15–16

Information sharing
Limitations on information sharing between
relevant stakeholders continued to be a
substantive issue for the management of
the Regional Processing Centres.
The office was advised in November 2015 by
senior ABF officers that this had been rectified,
but the office’s observations and discussions
in February 2016 indicated otherwise.
The office’s subsequent visit to a Regional
Processing Centre in May 2016 indicated that
steps to address this shortfall had now been
implemented, albeit with some residual issues.
Placement of detainees
within the network
The Commonwealth, through the ABF and its
respective facility Superintendents, is required
to exercise a duty of care to all detainees 3 .
This means that decisions regarding detainee
placements within the facility and the broader
network cannot be made in isolation.
The office acknowledges that the ABF is
required to manage the operational and
logistical pressures on the network and that
this means that some detainees will be placed
in more remote and isolated locations such as
Christmas Island.
The office is concerned that most operational
decisions do not take account of key supporting
information from status resolution or service
provider staff, and are made based upon generic
risk profiling. It appears that when a person is
placed in a particular facility, little consideration
is given to family connections, legal cases and
medical treatment.
During this period, the office has noted an
increase in the level of non-compliant behaviour
by detainees. This may in part be attributed
to the increasing pressure on them because
their families are prevented from visiting due to
distance or cost.
3 Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] HCA 36; 219
CLR 486; 208 ALR 271; 78 ALJR 1056 (6 August 2004)
Gleeson CJ at para [21].
The office considers that where the department
restricts a detainee to a facility or transfers
detainees between facilities, this should be done
with consideration to individual circumstances
and not be based solely on the detainee’s
ethnicity, criminal history, age or other generic
factors. The office notes the introduction of the
National Detention Placement Model in the later
part of this reporting period and acknowledge
that this has the potential to address our key
concerns. The office will continue to monitor the
effectiveness of this placement model.
Risk assessments and use of
mechanical restraints
In May 2015, before the establishment of the
ABF, a directive was issued concerning the
manner in which detainees are transferred.
In summary, this removed individual assessments
of risk and substituted a generic risk profile based
on cohort and immigration status. Although this
directive has been recently rescinded, it is the
case that for a significant part of this reporting
period, the decision to transport detainees while
using mechanical restraints was based solely on
generic risk profiling.
Where the department decides to restrain a
detainee for transportation or other reasons,
this must be exercised with consideration to
individual circumstances and not be solely based
on the detainee’s ethnicity, criminal history,
age or other generic influence. Service providers
have revised the security risk assessment tool so
that in future, decisions to restrain an individual
will be based on individual circumstances.
It remains that ABF must ensure that force is
not applied in a punitive manner and can be
fully supported by the individual’s circumstances
rather than a generic group profiling.
Continuum of Force
The use of restraints and force when dealing
with detainees has increased. Under some
circumstances the use of force is both
necessary and appropriate to protect the
individual or others. However when the office
has examined the incident reports involving
unplanned use of force, there has been little
or no evidence of de-escalation techniques
having been applied. The Continuum of Force
PART 4—WHAT WE DO
2015–16 | COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT | 49