Asylum seekers and healthcare

In reply: Several aspects of Mr Ruddock's letter concern us. The tendency to evade the substance of the message and instead to attack the messenger, in this case the MJA, is unwarranted. Fortunately, the Journal's reputation rests secure with its more usual, considered readership, but the accusation that the MJA has acted in a cursory manner is particularly jarring — the media response by the Minister to the publication of the relevant articles occurred within hours, hardly sufficient time to subject them to a considered analysis. The haste of the response is also evident in the substance of the letter, with its focus on largely irrelevant technical aspects rather than on the key issue — the legitimate concerns raised about the impact of detention on the mental health of inmates.

Are we to assume from the Minister's silence on this core matter that he acknowledges that the majority of long-term detainees are suffering from severe depression and other disabling emotional disturbances, as described in the article by Sultan and O'Sullivan and supported by other data we cite? The rates of depression reported by Sultan and O'Sullivan represent a roughly eightfold greater prevalence than is found in the general Australian population — if correct, this reflects an epidemic of mental illness among long-term detainees. Until proven otherwise, there is every reason to assume that the mental disorders identified are a direct outgrowth of the conditions of detention. One of the key findings of research in this area is that asylum seekers in detention report similar patterns of abuse and trauma as their refugee counterparts authorised to resettle in Australia. It is paradoxical and contradictory that we provide authorised refugees some of the best rehabilitative services in the world through our national network of services for survivors of torture and trauma, while at the same time creating conditions in detention centres that exacerbate the effects of past trauma in their compatriots.

The claim that detention is humane is extraordinary. From a medical perspective, the obvious test of such a claim is in the health outcomes. Instead of the steady improvement in psychosocial status witnessed in authorised refugee populations after resettlement, there appears to be a progressive deterioration in the mental health of similarly traumatised persons in detention. A policy that in its implementation directly undermines the capacity of displaced persons to recover from the effects of past stresses cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be humane.

If detention is not punishment, then what is it? We are told repeatedly that detention is a deterrent aimed at discouraging the arrival of asylum seekers. How then does detention act as a deterrent if not by punishing the few to deter the many? Interestingly, punishment, according to many criminologists, is not a good deterrent. This makes the situation even worse — punishing those whose only "crime" is to seek asylum from persecution for a presumed greater benefit that remains unattainable. The practical failure of the "punishment as deterrence" approach is evident in the recent, desperate policy shift to the costly and unsustainable "Pacific solution". What next?

In short, detention is not humane — prolonged detention, in particular, exacts severe costs by undermining the mental health of detainees. The stark reality is that political policy is creating a preventable public health tragedy. If doubts remain about this conclusion, then we should turn to science as the final arbiter. It is now pressing that an independent group of researchers undertake a comprehensive survey of detention centres in Australia and the Pacific to establish once and for all the impact of current policies on the mental health of the detainees.