below can be addressed
prior to works commencing.
2. Applicable frameworks and standards
Convention on the Rights of the Child
As signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Australia and Papua New Guinea have
agreed to uphold the rights of children. The rights particularly relevant to the current context
include, but are not limited to:
Article 19: Protection from abuse and neglect ‐ The State shall protect the child from all
forms of maltreatment by parents or others responsible for the child and establish
appropriate social programmes for the prevention of abuse and the treatment of victims.
Article 20: Protection of a child without family ‐ The State is obliged to provide special
protection for a child deprived of the family environment and to ensure that appropriate
alternative family care or institutional placement is available in such cases. Efforts to meet
this obligation shall pay due regard to the child’s cultural background.
Article 22: Refugee children ‐ Special protection shall be granted to a refugee child or to a
child seeking refugee status. It is the State’s obligation to co‐operate with competent
organisations which provide such protection and assistance.
Article 23: Disabled children ‐ A disabled child has the right to special care, education and
training to help him or her enjoy a full and decent life in dignity and achieve the greatest
degree of self‐reliance and social integration possible.
Article 24: Health and health services ‐ The child has the right to the highest standard of
health care attainable. States shall place special emphasis on the provision of primary and
preventive health care, public health education and the reduction of infant mortality. They
shall encourage international cooperation in this regard and strive to see that no child is
deprived of access to effective health services.
Article 27: Standard of Living ‐ Every child has a right to a standard of living adequate for his
or her physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. Parents have the primary
responsibility to ensure that the child has an adequate standard of living. The State’s duty is
to ensure that this responsibility can be fulfilled, and is. State responsibility can include
assistance to parents and their children.
Article 28: Education ‐ The child has a right to education, and the State’s duty is to ensure
that primary education is free and compulsory, to encourage different forms of secondary
education accessible to every child and to make higher education available to all on the basis
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #2
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
of capacity. School discipline shall be consistent with the child’s rights and dignity. The
State shall engage in international co‐operation to implement this right.
Article 29: Aims of Education ‐ Education shall aim at developing the child’s personality,
talents and mental and physical abilities to the fullest extent. Education shall prepare the
child for an active adult life in a free society and foster respect for the child’s parents, his or
her own cultural identity, language and values, and for the cultural background and values of
others.
Article 31: Leisure, recreation and cultural activities ‐ The child has the right to leisure, play
and participation in cultural and artistic activities.
Article 39: Rehabilitative care ‐ The State has an obligation to ensure that child victims of
armed conflicts, torture, neglect, maltreatment or exploitation receive appropriate
treatment for their recovery and social reintegration.
The rights discussed under the CRC have guided the focus of this assessment. The recommendations
set out below are intended to assist in achieving compliance with these obligations.
Sphere standards
The ‘Sphere Project – Humanitarian Charter and Minimum and Standards in Humanitarian Response’
set out internationally agreed minimum standards to be applied during humanitarian response in
relation to:
Water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion
Food security and nutrition
Shelter, settlement and non‐food items
Health Action
It should be noted that the Sphere standards are intended to apply in critical, short‐term emergency
situations. They provide base standards in the harshest of circumstances s. 47C(1)
The Sphere standards are comprehensive and Save the Children has not conducted a complete
analysis of the RPC site against these standards. We have focused on the standards particularly
relevant to the PRC context:
Sector
Standard
Shelter
Affected individuals should have an initial minimum covered floor area of 3.5 square
meters.
For camp‐type settlements, a minimum usable surface area of 45 square metres for each
person should be provided (this includes accommodation and communal spaces). Where
communal services can be provided by existing or additional facilities outside of the
planned area of the settlement, the minimum usable surface area should be 30 square
metres for each person.
To mitigate fire risk, there should be a 30‐metre firebreak between every 300 metres of
built‐up area, and a minimum of 2 metres (but preferably twice the overall height of any
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #2
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
structure) between individual buildings or shelters to prevent collapsing structures from
touching adjacent buildings.
Opportunities for internal subdivision within individual household shelters should be
provided. In collective accommodation, the grouping of related families, well‐planned
access routes through the covered area and materials to screen personal and household
space can aid the provision of adequate personal privacy and safety. The psychosocial
benefits of ensuring adequate space provision and privacy while minimising overcrowding
should be maximised in both individual household shelters and temporary collective
accommodation.
Access to essential services should be ensured, including schools, health facilities, safe
play areas and communal meeting areas.
Water
Average water use for drinking, cooking and personal hygiene in any household is at least
15 litres per person per day.
Toilets
A maximum of 20 people use each toilet (or one toilet per 50 people in early stages).
Use of toilets is arranged by household(s) and/or segregated by sex.
Plans for food and health service provisions have not been examined in detail against the Sphere
standards as these services are being managed by other service providers.
3. Scope of work
The purpose of the assessment was to:
review the processes, facilities and services at the RPC on Manus Island to determine the
centre’s ability to uphold the rights of children and young people; and
provide recommendations as to how the processes, facilities and services could be enhanced to
better meet the needs of children and young people;
to provide an evidence base from which Save the Children can define the scope and scale of
potential service provision in the RPC and host community.
The assessment focused on the following areas:
Child safeguarding systems and processes: Conduct a review of existing operational policies to
determine the extent to which child safeguarding considerations are taken into account, with a
particular emphasis on:
o
Child protection and education
o
Child participation
o
Child‐friendly complaint processes
Infrastructure and amenities: Review of current and planned site infrastructure to determine
the extent to which it meets the physical and psycho‐social needs of children and young people,
with a particular emphasis on
o
Accommodation, including location and allocation
o
Water and sanitation facilities
o
Safety and security, including freedom of movement, lighting, pathways and access
o
Recreational facilities (indoor and outdoor)
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #2
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
o
Educational facilities
Provision of services: Work with all service providers to review the planned provision of social
services, including recreational activities (outdoor and indoor), education and vocational
training, case management, health (physical and psycho‐social), plans for community interaction
and integration.
s. 47C(1)
4. Methodology
The assessment team visited Manus Island from 14 October 2012 ‐ 21 October 2012 and was
compromised of:
s. 47F(1)
s. 47F(1)
s. 47F(1)
s. 47F(1)
s. 47F(1)
The assessment was conducted through:
Initial review of relevant secondary resources regarding detention of asylum seekers from
Christmas Island
Site visits and observations
Discussions with key stakeholders involved in the operation of the RPC, including:
o
Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship
o
Australian Defence Force
o
G4S
o
The Salvation Army
o
International Health Medical Services
o
Principle s. 47F(1)
and students of Lombrum Primary School
There was a limited availability of key external stakeholders from the host community and
beneficiaries/clients to interview or have discussions with during the initial stages. s. 33(a)(iii)
All service providers have been willing to engage in information sharing and are open to
collaborative practices.
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #2
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Recommendations are prioritised according to the colour system:
Red – critical risk which must be remedied prior to the arrival of children and young people
Orange – significant risk but may be remedied in a timely manner once children and young
people are on site
Yellow – further information required to determined level of risk.
Green – risk has been addressed
s. 47C(1)
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #2
Document 2, pages 7 to 16 have been removed as exempt information under
section 47C and 33(a)(iii) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act (1982)
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #2
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Annexure A
Service provider operating procedures reviewed:
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
o
Manual provided at Manus Island Regional Processing Centre – Service Delivery Routable
Workshop, specifically including ‘Business Process Descriptions’, ‘Regional Processing
Overview – Client Management on Manus Island’, ‘Regional Processing Centre Guidelines’,
o
Incident reporting, complaints management, programs and activities policies
o
Draft ‘PPMs’ – draft policies provided DIAC on CD.
G4S
o
Requested Code of Conduct, still to be provided
Salvation Army
o
Code of Conduct
o
Suite of policies to be shared once communications issues resolved.
International Health and Medical Services
o
Requested Code of Conduct, waiting on clarification as to whether this can be provided.
FOI REQUEST FA 20/08/00380
DOCUMENT #2
Document 2, pages 18 to 25 have been removed as exempt information
under section 47C of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act (1982)
