Antony Loewenstein

One (via the Guardian):

The first private company to take over an NHS hospital has admitted in a document seen by the Observer that patient care could suffer under its plans to expand its empire and seek profit from the health service.

Circle Health is already feeling a strain on resources due to its aggressive business strategy, the document reveals, and the firm’s ambition to further expand into the NHS “could affect its ability to provide a consistent level of service to its patients”, it says.

The company, run by a former Goldman Sachs banker, was awarded management of Hinchingbrooke hospital in Cambridgeshire last week in a ground-reaking move lauded by ministers as a “good deal for patients and staff”.

However, the government was forced to answer an urgent question in the Commons after the move sparked furious accusations that the deal was privatising the NHS and putting jobs and health services in jeopardy. Concerns over the future of the health service were further heightened when David Cameron, in a speech on regulation and the economy, said he wanted the NHS to be a “fantastic business for Britain”.

The revelation that the company shares some of the fears of its critics has caused fresh uproar.

The head of health at the public sector union Unison, Christina McAnea, said it was an admission of the danger of bringing profit-seeking organisations into the health service. She said: “What they are saying, in black and white, is what we have been saying all along: that introducing profit into the NHS risks putting patient services under strain. This is a very real fear for patients at Hinchingbrooke hospital.

“If the company is allowed to expand into the NHS as the government brings in its reforms through the Health and Social Care Bill this, it appears, could put many more patients at risk.”

Two (via the Guardian):

The privatisation of public services has been branded a scandal by unions who say that leaked tender documents reveal that the opening-up of the prison system to competition is “heavily biased” in favour of private firms.

The Ministry of Justice has introduced competitive tendering for five jails as ministers seek to expand the role of the private sector. They claim that competition will result in more efficient services and a better deal for the taxpayer, but unions fear that it will result in widespread redundancies, poorer working conditions and reduced pensions for workers.

Prison governors warn that expanding the private sector’s role in the custodial system will create a profit-maximising culture that favours incarceration and cutbacks to rehabilitation.

Internal documents seen by the Observer show that the in-house public sector teams seeking to run the first five prisons subjected to the new competition process were forced to increase the total cost of their bids by more than 21%. An earlier document, in 2009, forced an increase of only 13%.

Unions claim the substantial “add-ons” rendered the public sector bids uncompetitive compared with those put forward by their private sector rivals. The Principles Of Competition document, updated in August 2010, applies to Birmingham, Buckley Hall, Doncaster, Featherstone II and Wellingborough prisons.

The document’s terms have prompted claims that Tory ministers are seeking to outsource the entire prison system to the private sector. Currently in the UK, there are 13 private prisons holding 15% of the incarcerated population.

“Prison privatisation is no longer based on efficiency, it’s now ideological,” said Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the probation union, Napo. “It’s extraordinary that the public sector is forced to take into account huge additional costs. It puts public prisons at a total disadvantage. If this continues, there will be no state-run prisons in five years.”

Following last week’s exclusive in New Matilda publishing the British multinational Serco immigration detention contract with the Australian government, the Immigration Department was asked a range of questions. This is how they responded (thanks to Marni Cordell and Paul Farrell):

We asked DIAC for comment on their contract with Serco and how it serves the welfare of staff and detainees. Their responses are chillingly bureaucratic

On Wednesday New Matilda published the first publicly available version of the 2009 Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) contract with British multinational Serco. The contract was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and reveals the most comprehensive information yet about the running of Australian detention centres.

There are a number of very worrying terms in this contract. These include the hiring of unqualified guards and the classification of unauthorised visits from the media as “critical” incidents and clinical depression as a “minor” incident. This material attracted a huge response from NM readers, and was picked up by a number of other outlets.

NM contacted DIAC for comment before publishing the contract but received no response until yesterday. Today we’re publishing DIAC’s side of the story. Here are their responses to some of our questions about the contract signed with Serco in 2009.

We asked DIAC why, under the terms of the contract, general security guards with no security qualifications can be employed at Australia’s immigration detention centres for a period of six months.

A spokesperson for the department said:

“Client support officers must hold a minimum of a Certificate level II in security or equivalent, or obtain a Certificate II in security within six months of commencement. The six months represents a maximum period that client support officers have to obtain a Certificate level II, and is not a period when no security training is undertaken. New staff are mentored by a qualified Serco officer during this time.”

The spokesperson continued:

“The department has contracted Serco to deliver service to people in detention in a range of detention facilities. Serco must ensure that all service provider personnel who carry out work under this contract are appropriately skilled, trained and qualified.”

The language is highly bureaucratic — but it doesn’t say much. We asked for more detail on what that training involves and were told that that was a question for Serco. We received a similar response to a number of our requests for clarification. However, as NM reported on Wednesday, Serco is bound by its contract with DIAC not to talk to the media.

Under the contract, Serco employees, agents and contractors must not “Make any public statement; release any information to, make any statement to, deal with any inquiry from or otherwise advise the media; [or] publish distribute or otherwise make available any information or material to third parties”.

NM also asked DIAC why was there no requirement for security specific training in the induction training section of the contract.

The spokesperson told us: “The section on induction training should be read in context with all aspects of Annexure A — induction training is under 1.1, with security under 1.5.”

Here DIAC appears to be suggesting that the rest of Annexure A contains more details about security requirements than those reported by NM. In fact the other heads in the Annexure relate to: first aid, caterers, dietitians, drivers, linguists, migration officers, gymnasium staff. On our analysis, none of these other sections have any more information about security training.

The spokesperson continued:

“The induction training course is aimed at equipping officers for their role of ensuring the safety security and well-being of all of those within the facility — including clients, staff and visitors — as well as the physical security of the facility.”

Once again, the response fails to provide any details about what is actually involved in induction training. The vagueness of the training requirements is exactly why we put the questions to DIAC, who have provided us with more vagueness in kind.

Next up we asked why clinical depression and childbirth are considered “minor” incidents under the contract, while unauthorised media access or a high profile visitor being refused access are considered ”critical”.

We were told:

“A critical incident is an incident or event where there is serious injury or a threat to life, or which critically affects the security or safety of the facility. Unauthorised media presence and high profile visitor refused access fall into this category for a number of reasons, including impact on security and flow-on effects for asylum claims under the Refugee Convention.”

The spokesperson clarified this statement to tell us that the department is concerned about asylum seekers being identified by the media, as this may affect their claims for asylum.

However, given that the media are capable of respecting other reasonable requests for anonymity, we fail to see why this extra level of protection is needed for detained asylum seekers.

The spokesperson continued:

“Minor incidents are incidents or events which affect to a lesser degree the welfare of people in detention or which threaten the success of escorts, transfer or removal activities or the safety and security of the facility. Clinical depression and the birth of a child fall into this category.”

So according to the department, unauthorised media access raises duty of care issues that clinical depression, child birth and starvation do not. It’s hard not to conclude that DIAC’s priority is the protection of their public image rather than the well-being of asylum seekers.

As NM reported on Wednesday, although Serco is answerable directly to DIAC, the contract contains no requirement for periodic independent audits of Serco’s performance. We asked the department why not — and whether there had ever been an independent audit of Serco’s management of Australian detention centres.

We received no clear answer to the second part of the question, but we were told:

“DIAC ensures that Serco’s performance is rigorously monitored. We undertake an ongoing internal audit program, to ensure that Serco meets its contractual obligations.

“Immigration detention centres and alternative places of detention are assessed every month as per the Serco contract. Immigration residential housing and immigration transit accommodation are assessed quarterly.

“At the department’s option, the audit can be undertaken by a review team comprising of the following: departmental representatives, departmental facilities personnel, departmental regional or state office personnel, and/or an independent third party”.

However, all of this remains at the department’s discretion — there is no requirement for there to be third party oversight.

Once again, DIAC referred NM to Serco for more details on this. We were told that Serco had reported to the department that NGOs such as Amnesty and the Red Cross often conducted audits of detention centres. It is deeply concerning if this is a suggestion that human rights groups, acting on their own volition, are seen by DIAC as an adequate alternative to mandatory independent oversight.

DIAC’s responses to our questions are couched in the vague and sterile language of bureaucracy. Untrained security guards who are thrown into the volatile environment of a detention centre are provided with mentors — but there’s still no indication whether they’re provided with the training and support needed to cope such difficult situations. There’s no sense from DIAC that the welfare of guards and detainees is at stake here.

The response to our question about incident reporting strikes a similarly dull note. Even if concern for the fair processing of claims for asylum is the primary reason why unauthorised media visits are classified as critical incidents — and we don’t believe it is — the distrust of the media is misplaced. It’s a blow against transparency to present media outlets as so untrustworthy they can’t talk to detainees unsupervised.

NM will keep publishing on Serco and maintain our focus on Australia’s detention system. We’re concerned about the welfare of asylum seekers held in this system without due oversight and we’re concerned for the health and safety of staff. We’ll keep pushing DIAC for more transparency, too — but after their responses to our questions about the Serco contract, it’s hard to believe that we’re working for the same ends.

What a surprise:

Security guards working at the Pontville detention centre [in Tasmania] say they have been sacked in a shock move by operator Serco.

Devastated security staff contacted the Mercury yesterday, saying they had been told their services were no longer required because Serco would rely on security cameras for external surveillance.

Therese Mitchell worked her last shift yesterday after being told last Monday she was being retrenched. She said the blow came just two days before the six-month probation period clause in her contract expired.

“We thought we were going to be there until the detention centre was finished with,” Ms Mitchell said last night.

She was one of about 36 staff working for Wilson Security, who were subcontracted by Serco to guard the perimeter of the centre.

Serco staff guard the inmates inside the facility on behalf of the Immigration Department.

Ms Mitchell said all but nine of the Wilson security guards had been sacked and would struggle to find work elsewhere.

“The security industry is really dry, there’s no work out there,” she said.

Another guard, who did not want to be named, said he and the remaining Wilson workers also expected to get the sack within a fortnight.

“As of tomorrow, we will be guarding a short stretch of fence that has a couple of gaps underneath it and as soon as they fix those gaps we’ll be out of there I’m sure,” he said.

It was heart-breaking news after putting up with “horrible working conditions” for months. He said they often worked unprotected in sub-zero temperatures.

“One night, it got down to minus eight. We had one fellow go home one night with hypothermia,” he said.

He said they were continually promised by management that heated guard huts would be built, but they never arrived.

A spokesman for the Immigration Department said staffing and security issues were a matter for Serco.

A Serco spokesman said the security contractors were employed on a temporary basis while a surveillance system was brought online.

He said security at the centre was “robust” but did not respond to the guards’ claims that the surveillance system had been out of operation since Tuesday.

“We have staffing levels and security and contingency measures appropriate to the low-risk profile of the people in our care at Pontville,” he said.

When there is largely bi-partisan support for the false God of privatisation (to increase “efficiency”) we shouldn’t be surprised, as Salon reports, that America is being transformed with little public discussion:

If you’ve listened to a political pundit predict any election in the last 50 years, you’ve been told that there are Republican small towns whose politics are organized around the three G’s (guns, God and gays) and there are Democratic cities whose politics are organized around the two L’s (labor and economic liberalism). While this binary mythology is insulting for its hackneyed stereotyping and lack of nuance, it has at least half the story right — in terms of sheer partisanship, many rural areas do tend to go red, and many urban areas do tend to go blue.

Where this story goes wrong is in its ideological suppositions about the cities — and specifically, about Democratic cities. Sure, two or three decades ago, there may have been some truth to the notion that the American city is a union-driven bastion of populist progressive economics. But today, while cities may still largely vote Democratic, they are increasingly embracing the economics of corporatism. The result is that urban areas are a driving force behind the widening intra-party rift between the corporatist, pro-privatization Wall Street Democrats and the traditional labor-progressive “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.”

Start with a look at Chicago, the metropolis most identifiably (and inaccurately) branded as a hotbed of labor power and liberal economics.

In recent years, the Windy City has become “the most aggressive city in the United States in the privatization of public infrastructure,” according to the Public Interest Research Group. Citing the city’s budget crisis, officials have sold off highways and parking meters at cut-rate prices — all to pad the profits of corporate investors (the schemes are now being explored by other Democratic cities including Pittsburgh and Los Angeles). Despite this, during its once-in-a-generation contested mayoral election in 2010, the city’s voters chose investment banker Rahm Emanuel over other far more economically progressive candidates, and Emanuel quickly filled his administration with corporate consultants eager to accelerate the privatization already under way. Now, Emanuel has declared war on organized labor, with the Associated Press’s headline blaring “Even in Chicago, Mayor Goes After Labor Unions.”

Sigh (via The Independent):

The conditions of the next €130bn rescue package will be severe, yet there is an elephant in the room: the extent to which the German but also the French military industries rely on Greece.

The small, crisis-hit nation, whose prime minister, George Papandreou, narrowly survived a vote of confidence on Friday, buys more German weapons than any other country. Some Greeks want to know why it is that France and Germany are demanding cuts in pensions, salaries and public services, but the buying of arms is allowed to continue unabated.

Yanis Varoufakis, professor of economics at Athens University, says: “When Greek hospitals are running out of bandages, the only bit of the budget not being attacked by the EU and IMF is military expenditure.”

Greece is the highest military spender, in terms of percentage of GDP, in the EU. Professor Varoufakis adds: “Greece is a disproportionately crucial customer for the arma-ments industry. In comparison to Greece’s size, it’s preposterous.”

Despite its dire financial straits, the country’s military expenditure has risen during the global financial crisis. It spent €7.1bn in 2010, compared with €6.24bn in 2007.

Some 58 per cent of Greece’s military expenditure in 2010 went to Germany, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri).

The US is the major beneficiary of Greek military expenditure, with the Americans supplying 42 per cent of its arms. In second and third place are Germany, with 22.7 per cent, and then France, with 12.5 per cent.

Professor Varoufakis believes: “The EU and IMF keep giving loans to Greece to stop it going bankrupt, but countries such as Germany need to justify this to voters, hence the demand for spending cuts. But with Greece being such a crucial arms customer, it only takes a phone call to the German government from an armaments manufacturer to ensure that Greece’s military budget stays intact.”

Greece’s defence budget is historically high due to the perceived threat from neighbouring Turkey. Arms companies have benefited by playing the two sides off against each other. Professor Varoufakis says: “Typically, one side buys, say, a frigate, and then the other buys the same frigate – with the only difference being the colour of the paint.”

Following our world exclusive revelations yesterday about the Serco contract with the Australian government (stories here, here and here), last night ABC Radio’s PM featured an interview with the editor of the independent publication that ran the articles, New Matilda:

MARK COLVIN: The news website New Matilda has obtained the contracts under which the private company SERCO runs Australia’s detention centres.

The website used Freedom of Information laws to get access to the first publicly available version of the 2009 Immigration Department contract with the British multinational.

The editor of New Matilda is Marni Cordell.

I asked her what the FOI revealed.

MARNI CORDELL: There’s actually quite a lot; there’s 700 pages of information.

So the main things that we’ve picked up on is that general security guards at detention centres can be hired without any formal qualifications. So they have six months before they are required to have a Certificate II which is a base level security qualification.

MARK COLVIN: So no security qualifications and presumably no psychological qualifications or anything like that either?

MARNI CORDELL: That’s right. There is a requirement that staff undertake mental health training but there’s no specific details about what that involves.

MARK COLVIN: Do they get any instruction during the first six months on how to deal with people who are depressed or trying to commit suicide?

MARNI CORDELL: They do undertake some induction training at the start of their contract and that involves mental health awareness training, cultural awareness, conflict de-escalation. But there aren’t many details on what that induction training involves.

MARK COLVIN: But what does the contract tell you about how those things, depression and trying to commit suicide, how those things are seen in terms of priorities?

MARNI CORDELL: There is a listing of different levels of incident; so there were three levels of incident; there’s critical, there’s major and there’s minor incidents and they all have different reporting requirements for Serco.

So critical incidents obviously involve things like hostage situations, riots, mass break-outs, but they also, surprisingly, include things like high profile visitor refused access; so if someone is high profile and has been refused access to a detention centre Serco is obliged to tell the department within 30 minutes of that happening.

MARK COLVIN: Are media visits also critical incidents?

MARNI CORDELL: Also media visits. So an unauthorised media presence at a facility is considered a critical incident.

Minor incidents are things such as voluntary starvation for under 24 hours, childbirth and clinical depression.

MARK COLVIN: Clinical depression is a minor incident?

MARNI CORDELL: That’s right.

MARK COLVIN: What about somebody trying to commit suicide?

MARNI CORDELL: That’s listed in a critical incident, yep.

MARK COLVIN: What about the openness, what about the transparency of Serco and its contracts?

MARNI CORDELL: There are a couple of mentions of their dealing with the media. So Serco employees are contractually obliged not to speak to the media at all. They’re not allowed to make a public statement or deal quote “with any inquiry from or otherwise advise the media”. And they are required to report to the department but there is no contractual obligation for an independent audit of their dealings.

MARK COLVIN: I think Serco has said in the past that it’s wrong to call it a secretive organisation or to say that its dealings with the public are secretive; what do you say now that you’ve seen the contract?

MARNI CORDELL: Well it’s obvious from the contract that they’re not only secretive but they’re also contractually obliged to be secretive and they’re not allowed to discuss any matters to do with the running of immigration detention centres.

MARK COLVIN: Is that their fault or the department’s fault?

MARNI CORDELL: Well it’s in the contract so they’re obliged not to do that.

MARK COLVIN: So it’s the department that’s imposing that on them?

MARNI CORDELL: I would say it’s coming from both parties but yes it certainly is in the contract.

MARK COLVIN: What about the independent audit, you just mentioned that briefly; does that mean that nobody can really oversee them?

MARNI CORDELL: There’s no obligation for there to be an independent audit, so that certainly makes it difficult to know what exactly is going on inside the immigration detention centres. So there are obligations for them to report directly to the Department of Immigration but there’s no requirement that an independent audit takes place.

MARK COLVIN: Was it very difficult to get this FOI request through?

MARNI CORDELL: It took some time yes. We’ve also got the FOI document upon the site; we also have a document that is a leaked version of the same contract. Serco has blocked some sections of the FOI document and some of those sections are actually available in the leaked document which is on our website as well.

MARK COLVIN: So what do they tell us that they don’t want us to know?

MARNI CORDELL: Some of the things are blocked in both documents but some of the things we were able to discover from the leaked document include quite an interesting list of they’re called abatement and incentive requirements; so where Serco is fined for poor performance and also rewarded with higher fees for good performance.

There’s also information about how often guards are required to check the internal and external perimeters of the detention centres.

MARK COLVIN: Other than just as a piece of investigative journalism, what do you hope to come out of this?

MARNI CORDELL: There’s actually a huge amount of information in these documents; there’s more than 700 pages and I would hope that other media pick up on it and really investigate what is going on and demand some more transparency about how Serco runs Australia’s immigration detention centres.

MARK COLVIN: Marni Cordell, editor of the New Matilda news website.

The following exclusive, written with Paul Farrell, appears today in Australian magazine New Matilda:

The Gillard Government’s contract with Serco imposes no initial training requirements for security guards, according to documents obtained under FOI – and that’s causing damage to asylum seekers and to the guards themselves

Serco security guards in immigration detention centres are not required to hold any formal security qualifications for six months, according to its contract with the Immigration Department (DIAC).

The contract, obtained under a Freedom of Information request, reveals that the agreement between Serco and the Immigration Department only requires security guards to “obtain a Certificate Level II in Security Operations within six months of commencement”.

A Certificate II is the minimum security requirement for unarmed security guards, and many training organisations fit the entire course into just five days.

In the recent parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s immigration detention network  this issue was raised repeatedly and DIAC officials refused to clearly answer questions about the qualifications of security guards at detention centres operated by Serco.

This is what Labor Senator Trish Crossin asked DIAC representatives:

“If you have, for example, a security guard employed by Serco at your detention centres — that is their job description — what level of qualification are they expected to have?”

A straightforward question. This was their response:

Ms [Jackie] Wilson: We would have to check that. It is a cert II or III.

Mr [Andrew] Moorhouse: There is a cert, whether it is a cert IV or a cert III in security. They are required to have the training for their particular role.

Senator Crossin: What is the minimum? What is the level of classification that each Serco person has? What is the job description and what is their base qualification?

Mr [John] Metcalfe: Essentially they are role based descriptions and qualifications appropriate for those roles. We can take that on notice.

However, New Matilda can reveal that the contract lists only two categories of guards — general security and managerial — and that general security guards are employable at the outset with no security qualifications whatsoever.

This raises serious questions about the capacity of Serco guards to manage detention centres effectively. The recent riots at Villawood Detention Centre and at Darwin Detention Centre last year highlight a growing trend of Serco staff being unable to adequately manage conflict situations.

Some guards have already blown the whistle on the consequences of the lack of training, and these reports just keep coming. The NT News recently reported that Serco staff working in Darwin’s detention centre are often taking stress leave due to their working conditions. The paper noted that the Certificate II in security operations required by staff to begin work is the same as pub bouncers. One mental health nurse told the NT News that, “we were told at our induction that (Serco workers) could have been making cappuccino or pizza the week before they started. Basically they are not trained.”

These conditions are taking their toll. We have spoken to a number of both former Serco staff and workers of its sub-contractor MSS who have detailed exposure to refugee trauma. Many of them reported developing mental health problems and self-medicating with drugs and alcohol.

According to the contract, Serco must ensure that all personnel attend “mental health awareness training prior to commencing work at the facility” and “a refresher course every two years”.

However, it is not specific in its requirements that staff be properly trained for stressful situations with vulnerable asylum seekers. The recent suicides at detention centres across the country highlight the need for security officers to be trained in handling such complex, stressful situations.

During the parliamentary inquiry, DIAC officers continued to stress the induction training that Serco officers were required to undertake. However, according to the contract, this training does not involve any security specific skills:

“1.1 Induction Training

All Service Provider Personnel must have completed Induction training before they commence

duty at a Facility that includes instruction in:

(a) cultural awareness;

(b) the Immigration Detention Values;

(c) conflict de-escalation;

(d) duty of care responsibilities;

(e) communication and interaction with Department Personnel, Stakeholders and other

service providers;

(f) problem solving and decision-making in the workplace;

(g) skills on interacting with People in Detention; and

(h) record keeping procedures.”

This is a vague set of criteria for training — especially in comparison to the detail set out in other parts of the contract including, for example, an inventory of all loose assets right down to knives and forks.

NM asked DIAC about the terms of the contract relating to security guards. Why were the training requirements not more stringent — and why was the induction training so loosely described? At publication no reply has been received.

Increasing reports of violence and self harm by immigration detainees indicate that there is a growing problem in Australia detention centres. The question for Serco and DIAC is whether these problems could be mitigated with better induction training and more stringent requirements of the staff paid to work with these most vulnerable people.

The following exclusive, written with Paul Farrell, appears today in Australian magazine New Matilda:

Running detention centres is an important job. Why are the audit and reporting requirements for Serco so low? Paul Farrell and Antony Loewenstein report

Under the contract signed between Serco and the Department of Immigration (DIAC), which New Matilda has obtained under FoI, Serco is under no obligation to comply with any form of independent audit.

The financial management section of the contract does give DIAC wide ranging abilities to conduct audits of Serco’s management of detention centres but these can be conducted “by a department or its nominee” and there is no periodic requirement for this to occur.

Serco is required to be part of a “Joint Executive Report” compiled with DIAC regional management on a monthly basis that examines its management and performance. But the contract doesn’t specify how this reporting is conducted and in what capacity DIAC is involved.

Serco is required to submit monthly reports on security exercises, OH&S, emergency breakdown and repairs, illegal items, industry development, damage by people in detention and care-taker services.

Serco is also required to submit an annual report for each facility to DIAC. But the content requirements for this report are not onerous:

“Annual Report
(a) The Service Provider must submit an Annual Report for each Facility that:
(i) summarises key events during the year;
(ii) sets out the lessons learned; and
(iii) establishes targeted goals for the subsequent year.”

A recent investigation by Corpwatch reported that even though Serco receives hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts from governments around the world, it has a poor track record as far as financial accountability is concerned.

NM asked DIAC why Serco is not required to comply with an independent audit in the terms of the contract, whether any audits had occurred and if so whether they were conducted by an independent organisation. At the time of publication we had not received a reply.

Serco is also required to compile “Incident Reports” to be filed with DIAC when certain events occur. The contract details three major categories of incidents: critical, major and minor. Critical incidents include death, bomb threats and suicide — but they also include “unauthorised media access” and “high profile visitor refused access”.

Curiously, this was reported several months ago as having been a later amendment to the contract but the document reveals that in fact these categories were always listed in this way and were agreed on by DIAC. These incidents need to be reported verbally within 30 minutes and in writing within four hours to DIAC.

Worryingly, some of the incidents considered “minor” include serious events that could be life-threatening. Clinical depression, substance abuse, voluntary starvation for less than 24 hours and the birth of children are only considered to be minor and only need to have a written report after 24 hours. All critical and major incidents are required to be audited but only 10 per cent of minor incidents need to be audited per month. These audits are internally conducted, and are not required to be independent.

Given there’s no independent oversight, this system relies on Serco fulfilling its reporting obligations. This, in turn, opens the possibility of incident reports simply not being filed.

During the Christmas Island leg of the recent Senate inquiry into Australia’s immigration detention network, Kaye Bernard, the General Secretary of the Union of Christmas Island Workers, told the committee hearing about an incident in which a Serco worker was stabbed — and no incident report ever reached DIAC:

Ms Bernard: The incident report was filed by the officer and when he went to get a copy of it, it had been put in bin 13. Bin 13 is commonly referred to by the detention workers as ‘the shredder’.

Mr Scott Morrison: Tell me a bit more about bin 13 then.

Ms Bernard: Bin 13 is when you have a completely overworked and understaffed facility, because of this client-detainee ratio. You have a huge reporting requirement and paperwork stacked up in boxes under the manager’s desk. It was put through a shredder.

Mr Morrison: So you are telling me that, even though an incident report was filed, to your knowledge, those incident reports are actually not reflected in the number of incident reports that may have been reported by DIAC or Serco?

Ms Bernard: Correct.

Mr Morrison: How many incidents are we talking about here? Given that there are thousands of incidents, albeit ones have been reported already, which is alarming enough, how many incidents do you think are not being reported?

Ms Bernard: If you take one incident — a riot with 200 people, one officer getting stabbed and others being injured, which was described in the media by DIAC as a tiff with unaccompanied minors — I do not know how many reports you could write up about that.

DIAC relies on incident reporting by Serco for real-time updates of what is happening in detention centres. In the absence of other real-time measures to log events, it is worrying if, as the above exchange suggests, the “Incident Management Log” is not an accurate reflection of what is happening inside detention centres.

We have spoken to a number of former Serco staff, who worked in many detention centres. They confirm that many incidents are not accurately reported — if at all — to avoid conflicts with management anger over potential financial sanctions from the federal government.

The Labor government pledged upon winning government in 2007 to implement humane and transparent policies towards asylum seekers. The lack of formal independent audit requirements make it impossible to know exactly what is happening inside immigration detention centres and to achieve the promised transparency.

The following global exclusive, written with Paul Farrell and Marni Cordell, appears today in Australian magazine New Matilda:

Today NM publishes the contract signed between the Department of Immigration and Serco, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act

New Matilda has gained exclusive access to the first publicly available version of the 2009 Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) contract with British multinational Serco.

The contract was obtained through a Freedom of Information request and reveals the most comprehensive information yet about the running of Australian detention centres.

New Matilda’s analysis of the document reveals that:

•  General security guards can begin work with no formal security qualifications and are only required to obtain a Certificate II within six months of working with Serco.

• Clinical depression, childbirth and voluntary starvation for under 24 hours are considered “minor” incidents while unauthorised media access is considered ”critical”.

• Of these “minor” incidents, only 10 per cent are required to be audited internally by Serco.

• There is no contractual requirement of an independent audit of Serco’s management of detention centres.

The first 80 pages of the contract can be downloaded here. Links to the remaining sections can be found at the end of this article.

Other issues of note include:

• Serco is obliged to provide phone services to people in detention but the contract specifies that mobile phone handsets “[must] not have a recording facility (either audio or visual)”.

• Serco must also “control and limit” detainees’ internet access to pornography, FTP sites, and “prohibited sites in foreign languages”. It is not specified which sites are prohibited and under what law.

• If a member of the public complains or provides feedback about an immigration detention centre, Serco must notify the department within one day and provide a written response to the person within two weeks, “setting out the action taken of the reason why no action will be taken”.

• Serco is obliged to provide “tea, coffee, water and biscuits” when detainees have visitors and visiting areas must contain “hot/cold drinks and confectionery vending machines”.

• Serco must “not provide access to the Facility for media visits unless the visit has been approved by the Department” and must “ensure that media personnel only conduct activities approved by the Department”.

• Serco indemnifies DIAC from and against any loss arising from or as a consequence of any “death, or bodily injury, disease or illness (including mental illness) of any person including People in Detention” — this clause survives for a period of seven years following the expiration of the contract.

According to a letter from DIAC’s FOI officer, Serco objects to DIAC’s decision to release some parts of this contract and has exercised its rights under FOI law to block access to those sections in the document marked “s27 consultation”.

View the FOI officer’s decision and a full list of the documents that were blocked by Serco here.

However, New Matilda has also obtained a leaked copy of the contract in which some of these blocked sections are visible.

This version of the contract has not been officially released, and reveals:

• The internal and external perimeter of the detention centres are only required to be checked by security guards twice a day; at the opening of the centre and before it’s locked up.

• Checks to ensure detainees are “present and safe” are only required to be conducted four times a day.

• A carrot and stick system of “abatements” and “incentives” where Serco is fined for poor performance and rewarded with higher fees for good performance

Read the leaked version of the contract here.

The fact that this contract has only been released now, more than two years after it was signed, reflects how closely guarded the agreement between Serco and the Federal Government remains.

Last week, Serco’s Australian CEO Bob McGuiness told Perth Now that he was “gobsmacked” to hear Serco described as a “secretive organisation” in the media. “I find that astonishing,” he said.

In fact, the contract prohibits Serco employees from speaking to the media at all. It reads:

“The Service Provider must not, and will ensure that its officers, employees, directors, contractors and agents do not:
Make any public statement;
Release any information to, make any statement to, deal with any inquiry from or otherwise advise the media;
Publish distribute or otherwise make available any information or material to third parties.”

The hypocrisy of McGuiness’s comments is also remarkable in light of Serco’s attempts to block access to information that the DIAC FOI decision maker has argued should be public.

The Labor government and DIAC agreed to the terms of this contract. By privatising immigration detention centres, successive Australian governments have kept these issues out of sight and out of mind, under the pretence of information being “commercial-in-confidence”. Bureaucratic buck-passing ensures little firm information is ever released.

Many parts of the contract have still not been released on the decision of DIAC’s FOI officer — including the names of the Serco directors who manage relations with DIAC and run detention centres.

Read NM’s extended coverage of the contract here and here.

Links to Serco contract (FOI version)

Volume 1, Part 1

Volume 1, Part 2

Volume 1, Part 3

Volume 1, Part 4

Volume 1, Part 5

Volume 1, Part 6

Volume 1, Part 7

Volume 2, Part 1

Volume 2, Part 2

Volume 2, Part 3

Volume 2, Part 4

Volume 2, Part 5

Volume 2, Part 6

The following press release was issued yesterday:

Three in five Australians believe the United Nations should now recognise Palestine as one of its member States according to a poll conducted by Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd.

The results are part of an independent national poll done by the respected Roy Morgan Research company.

“This is an outstanding result as it reflects the Australian people’s overwhelming support for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians to be freed from 40 plus years of brutal military occupation” said Ms Samah Sabawi, Public Advocate, Australians for Palestine.

The poll also found that 63 percent of Australians do not support Israeli settlers building homes on occupied Palestinian land.

“Settlement building is without doubt the single biggest obstacle to peace. Israel continues to build and expand these settlements in direct violation of International Law” said Ms Sabawi.

With a vote on Palestine due at the United Nations before the end of November, the support for an Australian ‘Yes’ vote was more than three times that of a ‘No’ vote.

The Morgan poll asked respondents: “In order for Palestine to be recognized as a full member state of the United Nations, existing member Nations must enter a vote of ‘yes’, ‘no’ or abstain from voting. In your opinion, how should Australia vote?”

A majority – 51 percent – agreed Australia should vote “yes”, whilst only 15 percent said “no”. Twenty percent believed that Australia should abstain from voting.

“The strong support for a ‘Yes’ vote demonstrates that Australian voters support the bid by Palestine. This should encourage the Labor Government, led by Prime Minister Gillard, to position itself in-line with public opinion and on the right side of history” concluded Ms Sabawi.

As a collective of broad-based advocacy groups in Australia, we ask that the Government heed the call of the public and condemn the illegal settlements being constructed by Israel and support the rights of the Palestinians.

For comment or further detail, please contact Moammar Mashni (AFP): 0419 999 773.

This survey was commissioned by: Australians for Palestine (AFP, Melbourne), Australian Friends of Palestine Association (AFOPA, Adelaide), Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN, Canberra), and Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine (CJPP, Sydney).