Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642236402.pdf (Australia)
Senate Inquiry into Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing Centre Submission: Tobias Gunn Contact: Email: I would like to thank the Senate committee for giving me the chance to submit information to the Senate Inquiry into serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing Centre.
I worked on Nauru as a Youth and Child recreation officer for Save the Children in the family detention centre (Regional Processing Centre 3), my employment commenced in January 2014 and finished in March 2015.

I hope the committee can use the evidence I provide in combination with my previous Submission 68 to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Nauru Detention Centre in 2015 to close a case of child abuse, which I believe may have been mismanaged.
The Senate should understand that sections of my submission will require the provision of correct information from the relevant service providers.

This submission will also provide information of relevance to the inquiry beyond the case mentioned.
Issues surrounding a case of physical abuse of a minor The information on this incident that occurred on the 27/03/14 was provided to the last Senate Inquiry (submission 68, p: 7, along with my witness statement), it was detailed to an extent that any service provider still working on Nauru at the time could have followed up it up.
The information I gave to the previous Inquiry has not changed, however, information surrounding it has as the current Senate Inquiry now has the incident report of the case in question.
The response by Wilsons Security to this case in my submission to the previous Senate Inquiry was a copy and paste; “Wilsons Security takes its obligation to provide a safe and secure 1 Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional ProcessingCentre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing CentreSubmission 51 environment for asylum seekers very seriously and is concerned by the matter raised" (Rogers 2015, 6).
The response did not address the information I provided in the submission and was not adequate considering the case of concern involved a child.

I would also like to make a side note that Wilsons’ response to my submission included other events that were not written in my Submission 68.

I believe this is due to my submission being combined with another Save the Children Staff member’s submission, which may have been a Senate error or Wilsons security error.
In the previous Senate Inquiry into Nauru, Wilsons provided additional information on cases categorised as “assaults on minors” on the request of Senator Hanson-Young.

The list of incidents included the date of 27/03/14 where Wilsons Security stated that there was “inefficient information to identify the staff member” (Rogers 2015, 4).

However, there were two cases of abuse that day, thus Wilsons Security failed to declare a case of child abuse it was aware of to the Senate Inquiry.
See page 5 on Wilsons security’s response to Submission 68 for both of these cases.

The issue of retaining information in regards to incidents was also present on the ground, as it reflects concerns in Save the Children meetings raised by staff members on the issue of Wilsons security “losing” or information was going “missing” on incidents.
The tampering with incident reports’ categorisations of critical, major, minor or information was also an issue that was addressed in a recreation team meetings and something I experienced myself (see submission 68).

An internal email leaked from September 2015 telling staff to be aware of this shows that this continued after I left (Paul Farrell, 2016).
The lack of correct information provided by Wilsons Security means that I cannot determine whether their statement of “insufficient information to identify the staff member” was for the incident I witnessed, or the other incident that day.

I will provide in the absence of this information, reasons why the identity of the guard who physically assaulted the 4-year-old girl is known by Wilsons security.

Thus the above statement cannot be in reference to the incident I witnessed.

1.
1.

The perpetrator (a Wilsons Security guard) was located on an allocated stationary post next to the recreation tent.

2.

When the incident occurred the perpetrators co-staff member was notified.

She subsequently radioed it into Command, and as the partner of the offender, she confirmed his identity.
2 Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional ProcessingCentre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing CentreSubmission 51 3.

Romeo two (second in Command) responded and sighted his staff member involved in the incident; another eyewitness to the identification of the guard.

4. and I recorded the perpetrator's name on the incident report.

5.
5.

When the report was submitted to command the name was cross-checked with a roster to confirm correct spelling; I personally witnessed this.

6.

When giving my witness statement I was told their staff member had given a different account of events.

This implies he must have been interviewed.

Note it is a requirement to gain witness statements from all people involved in a major incident.

If he had not been interviewed; Wilsons would have broken reporting requirements.

7.
7.

The detention centre had a sign in and out procedure, so Wilsons would have access to a record of every person who had entered in or out of that camp on any given day.

Wilsons security had two other follow up options if they "lost" the above information that could not have occurred by any normal means within a professional environment: 1.

Request to re-interview both myself and 2.

Ask Save the Children to provide another copy of the incident report that had the perpetrators name on it.

3.
3.

Re-interview their staff member who was partnered with the perpetrator and Romeo two that was in charge that day.

This incident was also in the Moss Report (Moss 2015, 41) 3 Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional ProcessingCentre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing CentreSubmission 51 The Moss report provides information that this case was in fact referred to the Nauruan Police.
However, it does not provide any insight to why the father could not recount the event.

The unwillingness of the child could very well be due to her fear of police as they are similar to security guards, and to the best of my knowledge, the Nauruan police force did not have any members of staff who were trained in investigating and interviewing children involved in abuse.
This type of training is vital to supporting successful investigations and is very relevant to this young child who had multiple altercations of a questionable nature with guards that were brought up within meetings and are documented in other Incident reports.

The incident combined with other altercations and events had a detrimental impact on this young girl.

On multiple occasions, she wet her pants when interacting with security guards due to being stressed and scared.
There was a clear correlation between these events and the ongoing fear and trauma that this young girl experienced.

This was seen in her interactions and responses to security guards, even when they were of a professional nature.

The information in the Moss report does not address the issue of why the father did not recount this incident, which brings to question: was the father ever notified that his daughter had been physically abused by either Save the Children or Wilsons Security?
I can confirm that Save the Children as a service provider was made aware of this case and were required as the welfare service provider to give support to families after events such as these.

I do not know if this ever occurred, if it did Save the Children will have documents with notes taken by the case worker, if it did not, Save the Children will have failed to provide welfare support.
Although the case was 4 Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional ProcessingCentre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing CentreSubmission 51 not Save the Children’s to investigate case worker provide important support for families going through abuse investigations.

I hope Save the Children can provide information on whether or not this was done.
The withdrawal of claims of abuse was an issue as families and individuals would fear retaliation.

This could have been the case as fear was often heightened if the abuser was a Nauruan, simply because if they were found to be a refugee they would be resettled within Nauru entering the same community as their abuser.

This fear of retaliation and under-reporting is supported by findings in the Moss report and is in line with staff testimonies and my own experiences.
This fear of retaliation is well founded as victims are imprisoned within a small environment where their abusers have confined access to their victims; there is no escape you cannot to just walk out of the centre to a safe space.

In cases where abusers were staff members, the vulnerability of victims is even more acute, as staff not only have access too but also have power over the lives of their victims.
I find it concerning that eyewitnesses to the event were neither interviewed by Nauruan Police nor the Moss inquiry.

In all events, I have been witness to outside of Nauru I have been interviewed by the police as a witness; an integral part of any police investigation.

There for Nauruan Police did not interview all the witnesses and secondly did not have trained staff to interview children in the first place.
Whilst on Nauru I tried to pursue the outcome of the incident; I requested the on island Save the Children manager to follow up this event as I was concerned that there had been no feedback.

I wanted confirmation that this man no longer had access to children or any asylum seekers.

This follow-up occurred in a meeting regarding another incident I reported on that had been leaked to the media.
The reason for the meeting was the manager was retracing the responses to make sure that we “Save the Children” had done everything that was required, as the case was being investigated further.

I took this opportunity to raise my concerns regarding the incident involving the 4-year-old child and asked for it to be followed up as I had not heard any outcomes and in my position I had no authority to ask Wilsons.

I never heard any outcomes or if any action was taken.
I also raised the issue with my direct line manager.

I was not aware there was a Police investigation until the Moss Report was published and I had time to read it.

The main issue is to determine whether the guard had continued access to asylum seekers.
I would recommend that his name is searched through all records of incidents to see if he was 5 Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional ProcessingCentre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing CentreSubmission 51 involved in any other incidents both before and after 27/03/14.
Wilsons security can provide information on this case as they have this staff member’s identity so they can confirm whether or not he had continued employment.

Note this incident report is now available to the current Senate with the perpetrator's name on it as it was one of the thousands leaked.

However, the search needs to include all reports of abuse, as the 2000+ leaked incidents make up just a section of the incidents reported.
In the last Senate Inquiry, Senator Linda Reynolds asked those giving evidence why they did not raise their concerns with the Moss inquiry at the time.

The result of which meant that just under a year lapsed before evidence of conditions and abuse came to light.

This undoubtedly delayed responses and investigations into cases of abuse that were mishandled or unknown to service providers.
The reason for this for Save the Children staff was the on island manager directly stated that we should not approach the Moss inquiry while they were on the island.

That to be involved and have access to the inquiry you would need to be asked.

This was again restated in a recreation team meeting.

On reflection, it seems to be unique that an inquiry would not listen to anyone who had concerns and information that could be relevant to its terms of reference.
However, I can only state why many Save the Children staff who would have given evidence did not, including myself.

Our decisions were based off what Save the Children management conveyed to us.

Whether or not this is correct, this is the information that was relayed to Save the Children staff members.
Abuse within the centres The evidence of abuse committed by Commonwealth employed service providers within the RPC3 shows there was a culture of abuse that went unheeded as the frequency is well beyond rare acts by dangerous individuals that we find in our own communities within Australia.

Rather the environment was such that abuse could be carried out by both staff on asylum seeker or asylum seekers on asylum seeker as the standards of protection and services provided fell well short of acceptable.
The regularity and amount of abuse that has been documented is clear evidence to this showing a complete lack of accountability.

The prevalence of abuse is alarming when considering 823 workers were employed to protect asylum seekers (Rogers 2015, 2).

There was also over 300 humanitarian staff employed by Save the Children along with a large number of Transfield and IHMS workers within or adjacent to the camp.
The numbers provided do not represent all those active in the camp at once as numbers are divided between shifts for security guards and for Save the Children only half the workforce is on 6 Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional ProcessingCentre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing CentreSubmission 51 Nauru at a time.
Nevertheless, the numbers are high when considering the prevalence of abuse and mental health issues.

This suggests that all service providers failed to create and advocate for an environment that was safe for these vulnerable people, which is further supported by the presence of mental health issues and self-harm.
The above also provides insight into the environment and conditions asylum seekers were held in; staff were unable to compensate for the harsh, substandard living conditions asylum seekers were placed in.

The numbers of security guards you will notice is vastly higher than that of humanitarian workers, this clearly shows asylum seekers were miss-categorised as a security issue, not a humanitarian issue.
The securitisation of humanitarian issue resulted in vulnerable people being neglected the support they required as resources are focused on security on a scale that is not reflective of any threat within in camp.

The outcome of this is that those who have the most contact with asylum seekers are security guards who work 12-hour shifts, compared with recreations 3.5 hours of contact and education being only slightly longer.
Case Workers had caseloads of up to 30 people, so time with individuals and family units was limited.

I believe that the heavy presence of security for a humanitarian issue inhibited and made the environment and the outcome worse for asylum seekers.

The security guards come from a variety of backgrounds such as ex-service personnel, bouncers and so forth.
I am not disputing their skills within their profession, rather this profession was not suited to the position and environment they were placed in with vulnerable minors and families.

Altercations between children and guards of a minor nature that I witnessed were often due to the individual's lack of experience or skill in working with vulnerable people, most notably minors.
I acknowledge the need for security in detention camps but the extent to which the family camp was heavily securitised miss-categorised the situation and the needs of asylum seekers.

The resources would have been better placed into councillors, case-workers and humanitarian workers that could better address the issues faced by those detained.
The fact that no child protection workers or case workers were present in the camp between the hours of 5pm till 8am is of concern as many incidents happened at night.

I would suspect that if humanitarian workers who have experience and qualifications in dealing with vulnerable people in crisis situations were present the outcomes to some incidents would have been improved and reduced with early interventions and support.
An example to where resources have been misplaced into security is when individuals that are deemed to be at risk of suicide or self-harm.

Nauru did not have the facilities to hospitalise the 7 Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional ProcessingCentre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing CentreSubmission 51 many people experiencing acute mental health issues that were a threat to themselves.
The action often taken was to place them back into RPC3 with security guards assigned to them, within arm’s reach to restrain the individual when needed.

The provision of guards did not address the issues that cause the individual to be of risk to themselves, rather it treated them as a security risk rather than having a medical problem.

I witnessed, on a number of occasions when working in the camp, individuals being restrained as they had again attempted self-harm.
These scenes were very distressing for the children who I was with as they would know the person involved on one occasion in was a family member.

The placement of ill patients that still suffered mental health issues back into detention – an environment that has been shown to cause a deterioration in mental health showed a failure to provide adequate health care.

The system implemented, treated mental health as a security threat rather than a medical issue, which further exacerbated the problem.
I acknowledge that in some cases security guards were and are needed due to the sometimes volatile state of the individual’s mental health, however, many cases did not require this.

The humiliation this caused young people in having the whole camp know your condition was described to me as “shameful” and that they wished they could “disappear”.

This increased the anxiety and stress levels in individuals who were already experiencing trauma and mental health issues.
Controlled and restricted movement creates forced traumatisation RPC3 is positioned within an area that I estimate to be 3.5 hectares.

Within this area, it was divided up into sections family, unaccompanied minors, single adult females and infants.

Movement between these areas was restricted and controlled by security posts.
The forced detention against the will of asylum seekers within RPC3 in cramped and highly populated sections created the environment where vulnerable men, women and children experienced forced or further traumatisation.

This occurs as asylum seekers are not just subject to incidents of abuse recorded in the 2000+ leaked reports or outlined in the many inquiries into Nauru, they are also forced to witness them.
The frequency of abuse that occurred from both Commonwealth employee (service providers) and asylum seekers meant that children and families were regularly exposed to cases of self-harm and abuse.

I would see this along with co-workers in young children acting out incidents of self-harm and abuse in play; reacting the events of the previous day in an attempt to understand them.
The forced containment within the centre meant that parents could not remove or simply walk out of camp to protect their children from witnessing such events.
This was also not possible as the schedule of programs within the centre created a 8 Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional ProcessingCentre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing CentreSubmission 51 situation where parents and children were almost always separated.

In my previous submission, I raised an event that I responded to where young children were watching a possible suicide attempt.
Wilsons security in their response to my submission stated it was operating procedure to secure an area of an incident.

Although I believe that this is a response procedure, procedures are only effective if they are enacted.

I would like to convey that in all the incidents I responded to I never witnessed an area secured or an attempt to secure it.

In each case, there were young people watching the events take place.

This also reflects my co-workers’ experiences.


Regardless of the above due to the restricted movement of people in a highly populated area, even if areas were secured in an incident it would only reduce, not prevent the forced witnessing of abuse or self- harm.

The confined movement of people creating forced or further traumatisation gives an example into how this environment has forcibly inflicted harm onto vulnerable people.
Reporting The initial reporting of incidents witnessed by staff was well structured with time frames and expectations, however, a report does nothing unless it initiates a response.

The framework was designed that as staff we would very rarely find out the outcomes of incidents we reported on; this was common practice on Nauru.

This created a situation where errors or the lack of action could easily take place as there was no feedback, so accountability was reduced.
The lack of feedback removed safeguards against human error and mishandling that had high consequences when the incidents involve vulnerable men women and children.

This also provides a flaw when incidents involved Wilsons guards; they investigate them internally, without the feedback to the writer of the report.

There was no way to monitor conflicts of interest that may develop out of this scenario.
There was also no framework internally within Save the Children on how incidents and follow up should be coordinated between education, recreation and case workers in the immediate aftermath of an incident.

The only collaboration of a formal nature was a once a week “Vulnerable minors” meeting.

However, between the incident and the timing of the meeting the only information flow between departments was through informal channels that relied on individual staff members.
I want to make it clear that for major incidents in my experience this communication occurred, rather it was the minor incidents were it lacked consistency.

This left gaps in information as an incident reported at school would be conveyed to case workers but not recreation staff and vice versa, recreation would convey incidents to caseworker but not to education.

The relaying of this information sometimes did occur but as mentioned above, it was reliant on individuals and happened in an informal manner.
The case load for case workers was 9 Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional ProcessingCentre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing CentreSubmission 51 very high and very demanding, so for small issues, there was often simply not the time, this goes for all departments.
However, in environments, small issues and lack of holistic responses can accumulate and have impacts that could have otherwise been better supported or interventions occurred.

This resulted in staff members not being aware or looking out for or monitoring individuals more closely to support them.
I attended Vulnerable Minor Meetings (VMM) on numerous occasions and on each occasion gained information that I myself nor recreation had been aware of, this delayed the altering and the provision of tailored support to individuals under our care.

In early 2015 this was addressed with a system put in place due to continued pressure on management from staff within all departments.

References 1.

Moss, Philip.


2015. Review into recent allegations relating to conditions and circumstance at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru: final report.

Canberra: Government of Australia.

2.

Rogers, John.

2015.

Response to question taken on notice by Wilsons security 2nd of June 2015.

Wilsons Security.

Canberra.

3.

Gunn, Tobias.

2015.

Submission 68: Recent Allegations relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru.

Canberra.

4.

Wilsons Security.


2015.

Response to Submission 68.

Canberra.

5.

Paul Farrell, Ben Doherty.

2016.

"Nauru files show Wilson Security staff regularly downgraded reports of abuse."

The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/12/nauru-files-show- wilson-security-staff-regularly-downgraded-reports-of-abuse.
10 Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional ProcessingCentre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing CentreSubmission 51