Who knew what, and when did they know about it? A Senate inquiry into serious allegations of assault and conditions at the Nauru detention centre, which began on Tuesday, is now trying to establish the answers.
It’s a question that goes straight to the top. The former immigration minister Scott Morrison has many questions to answer about what he knew of the reports coming out of the detention centre. The review he commissioned by Philip Moss came only after the Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young went public with allegations of sexual assault at the centre. Former detention staff have since signed an open letter questioning the extent of knowledge about these serious incidents.
The trio that fronted the inquiry on Tuesday are the federal government’s vessels on the island. Transfield Services, Wilson Security and Save the Children all deliver different services on Nauru for asylum seekers.
The performances of the private contractors varied, but one constant remained; they each stressed that when serious incidents occurred, they documented them. They reported them internally. And they raised them with the immigration department at all times.
Many of the allegations raised in the submissions published so far have already emerged publicly. We’ve known for a long time the allegation of the cleaner who sexually assaulted a young boy at the centre. We’ve known about the allegations – that Moss found were substantiated – of cigarettes being traded for sexual favours, and other incidents of sexual abuse.
There may be more to come we weren’t aware of. But what this inquiry is really about is knowledge.
Transfield Services took the ostrich approach. In a remarkably obtuse appearance three senior executives from the company – general manager of logistics Derek Osborn, chief executive of operations Kate Munnings and commercial strategy director Angela Margaret-Williamsm – could not answer a series of basic questions about allegations on the island or conditions at the centre. The questions were instead opted to be “taken on notice”, a useful entitlement in parliamentary hearings that allows a person to prepare a later response in writing.
Analysis of all Tuesday’s hearings reveals the phrase “on notice” was uttered 144 times.
Hanson-Young and the Labor senator Kim Carr pushed hard for answers. They didn’t get much.
Can you provide data on complaints? Taken on notice. Can you provide information on feedback? On notice. What action have they taken? How many complaints are escalated for referral? Regarding internal reporting for minor incidents how many have clinical depression? They don’t collect or collate or have any responsibility for that. How often has the power failed? Does the power fail every week? How many times for periods of more than six hours has power failed? How many cases of food poisoning? And so on.
In a most extraordinary exchange, Osborn even said he couldn’t recall the number of allegations of sexual assault that had been reported to him personally.
The company faces being recalled to a later hearing.
Wilson Security fared a little better. South Pacific general manager John Rogers, security contract manager Brett McDonald and human resources manager Lara Donnini appeared before the inquiry. They were very sharp, very crisp, and very polite. It’s a little difficult to imagine this is the same company that employed guards who were stood down for their posts about Muslims, Reclaim Australia and anti-halal campaigns.
But the gloss wore off when the hard questions came. McDonald had personally been on the island for almost two years. He had spoken to asylum seekers. He said he was aware of incident reports of serious assaults. He was made personally aware when some reports were made of assaults.
Could he provide any indication of these allegations? Or of any instances where asylum seekers raised their fears with him? Once again, they were all taken on notice.
Rogers even played down the allegations. When asked how widespread, in his view, physical and sexual assaults were at the centre he said: “I can only comment on the reports and allegations that have been raised to us, and that is a minimal number.”
When pressed on whether he believed that none of the allegations had been substantiated, he took it on notice.
Save the Children fared the best in Tuesday’s hearing. The organisation has had a fraught relationship since its staff were removed at the island – without any notice or explanation – by the immigration department. They were removed after claims were made that they had coached asylum seekers to self harm. They first learned of the allegations when the Daily Telegraph contacted them about a story it was running on a leaked Wilson Security intelligence report, Save the Children’s chief executive, Paul Ronalds, told the inquiry.
Save the Children has been critical of Australia’s offshore processing regime, and outlined many concerns in its written submission. It did acknowledge that since it came to the island – and since the Coalition came to power – some aspects of conditions and service delivery had improved at the centre.
We learnt the most about the chain of knowledge from Ronalds. He said that at certain points when he felt some allegations weren’t gaining “sufficient traction” he had personally raised issues with the secretary and the immigration minister.
If serious incidents were raised personally with both the secretary and the minister, at what point did they realise there was something very wrong at this detention centre? As the inquiry continues, that has become the most important question.
