‘Let the little children come to me’: the Catholic church’s response to the mandatory detention of child asylum seekers Ms Moira Byrne1 Ph.D. Candidate, Political Science, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, The Australian National University Refereed paper presented to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference University of Adelaide 29 September - 1 October 2004

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

The action of the Catholic church, and its political involvement in refugee policy and policymaking is widely acknowledged. In fact, Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone (2004, 81) recently recognised church action in this issue, when she asserted that written work such as Robert Manne’s Quarterly Essay on ‘Refugees and the New Politics of Indifference’ (2004), was ‘popular within a small but articulate section of the Australian community’, and listed church leaders first in this category. While using the term ‘church’ as universally applying to all Christian churches, this paper is primarily concerned with the Catholic Church.2 Its political action in relation to children in immigration detention centres is significant and multifarious. While the church’s motivation to ensure the wellbeing of children in detention as opposed to those in the care of its institutions would be an interesting digression, my aim in this paper is to detail the church’s activity in the polity. This paper forms part of my broader work towards a Ph.D., which examines the Catholic Church’s political involvement in refugee policy and policymaking, and therefore some associated issues arising from the central theme of this paper will be pursued within that thesis. Throughout this paper, I will use examples to illustrate how the church has responded to detainees’ identified needs with practical support and ministry; registered protest at perceived injustice; informally represented detainees’ interests by speaking in solidarity with them; possibly influenced voter choice; and formally represented detainees’ interests through fora such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) inquiry. It possibly mobilised people into pressure group style activity; contributed to public opinion in gaining more sympathy for detainees; backed escaped child detainees as they sought asylum; distributed information through social justice publications and groups; took care of previously detained children in the absence of their parents; and participated in public debate at large. Lobbying of politicians and policymakers by the church, already a function widely acknowledged by political scientists, is excluded from this particular paper due to its complexity. The matter of who, what, and who speaks for the church, will also be briefly flagged. While a plethora of Catholic church groups work with and campaign for refugees, the focus of this paper is the actions of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference (ACBC), the highest decision-making body of the Catholic Church in Australia and its members (the bishops themselves). A secondary focus will be the ACBC’s established Committees and their agencies, in particular its social justice agency, the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council (ACSJC). Refer to Appendix I for an illustration of the church organisation. On a practical level, church agencies were probably the largest contributors amongst the many voluntary charitable agencies providing significant assistance to refugee and 2

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

humanitarian immigrants in the 1990s, and perhaps remain so today (Jupp 1994, 50). The current role of the Catholic church and other churches in their ministry to refugees is widely recognised, as several recent key books on refugees have noted (for example, McCallum 2002, 36; Mares 2001, 40-1,92-3). In fact, Mares (2001,93) affirmed that ‘[t]ime and again it is churchgoers and clergy who step in to provide support to asylum seekers and refugees – whether it is through pastoral visits to detention centres, or advocacy, accommodation services or tins of food.’ The sections below outline the various components of the church’s political activity. Recognition of injustice - early protest against the policy of mandatory detention Beyond their sustained practical assistance to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, the church is a continuing voice of compassion to displaced persons and the policy issues surrounding them. It is this area in which the ACBC take a leading role. When the Labor Government introduced mandatory detention in 1992 (the legislation passing with bipartisan support), the Catholic Church voiced its concern. A media release from the ACBC in Refugee Week the following year (but before the legislation came into effect in 1994), was entitled, ‘Don’t close our doors to asylum seekers’. The release contended While there are strong arguments for short-term detention for undocumented arrivals, long-term detention continues to be abhorrent and an international embarrassment. (ACBC 1993, 245-6).

As questions began to be asked about Australia’s policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers, community concern resulted in an inquiry into detention centre conditions by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, which delivered its report in early 1994. The Committee received over one hundred submissions, over 85 per cent of which requested alternatives to the current policy. McMaster noted the Australian Council of Churches among them (2002, 86, 208-9). Yet in addition another 23 submissions from churches and church agencies (accounting for more than 20 per cent of submissions) were received, and of these, 14 were from Catholic agencies. Yet another four appear to be from Catholic nuns (Parliament of Australia 1994, 217-22). McMaster also noted that after the Government received some flak for passing legislation limiting compensation for some illegally detained refugees, the Government blamed ‘the immigration club’ for delaying refugee processing and thereby increasing detention periods. This ‘immigration club’ was considered to be advocates of refugees including the ‘Refugee Council, church groups and human rights lawyers’ (McMaster 2002, 87). While the issue of mandatory detention of asylum seekers simmered away in the background for a number of years (gaining media attention only when detainees 3

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

protested), the church continued to speak periodically. For example, in May 1999 the Bishop’s Committee for Family and for Life issued a statement pertaining to the handling of pregnant refugees, after an episode where a woman, heavily pregnant with her second child, was sent back to China with its strict one-child policy. The statement asked, …why [is] a woman who [was] detained in Australia as a refugee for nearly three years…sent back to China only weeks before her baby was due to be born? … The disregard shown to this poor mother cannot go unnoticed. We, as a nation and as individuals, have responsibilities not just under human rights but as human beings to ensure this atrocity does not happen again. (ACBC 1999).

Although the Coalition won government in 1996, the first few years of its administration were reasonably quiet on the issue of asylum seekers. With the Wik native title decision and the GST gaining a high media profile, the issue of boat people and detainees were mainly the concern of Department of Immigration employees, and groups concerned with human rights. The issue of asylum seekers gained a higher mainstream media profile in the last five years. The subsequent reasons for this change will be examined later in this paper, but first was the 1999 announcement of amendments to the Migration Act, as solution to ‘an unprecedented number of unauthorised arrivals in Australia’ in the 1999-2000 financial year (Parliament of Australia 2001b, 12). Until 1999, unlawfully arriving persons meeting the definition of a refugee could receive a Permanent Protection Visa. However, the new legislation enshrined only a Temporary Protection Visa, valid for three years, without the right to leave and re-enter Australia, and without the ability to sponsor family members to Australia. The new legislation also introduced identification and authentication procedures for asylum seekers. In addition, the Border Protection legislation amendments of 1999 gave the Department of Immigration and the Australian Customs Service increased powers to board and detain boats suspected of participating in people smuggling (Parliament of Australia 2001b, 10). The second impetus was the announcement of two ‘new’ detention centres ‘in response to the surge in unauthorised arrivals in the latter half of 1999’. The recommissioned Curtin RAAF base near Derby in Western Australia, and construction at Woomera based on existing infrastructure, served to increase Australia’s capacity for detainees, ‘while also providing flexibility’ (Parliament of Australia 2001b, 12). While the changes to legislation brought commentary from so-called ‘elites’ within broadsheet newspapers, mass media coverage of asylum seekers only began with complaints that the new, temporary immigration detention centre being established at Woomera in 1999-2000 would not be suitable accommodation for detainees. In fact, clergy raised this issue. Churches acted in relation to detention centre conditions at Woomera, and those within it. The local Catholic and Uniting Church clerics 4

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

appeared on television, voicing concern about the lack of air-conditioning in the barracks, which were otherwise unequipped to combat the stern summer temperatures of the region. The public response to these concerns was unsympathetic, but the clerics continued to raise awareness of conditions, and after the centre opened, visited and ministered to detainees. As time passed, they were less concerned about the physical conditions of the centre and more anxious about the mental and spiritual health of its occupants. This was partly addressed by the clergy’s hosting fortnightly worship services for non-Muslim detainees, with songs, a reading and a homily, focusing on the Judeo-Christian themes of prison, exile and refuge (Mares 2001, 40-1). With disturbing allegations regarding conditions within detention centres, particularly or children, came a renewed emphasis on the issue. In late 2000, parliament established a committee to examine and report on conditions within detention centres.3 However, riots at the Port Headland centre in January 2001 did not advance the cause of detained asylum seekers, in terms of public opinion and those of politicians and policymakers. The Minister for Immigration subsequently announced legislation providing greater powers to search detainees and visitors to detention centres, including increased punishments for escape, new offences relating to home-made weapons, searches (including strip searches) for weapons, and ‘tougher security scrutiny’ (including searches) of detainees’ visitors (Parliament of Australia 2001b, 10-11). Informal representation of interests – speaking in solidarity Pressure groups identification with a minority group or issue inspires their action. Various detainee advocates became particularly concerned about a plan to administer anti-depressants and other forms of ‘chemical restraint’ to asylum seekers in detention centres. Catholic agency leaders featured prominently in media coverage of the proposal (Australian 24/1/01, 5). With contemporaneous reports of detainees at Woomera hunger striking, Bishop Eugene Hurley, of the Port Pirie diocese (in which Woomera detention centre was situated), described them as ‘deeply traumatised and dislocated’ and urged the federal government to hear the asylum seekers’ cries for help and reconsider the policy of detention (Ransom 2002). Meanwhile federal government members participated in the parliament’s own investigations into detention centres. In June 2001 the Parliament of Australia published A Report on Visits to Immigration Detention Centres. The report included a number of recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, to improve conditions for detainees. This included some specifically directed at children. Recommendation 2 advised the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) to negotiate with State and Territory governments and non-government schools so school age children in detention centres could access an 5

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

education at nearby schools (Parliament of Australia 2001b, 68-9). In addition, Recommendation 9 supported ‘the proposed trial of facilities for women and children in towns, with access to nearby detention centres’ (Parliament of Australia 2001b, 84). Despite these recommendations, it was nearly 18 months later when finally some children were released to attend a local primary school. Interestingly, the role of churches and religious groups in the issue of detention was formally recognised by the government, with the report drawing attention to the weekly Catholic service in the Villawood centre, and Recommendation 14 suggesting ‘appropriate community organisations, including religious and welfare groups, be given greater access to the detention centres after detainees have met initial processing requirements’ (Parliament of Australia 2001b, 57,87). In addition, the report recognised Spartan conditions within the detention centres, and acknowledged medical and psychological concerns, especially relating to some children; in fact, the report stated that ‘most Committee members were shocked by what they saw during their visits to the [detention centres]’ (Parliament of Australia 2001b, 65). However, Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock rejected the key recommendations of the report. In fact, Ruddock went so far as to describe some recommendations as ‘extraordinarily naïve’, despite five of the twelve sub-committee members being Liberal Party MPs. The report was released in June 2001, along with the Minister’s response. Although Ruddock rejected the report’s recommendations, the report effectively confirmed the allegations against the practices of the detention centre, and validated the concerns of catholic welfare agency Centacare (Cathnews 22/6/2001). The same month, the ACSJC compared elements of Australia’s immigration detention regime with torture. Describing certain detention procedures (such as waking detainees and prohibiting detainees from contact with their families), the ACSJC noted that ‘[i]n torture the victim is treated as something less than human’. Disputing the designation of detainees as ‘illegals’, the ACSJC drew attention to their ability under international humanitarian law to seek asylum (Cathnews 27/6/2001). As foreshadowed earlier, the churches’ concerns included the physical and psychological damage to detainees from detention. Considerable evidence to support such concern is already detailed in various academic papers and acknowledged in mainstream media and publications (for example, Mares, 2001; McCallum, 2002; McMaster, 2002; Manne, 2004). Even by the parliament’s own report (Parliament of Australia 2001b, 69,85,100-2) this issue was acknowledged, considering the recommendations. Nevertheless, reports of conditions within detention centres were compounded by the apathetic attitude displayed by key players in the government. A case in point is that of Shayan Badraie, a child detained at Villawood detention centre.

6

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

In August 2001, the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Four Corners current affairs program reported on conditions within Villawood, and the effect of the conditions on one of the detainee children. Shayan, a troubled 6-year-old boy, suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder following his escape from Iran and the self-harming and suicidal behaviour he witnessed while in detention. Robert Manne, academic and newspaper columnist, followed up the report in the print media, ensuring Shayan shortly became front-page news (SMH 13/8/2001, 1). The six-year-old’s poor physical and emotional well-being was the product of his ceasing to eat and drink ‘after seeing blood pour from the wrists of a detainee who tried to commit suicide … he has not spoken and remains in a near-catatonic state, severely depressed and withdrawn [since then]’ (NCCA 2001b). Phillip Ruddock, as a guest on the ABC’s 7:30 report, attributed Shayan’s disturbed and listless behaviour to his being a stepchild, and took issue with Four Corners for imprecise usage of the term ‘refugee’. Fortunately, the Four Corners program showing how this child was traumatised by detention provided the impetus for Shayan being fostered out. Despite increased press coverage following the case of Shayan, disquiet regarding detention centre conditions and particularly those of children remained the stuff of refugee advocates, societal ‘elites’, and ‘bleeding hearts’. The National Council of Churches in Australia (NCCA) issued a media release declaring that they would be offering prayers for Shayan on Refugee Sunday in August 2001, and noted the ‘outpouring of emotion from the Australian public’ over Shayan’s case. Father John Murphy of the Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office (ACMRO) summed up the NCCA’s position by saying ‘The churches have long argued for the release of children and their parents from detention. Shayan’s case highlights why’ (NCCA 2001b). Yet the general public appeared indifferent to the policy of mandatory detention. From the end of 2000 up until the middle of 2001 there appear to be no polls published in any of the mainstream press. However, the SBS current affairs telecast, Insight, on 28th June 2001, suggested the reason that both the Labor and the Coalition maintained their policy position on the issue of detention, was because they both reflected prevailing community opinion in their approach to the issue. Indeed, later that year the government still appeared unmoved by the plight of children within detention centres. Another case in point included that of a child alleged to have been sexually abused. Following reports of this occurrence, the Immigration Minister dismissed the allegations as ‘hearsay’. A subsequent ministerial investigation vindicated the complainant, and demonstrated that the original complaint was mishandled (Parliament of Australia 2001a).

7

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

But by that stage the general issue of asylum seekers began to gain prominence after the first of three key incidents in late 2001. The Tampa incident of late August crystallised general public sentiment regarding refugees and asylum seekers. ACMRO released a statement in the midst of the drama. Entitled, ‘A statement from the Bishops’ Committee for Migrants and Refugees on the plight of asylum seekers on the Tampa’, the statement expressed ‘great distress’ that the ship was refused entry to Australia, and asked the Australian government ‘to reconsider whether the lives of people, particularly those fleeing persecution, should be put at risk in order to send a message of deterrence to future asylum seekers’. Recognising ‘many Australians who have expressed their views are in favour of the decision to refuse entry to the Tampa’, ACMRO chairman Bishop Dougherty reminded Australians ‘that many of those on board were almost certainly fleeing persecution and seeking Australia's protection’, and appealed to the government to accept more refugees. The Government’s responded throughout the saga by labelling the asylum seekers as ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘queue jumpers’ who were not waiting with other ‘real’ refugees in camps across the globe. There was ‘no way’ the government would allow any asylum seekers on the Tampa to reach the Australian mainland. Humanity dictated action; the people existed in terrible conditions, hungry and sick. While the Australian government responded with food and medical attention, the situation was untenable. The Bishops released a second statement two days after the first, headlined ‘Tampa's innocent pawns in a messy game’. ACBC president, Archbishop Francis Carroll, reiterated Bishop Dougherty’s previous call to the Australian Government ‘to rethink its current response to the refugee crisis involving the Tampa in waters off the North West Coast of Australia … Australia should not be treating people seeking asylum in our country in this manner’. Noting opinion polls indicated most Australians favoured the government’s decision to refuse entry to the Tampa, Carroll expressed sadness and encouraged ‘all Australians to adopt the simple principle of placing the shoe on the other foot’. The so-called ‘Pacific Solution’, negotiated with the government of Nauru, was the Coalition’s response to an unsustainable situation. Confronted with the possibility of ‘losing face’ if it let the asylum seekers into mainland Australia, as well as looking ‘soft’ on ‘illegal’ ‘queue jumpers’, the government committed to the expensive settlement on the Pacific island state. This was negotiated despite Australia’s international obligations to allow the people ashore to be processed. As noted in ACMRO’s media release, public opinion at the time strongly supported the Government’s position. Certainly by September, a Bulletin-Morgan poll found that ‘Howard’s tough stand on illegal immigrants has paid dividends for the Federal Government in terms of support’ (RoyMorgan.com 2001). 8

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

Shortly thereafter the second key event occurred which also kept the asylum seekers in the limelight, the ‘Children Overboard’ scandal (officially referred to as ‘A Certain Maritime Incident’). In early October 2001, just after the November 10 election was announced, an unseaworthy vessel faltered. A child was ‘held in the air’ (in reality, this was a misinterpretation of the child being passed to a rescue boat) and so began Peter Reith’s allegations that boat people were ‘throwing their children overboard’. While the general public appeared unconvinced, the matter kept the issue of ‘border protection’ visible during the election campaign. The third event was the SIEV X tragedy. In late October 2001, a total of 353 men, women and children aboard another defective vessel drowned after the sinking of their boat (later named SIEV X). It was not clear whether the Australian government did its utmost in attempting their rescue. Again, the tragedy did not harm the Coalition’s approval ratings. Influencing voter choice – the 2001 federal election Political scientists have long acknowledged the ‘electioneering’ role of churches. In the past, the Catholic church appeared to influence voter choice amongst their congregations. In the early part of last century one bishop, alarmed at the socialist aspect of Labor, labelled it ‘irreligious’ and encouraged Catholics to vote Liberal (Thompson 1994, 38,105). More famously, during the Labor ‘split’ of the 1950s, Bishop Arthur Fox in Melbourne said it was a ‘mortal sin’ to vote Labor while they negotiated with Communists, as clergy elsewhere largely maintained Catholics could vote as they pleased, or even encouraged Catholics to persist with and influence the traditional labour movement (O’Farrell 1977, 401-3; Hogan 1987, p.249; Campion 1982, p.115; Stokes 1983, 137; Henderson 1986, 218,224). Arguably, the release of a position paper on the ‘Moral Reference Points for Tax Reform’ by the ACBC in July 1998 could be seen as a form of electioneering, despite their stated interest as being ‘essentially linked to issues of morality and justice, rather than any party political agenda...’ (ACBC 1998). During the 2001 federal election campaign, it is not evident that churches overtly attempted to alter their congregations’ voting choice. One possible explanation for this is that neither the Coalition nor the Labor party held a particularly compassionate stance with regard to the issue of detention or asylum seekers in general. However, an ‘Election Special’ pamphlet released by Catholic Welfare Australia and the ACSJC discussed the issue of asylum seekers in Australia, as second of five ‘crucial social issues for Australia’s political parties’, and encouraged an humanitarian approach. (CWA & ACSJC 2001, 2).

9

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

In any case, the Coalition won convincingly in the November 2001 election. Although various people, including commentators and lobby groups, questioned the veracity of the government’s claims that boat people threw their children overboard, a strategically released (and very incoherent) videotape was broadcast shortly before the November 10 poll. Marr & Wilkinson (2003, 255) contend that while it contained no evidence of the claims (indeed, it was recorded the day after the alleged incident), it was the government’s way of shifting public attention from the doubts raised; the government ‘had only to hold the line for another three days until the election’. Interestingly, journalist Mungo McCallum (2002, 67) observed that since the November 2001 election, ‘public opposition [to government asylum seeker policy became] far better organised. The churches were taking a stronger role, and a numbers of prominent Australians were speaking out’. Formal representation of interests – HREOC inquiry Formal representation to government is a hallmark of any pressure group. Shortly after the election, churches and other sympathetic groups again turned their focus to detention centres and the children within them. In 2001, almost 600 children aged between eight and 18 were held in Australia’s immigration detention centres. Of these, almost 10 per cent arrived as unaccompanied minors, without parents or a legal guardian, with most from Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, according to figures from both HREOC and DIMIA. As concern grew that detainee children were mentally and physically ailing, particularly in light of the year’s revelations, in November 2001 HREOC (2001) announced an inquiry into the treatment of children in detention centres. HREOC stated the Inquiry would examine whether Australia was breaching its international obligations to the UN Convention on the Rights of the child by detaining children, how detention affects their mental health and long-term development, the adequacy of detention conditions, including education, culture and security practices and alternatives to detention, and an assessment of the Woomera trial of community based detention of women and children. A spokesperson for Immigration Minister said at the time: ‘We are not happy with children in detention but we are not the ones that have brought them here to Australia’ (Age 28/11/01, 1,4). Following the announcement of the HREOC inquiry, Prime Minister Howard reiterated the Government’s ‘hard-line stance’ on asylum seekers, even going so far as to say ‘I want to make it plain that we’re not going to alter our policy in relation to mandatory detention’ of asylum seekers, regardless of any recommendations from the HREOC. When Howard’s attention was drawn to the 600 children in immigration detention 10

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

centres, he concurred with Ruddock’s view that unaccompanied minors were sent to Australia to scam the Government into agreeing to family reunion migrations (SMH 30/11/01, 13). This contrasted with the Labor Party’s response. Following the 2001 Federal election, criticism of Labor’s policy on asylum seekers was rife. Many within the ALP blamed Labor’s electoral defeat on the party’s acquiescence to bipartisan policy. Yet on the same day Howard affirmed his party’s position on asylum seekers, in November 2001, Labor Senator Barney Cooney gave the first public indication of a change to Labor’s bipartisan stance on the issue. He pleaded with the government to change its current policy, saying ‘[t]he incarceration of innocent children, no matter what conditions they are kept in, is abominable … Keeping children in confinement discounts decency’ (SMH 20/11/2001, 13). Such a view reflected precisely the view of most contributors to the HREOC inquiry. The church actively contributed to the report. Of the 43 key submissions received that addressed multiple issues, 18 were from church organisations, and 13 of these from Catholic church organisations. In addition, Catholic organisations provided three other submissions, one of each addressing legal issues, psychological issues and educational issues. Furthermore, some church organisations (particularly Catholic ones) featured in the public hearings held in capital cities around the country the following year. Encouragement of social justice values – pressure group potential? Persuading others to espouse certain values and act on them indicates a latent ability to mobilise people into pressure group activity. A pre-Christmas message in December 2001 from Australia’s senior bishop, Archbishop Francis Carroll, referred to the November election and the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. In part, the statement said that ‘Australians need to do some soul-searching in light of the recent Federal poll and such prominent election issues as the treatment of refugees and asylum-seekers … We have prided ourselves on being a generous and compassionate people … Recent statements and events, particularly in regard to asylum-seekers and refugees, have shattered much of that reputation. Perhaps they should also shake our conviction about ourselves.’ As if in reply to John Howard’s election statement that “We will decide who comes into this country …”, Carroll suggested that although Australia had a right to control the number of people who came into Australia and the way in which they came, very few rights were absolute, and ‘the rights of others, especially with basic human needs, must also be recognised.’ But as Moira Rayner (2001) observed, it is much less usual for political leaders and administrators in Australia to talk in terms of human rights.

11

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

The statement also appeared to take issue with the sense of public uncertainty that prevailed after the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11 2001, and the government’s association of terrorists with asylum seekers. In addition, it addressed the political semantics of describing asylum seekers as ‘illegals’ or ‘queue jumpers’. Narrow self-interest and a spirit of fear provide a poor environment for objective discussion, much less a compassionate response. Negative language about illegal migrants and queue jumpers could hide the reality of legitimate and desperate asylum-seekers. Subtle overtones of racism and cultural deficiency can further colour the conversation … we must have the generosity to look beyond self-interest, and the compassion to recognise real people in desperate need. (CV 12/2001).

It is not clear what effect affirming Catholic teaching on social justice values has, in terms of stirring members of its church to action. Measuring such an effect is thorny and complicated, as is judging any results where secular bodies have also made a contribution. However the potential lies for this to occur, as Catholic groups have a history of mobilising their congregations into pressure group style activity, most famously demonstrated by the Goulburn school strike of 1962 (Hughes 1978; Campion 1987, 171-3). Church contribution to public opinion – and the problem of measurement Public opinion can be influenced by the action of interest groups. Following evacuations of children from the Woomera detention centres after some asylum seekers protests of sewing their lips together and hunger striking (TWA 26-7/1/2002, 3,8), Howard maintained the Government’s detention policy was the right approach. He upheld the view that any backdown in the face of protests by detainees would damage the message of deterrence to boat people, which he ‘believed’ was working. But notably, the Weekend Australian (26-7/1/2002, 3) reported [Mr Howard] rejected an offer from welfare organisations, including the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Centacare and St Vincent de Paul, to provide housing and other support if asylum seekers were released from Woomera. That would only encourage more people to come from overseas, he said.

Catholic cleric Fr Frank Brennan subsequently attracted mainstream media coverage when he described Australia’s detention policy as ‘morally reprehensible’. He said It will not be long before protected detention of children in the heated isolation of Woomera will be seen as a moral obscenity. Members of [the legal] profession must be heard in the public forum when political conflicts relate to the liberty, dignity and rights of the person against the power of the state. (Age 4/2/2002; Cathnews 5/2/2002).

In fact, there were indications public opinion was beginning to change. Campaigns supporting asylum seekers (especially children) continued to gain momentum, and by February 2002 a Newspoll indicated that while most Australians favoured mandatory detention, support for the policy dropped markedly.4

12

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

Despite the church’s consistent and pervasive public statements addressing refugee issues, measuring any results of their efforts is at best, thorny. Because numbers of other human rights groups, refugee advocates, concerned professionals and others speak on the issue, isolation of the contribution of one group to public opinion is problematic. Many groups that are not church sponsored may be influenced by church commentary, or may employ people whose personal beliefs are influenced by the church. The expertise of church groups working with refugees enables them to draw attention to key points and underlying and associated matters, and speak with knowledge and authority on the issues faced by refugees. As a result, my focus for further study is on the contribution the institutional church makes to the Catholic opinion – however, measurement of this aspect only is also fraught with difficulty, as churchgoers also often listen to a variety of media and commentary. A major triumph for church organisations and other supporters of a more compassionate approach to asylum seeker policy was the softening of Labor party policy on the issue. (The effect of church organisations directly lobbying the ALP, and the influence of Catholics within the party will be explored in my broader study). However, in January 2002, then-Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, announced a shift in Labor Party policy, imploring the Government to release children held in detention centres, into the community. [I]t is just plain wrong to hold innocent children behind razor wire … Children should be out in the community where they can live normal lives, get an education and be protected from some of the horrors too many of them have witnessed.

For many refugee advocates however, this was only the first step. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees urged for asylum seekers to be released from detention centres, without specifying children in particular. (TWA 26-7/1/2002, 3). The Catholic Church, while emphasising children, eagerly sought a change of policy for all detainees. In March, the ACBC published a statement about Refugees and Asylum Seekers, as a supplement to their July 2001 statement (such statements are distributed to parishes and freely available from displays). The March 2002 paper affirmed the Australian government’s cooperation with other countries and refugee agencies, but implied that the emphasis on people smuggling was taking precedence over the issue of why people fled their homelands. Moreover, the statement drew attention to the response of nations to asylum seekers, reminding the Australian government and its people of the obligations of Australia to accept refugees: ‘Australia can and must give a lead and have a new sense of urgency in seeking international solutions, not only to combat people smuggling, but also to find settlement for suffering people.’

13

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

Framed positively, the statement appealed to the ‘tradition of compassion which has characterised Australia’, mentioned the hope that a positive response to such people brings, and affirmed the human dignity of displaced people. The bishops also noted that they ‘have frequently applauded Australian Governments for opening the shores of this rich continent to give protection to refugees: they have always encouraged Governments to be as generous and humane as possible’ (ACBC 2001a, 3-4). Nonetheless, the statement reiterated the numbers involved in ‘the present world refugee crisis’, and noted the fiction of ‘queues’ employed by the present Government in its border-tightening response. The bishops warned governments not to 'always be driven by public opinion’ (ACBC 2001a, 4-5). Calling for ‘greater generosity in Australia’s refugee program’, the bishops countered arguments put forth by major political parties that Australia could not afford to increase the current quota (ACBC 2001a, 6). While they urged more humane treatment of asylum seekers, and argued against detention, the bishops noted detention was ‘deeply destructive of human dignity’, particularly for children. Expressing disapproval and concern at the Government’s changes to bureaucratic processes that further restricted permanent resettlement of refugees, the bishops also warned that ‘xenophobic feelings…[should not] be exploited for political advantage’ (ACBC 2001a, 7-8). The bishops concluded their statement by drawing attention to the efforts of the Catholic Church in the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. They noted some of the various organisations and levels of involvement of the church: at state and national level, dioceses and parishes, through offices, religious institutes and church organisations. The church’s participation ranged from intervention at the policy and advocacy levels to providing refugees, asylum seekers and those who have been granted Temporary Protection Visas, with advise and assistance with housing, employment, clothing, friendship, support and pastoral care. (ACBC 2001a, 8).

Advocacy – the Bakhtiyari brothers In its traditional sense, advocacy is ‘standing in the place of another’, arguing on their behalf. Pressure groups often exhibit this function, and the church regularly demonstrates this, whether pastorally or politically. Arguably attention was most focused on detained children after the escape of two children in July 2002 from Woomera detention centre. Aided by asylum seeker sympathisers, the pair were hidden for three weeks, and in a dramatic turn, the children, Alamdar and Montazer Bakhtyiari, were escorted to the British Consulate in Melbourne 14

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

and sought asylum there, after reporting mistreatment by detention centre guards, an allegation denied by then-Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock. Following reports of the boys’ escape and appeal for asylum, a joint statement released by leaders within three Australian Capital Territory churches, including a Catholic bishop, argued The plight of the two young boys … once more [highlights] the obscenity of children being kept in custody in what are universally described as extreme conditions. Whether the boys are Afghanis or Pakistanis, whether they are refugees or illegal immigrants is irrelevant. They are children. They are children. They are children. In a scale of moral priorities there can hardly be a higher priority than the protection of children. Why would a country wish to protect its borders, if it is manifestly obvious that it cannot protect children within those borders? (Browning, Power & Lorenzen 2002).

Prohibited from seeing their father, the boys returned straight to Woomera. The opposition loudly criticised this action; then-Labor leader Simon Crean stated “there is no place for children behind razor wire”, while Mark Latham asked whether it really would have “hurt Ruddock to allow the father to see those kids for an hour … instead of whisking them away on a charter plane?” ACTU president Sharan Burrow argued Australia was “at risk of losing its humanity when we lock up children and their families who are simply seeking asylum from what they consider to be desperate lives” (SMH 22/7/2002, 6). It was later revealed that a Catholic nun played a pivotal role for the escaped boys. A prominent Brigidine sister, Sr Brigid Arthur, took the children into the British Consulate to claim asylum, but did not reveal those who placed the boys in her charge. The order maintained they knew nothing of the boys’ time on the run, and confirmed they do not assist escapees; their primary action for assisting asylum seekers was running a project for those released into the community on bridging visas (Cathnews 22/7/2002). Implied support for the sister came in the form of a statement from the Sisters of St Joseph (the ‘Josephite’ order), a few days after this revelation. The statement highlighted their 136 years of caring for children in need, and urging the immediate release of detained children into the community. Sr Joan Healey of the National Joseph Justice Network declared that detaining children is a moral issue ‘upon which our generation will rightly be judged’. She also argued that ‘a detention centre behind razor wire is no place to nurture a child … [early childhood trauma] has repercussions for the whole of life’ (Cathnews 13/10/2002). In addition to the advocacy role demonstrated by Sr Brigid Arthur in relation to the Bakhtiyari boys, the wider church also operated as advocates for other detained children. In 2002, the Bishop Hurley lobbied the government to allow children at the 15

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

Woomera detention centre to attend primary school at St Barbara’s, the local Catholic Parish school at Roxby Downs in South Australia’s north. In November, the government permitted this arrangement on a two-day a week trial basis (Cathnews 22/11/2002). Information distribution – social justice publications Publications are a tool employed by many interest groups to convey their message. In early 2002 the ACSJC published another booklet in its Catholic Social Justice Series. With the title, ‘The Call to Hospitality: Catholic Teaching on Refugees’, Sandie Cornish (National Executive Officer of the ACSJC) provided a timely analysis of catholic social justice teaching in relation to the issue. While the Catholic Social Justice Series is aimed at a more educated reading audience, this document still fits with the role of information provision. As ACSJC Chairman, Bishop William Morris, acknowledged in the Foreword (2002, 4), the paper is a valuable resource for those engaged in work on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers and for the thoughtful Catholic who is seeking the foundation of Church teaching on this divisive issue.

In addition, the ACSJC prepares resources for use in church discussion groups and liturgies, such as the Lenten discussion group booklet ‘Give Me Shelter’ (2002) which reflected on the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. The Social Justice Sunday pack ‘Subverting Racism 2003’ also included reflections on asylum seekers, buttressing the ACBC’s Social Justice Statement, which focused on racism and addressed the treatment of indigenous people, asylum seekers and the issue of race hatred. While the ACSJC is prolific in its statements and publications, there are several other bishops’ committees and agencies that similarly contribute. ACMRO published numbers of articles about asylum seekers and detention, a number of which have been referenced by mainstream secular organisations. Other Catholic organisations such as the Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace or CCJDP (whose article on ‘Improving outcomes and reducing costs for asylum seekers’ was published on Australian Policy Online), and the Edmund Rice Centre (whose ‘Debunking the Myths about Asylum Seekers’ fact sheets are ubiquitous) also made significant contributions to information disbursement. Caretaking - Centacare responsibility for children Catholic agency Centacare performed a pastoral rather than political role when it took responsibility for some detainee children. Public opinion was already changing with regard to children in detention – but the government appeared more concerned with legalities. In June 2003, the Family Court ruled it unlawful for the Federal Government 16

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

to indefinitely detain children over immigration issues, as it breached the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In drawing attention to the Minister’s ability to assign detainees into substitute forms of detention, a spokesperson for the diocese-based CCJDP, Mr Matt Purcell encouraged the Government to use the powers within in its own regulations to ‘not prolong the suffering of kids in detention’ and instead find custody in hospitals, hostels, community care and foster care (Age 19/6/2003; Daily Telegraph 20/6/2003, 11). In early August 2003, a Family Court justice ruled that a case existed that the detention of five children was unlawful. The five children, all siblings aged between five and 14, were from Woomera and Baxter detention centres. Denied refugee status, they were assigned to be deported. Referring to the earlier finding that detaining children was unlawful, the Immigration Minister stated his belief that the Family Court’s review of the legality of detaining children was flawed, and argued that ‘this is not an order for Family Court determination and the court is acting in excess of (its) power’ (Age 1/8/2003). However, at a hearing the following week, the same justice, Justice Steven Strickland, denied the children’s release, and criticised the ‘rush’ to have the children discharged. The basis for his decision was that he was ‘not satisfied that it’s in the best interest of the children’ to release them (Age 5/8/2003). On the 25th August, the Family Court in Melbourne ordered the release of the five children from their detentions, where they had been held since January 2001. Described by the children’s counsel as ‘a landmark decision’, it was the first time asylum seekers were released from detention without a visa. Centacare was ordered to care for the children. South Australian Centacare Director Dale West commented that the decision ‘vindicates [the] belief that the children’s needs will be better met by the church than in a detention centre’, and noted the ‘cumulative effect on those children of the trauma they’ve experience in detention has been a massive one …[and now Centacare faces] the challenge of working with those children to … settle into the community (ABC 25/8/2003). The effects of trauma on children were widely reported in both mainstream and religious media; many children in detention experienced bedwetting, nightmares, aggression, regression and other symptoms of anxiety. Centacare’s involvement was absolute, with West even driving to Port August in a rented van to collect the family (Age 25/8/2003). After the children were released into Centacare’s charge they were initially taken to a ‘church house’ in the Adelaide suburbs. Centacare arranged the provision of ‘safe accommodation’ and professional services including medical, psychological and social services for the children. Bishop Joseph Grech, Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Migrants and Refugees, confirmed that ‘Respect for their [own] religious faith will be an important part of [their] care’ (ABC 25/8/2003; Cathnews 26/8/2003). 17

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

Participation in public debate – critique of government policy Churches have long criticised government policy, and the Catholic bishops continued their critique of government policy beyond those of the released children. Bishop Hurley stated that ‘Children shouldn’t be in detention and neither should their parents. Families should be held in an alternative detention model in the community while claims are being processed’ (Cathnews 26/8/2003). On that note, counsel for the children Mr Jeremy Moore observed that the children’s release put pressure on the Government to release other children in detention. He asked the Government ‘to act upon this decision and release children without awaiting judicial orders’ (Age, 25/8/03). A report released by various welfare agencies in Victoria, including the CCJDP, backed these views. The report noted that alternative models would not only be beneficial to the psychological wellbeing of detainees, but could also save money (Cathnews 26/8/2003). When the Federal Government took the matter to the High Court on appeal, there was another outcry from the Church. In October 2003, The Southern Cross Monthly led a page one story quoting Archbishop Philip Wilson that ‘it would be “cruel” and “devastating” to send … [the] children back behind razor wire fences after they have tasted freedom’, and calling for the Federal Government ‘to show compassion (SCM 10/2003, 1).’ In the same paper Monsignor (Mgr) David Cappo, former director of the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission, described Australia’s detention of refugees and asylum seekers as ‘a scandal’. In a homily given during Mass at St Francis Xavier’s Cathedral in Adelaide on Migrant and Refugee Sunday, Mgr Cappo highlighted the need for Catholics to be witnesses to the gospel, and commended church agencies for their work. “[W]e are called to show that we truly welcome the migrants, the refugees and the asylum seekers … I am very proud of the tireless work of some of our church agencies, such as Centacare Catholic Family Services, whose staff have been very vocal advocates for refugees and asylum seekers, particularly [those] who have been locked away at Woomera and now Port Augusta” (Southern Cross Monthly 10/2003, 4). Recent developments Following on from condemnation of the policy of detaining children, in December the Labor party went further, appealing to sympathetic Government Members of Parliament to demand the release of detained children by Christmas. The Sydney Morning Herald reported Opposition immigration spokesperson Nicola Roxon calling on such MPs to support her private member’s bill to release all children being detained without a family member, into foster care. Many had been detained for over two years (SMH 1/12/2003). Mark Latham repeated the message a week or so later, while 18

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

describing Labor’s immigration policy as ‘firmer on border protection with our coast guard strategy but more compassionate with asylum seekers’. He confirmed that Labor would desert the Pacific solution, shift detention centre management back to the public sector and have most asylum seekers processed within three months. ‘Genuine refugees are welcomed into the Australian community and those who aren’t genuine…have to make other arrangements’ (SMH 10/12/2003). In April, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission presented its report, A Last Resort, to Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, and on 13th May it was tabled in the Australian parliament. The Minister for Immigration and the Attorney-General responded with a joint media release, rejecting the major findings and recommendations of the report. Particular note was made that the government also rejected HREOC’s ‘view that Australia’s system of immigration detention is inconsistent with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.’ A media release dated 14th May drew attention to a statement from the ACBC, meeting in Sydney. ‘A Message from the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference – May 2004’ stated that The Australian Catholic Bishops wish to speak for refugees and asylum seekers and ask the Government and all Australians to respond with urgency to their needs. We plead the cause of refugees and asylum seekers again because the Gospel compels us to do so. We remain hopeful that hearts and minds will change so that the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in Australia may be more humane, more respectful of human dignity. The nation’s response should be just, compassionate and consistent with our obligations under International Law and the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees and other Conventions to which Australia is a signatory.

Again, particular note was made of children, as the bishops said It is impossible not to be deeply moved by the plight of children who are detained … We must, as a matter of urgency, find alternatives to detention for unaccompanied minors and for children who accompany their parents. Such alternatives must respect the importance of family unity and family reunion, and ensure that children damaged by detention receive adequately funded care in the community. Church agencies have shown their willingness to help in this … Detaining vulnerable persons such as … children, unaccompanied minors [and others] is morally unacceptable.

Who is, what is, and who speaks for the church? Statements regularly broadcast by the bishops and their commissions, and then prominent lay Catholic commentators’ or Catholic politicians’ remarks appearing at odds with such statements, leads to notions of church and church elites. The questions of ‘who is the church?’, ‘what is the church’ and ‘who speaks for the church?’ are inevitably raised, particularly when the views of so called church elites and those of other churchgoers differ. While prominent Catholics openly support the Government’s current policy (such as Cabinet Minister Tony Abbott, Liberal MP Kevin Andrews and 19

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

newspaper commentator Angela Shanahan), observers may think they espouse the beliefs of the church hierarchy, and some Catholic adherents may even take their cues from these people. Byrne (1998, 83-8) detailed anecdotal evidence (opinion letters in both religious and secular media, and National Church Life Survey results) which indicated that by and large those ‘in the pews’ espouse more conservative views than their church leaders. From a church perspective, the ACBC is the premier Catholic body in Australia. As such, it is the formal ‘voice’ of the Catholic church. The organisations and agencies it supervises and liaises with therefore can be considered as providing an accurate Catholic opinion. From a political science view, it appears the ACBC is only one of a number of Catholic organisations communicating in the polity on the issue of asylum seekers, through its protest, its informal and formal representation of interests, its contribution to public opinion (including possibly influence on voter choice) and its lobbying of politicians and policymakers. While the ACBC and its agencies provide the formal Catholic position on a diversity of issues (including children in detention), the variety of other Catholic voices and political action surrounding on the issue can sometimes cloud the issues, particularly where differing approaches or opinions are evident. The sheer volume of social justice material prepared by the church in terms of both teaching and publications, and the wide dissemination of this material, indicate the church is significant in an information role. Furthermore, the church’s power in commanding a certain degree of media coverage also points to the church as a slightly different participant in refugee politics and policymaking than a regular interest group. However, the effect of all this commentary is extremely difficult to ascertain. As Warhurst (1990, 6-7) noted, there are two converging routes of influence for churches commenting on policy: firstly, there is influence upon members of their own church community, which in turn can affect the government, especially if used as an ‘electoral weapon’, and secondly, there is direct influence upon government and/ or political parties through the whole community, using contacts in government, the media or other avenues of influence. Where these spheres of influence cross over, there is an added complexity – for example, the influence of church commentary upon individual politicians who are members of churches. Another complication to any accurate measurement of the effect of church commentary is the commentary deriving from non-church sources. When the church is the only organisation voicing a particular point of view, it is much simpler to attribute any effects to its commentary. However, with regard to detained children, there are a few other groups arguing from a similar perspective and unless community members restrict their 20

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

reading or listening to one or two sources, it is nearly impossible to separate the influence of particular groups. In any case, assessing the influence of any interest groups can be tricky; Matthews (1997, 284-86) recognised the problems of inferring influence from outcomes, organisational resources, access, decisions or economics. In reviewing the Catholic church’s action in relation to asylum seekers, it appears to operate in a number of different ways to fulfil a variety of tasks. Though churches have often been variably recognised as ‘altruistic pressure groups’ (Crisp 1967, 132-3), voluntary associations of a shared interest that can become pressure groups as issues arise (Davis et.al 1993, 139), and as a type of interest group bridging space between political parties and the electorate (Marsh 1995, 8), I believe their role is wider. Broken down, there are a number of ways in which the church operated in relation the detention of children, though it is acknowledged that many pressure groups also regularly perform many of these roles. While several of these functions fall within a pastoral role and many fall within a political role, there are several that overlap. However, extended analysis of these functions exceeds the scope of this paper and so these will be analysed elsewhere. It is obvious that the Catholic church attempts to influence government policy, which meets a basic criterion of an interest group (Matthews 1997, 270). In his analysis, Matthews (1997, 274) observed a wave of ‘traditionalist’ non-producer groups since the 1980s, perhaps in reaction to emerging social movements, and recognised some church groups within them. However, broad-based, social justice focused church interest groups are not detailed, despite fitting within a discussion of interest group politics (Matthews 1997, 278-83) by attempting to influence the electorate, public opinion and the international arena. The public service, parliament, the courts and political parties are the subject of further study. Similarly, an examination of ways in which the church is distinct from or surpasses the work of ‘regular’ interest groups is the natural corollary of an acknowledged interpretation of the church as an interest group. Conclusion With regard to the question of how the Catholic Church can be categorised as a political participant/player, it is apparent the church can definitely be identified as a ‘type’ of interest group. Voicing protest, raising awareness, distributing information, contributing to public opinion (perhaps especially of its parishioners), and the informal and formal representation of detainees’ interests all demonstrate interest group or pressure group style behaviour. Moreover, significant contributions to government inquiries by various church bodies, probably surpassing by any other interest group, also demonstrates a 21

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

level of involvement and commitment in the polity to address the needs of children in detention. This is particularly highlighted by the custodial role assumed by a Catholic nun who supported escaped children in seeking asylum from the British High Commission, and that of Centacare who took care of five released detainee children. The possible sway of the church on voter choice (the so-called ‘Catholic vote’), and its inspiration (and encouragement) to social justice action also indicates a latent ability to mobilise people into pressure group style activity, a fascinating subject for further study. The church’s lobbying action, particularly in approaching politicians and policymakers. It is these final two elements that will ultimately dictate what type of political player and interest group the Catholic church is in today’s political arena.

ENDNOTES Disclaimer: At the time of presenting this paper, Moira Byrne was employed part-time by the Commonwealth Department of Treasury. This paper reflects her personal views and not those of her employer. Acknowledgements: The author thanks her supervisor, Professor John Warhurst, and the three anonymous referees for their constructive criticism and suggestions for this paper. 2 Therefore from here forth the term ‘Church’ should be interpreted as applying only to the Catholic Church, and its various bodies and agencies, primarily the ones detailed at Appendix I. 3 There are currently six permanent detention centres currently operating in Australia: Villawood (Sydney), New South Wales; Maribyrnong (Melbourne), Victoria; Curtin (Derby), Perth and Port Hedland in Western Australia; and the new facility, Baxter (just outside of Port Augusta) in South Australia, which heralded the closure of the Woomera detention centre near Roxby Downs. Both Woomera and Baxter operated only since the Coalition took office (Woomera in 1999 and Baxter in 2002), and Curtin RAAF base, while used as a detention facility in 1995/96, only opened in its current form as a detention centre in 1999. 4 Support for mandatory detention dropped from 71% prior to the November 10 2001 federal election to a low of 56% in February 2002 (GLW 13/3/2002, 3; Newspoll 2002). 1

22

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

REFERENCES ACBC - Australian Catholic Bishop’s Conference, 1993, Refugee Week: Don’t close our doors to asylum seekers, media release, 24 June 1993, as reproduced in pp.245-6 Australian Catholic Bishop’s Conference, compiled by Mary Newport, Australian Catholic Bishops’ Statements 1985-1995, St Paul’s Publications, Strathfield, 1997 ACBC – Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference, 1998, The Moral Reference Points for Tax Reform, Position Paper, 28/7/1998 ACBC – Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference, 1999, Catholic Bishops' Committee calls on Government to review its current handling of pregnant refugee, 6 May 1999, http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/media/1999/99May6.htm ACBC - Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, 2001a, Refugees and Asylum Seekers – A Statement From the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory ACBC - Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, 2001b, Statement on the Tampa, 29 August 2001 http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/media/2001/2001_august29c.htm, consulted July 2003 Browning, George, Power, Patrick and Lorenzen, Thorwald 2002, Joint Statement by Bishop George Browning, Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, Bishop Pat Power, Auxiliary Catholic Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn and The Reverend Dr Thorwald Lorenzen, Senior Minister Canberra Baptist Church and President of the ACT Council of Churches, 2002 Byrne, Moira, 1998, The Holy Lobby: The Influence of the Churches on Contemporary Australian Politics and Public Policy, unpublished Honours thesis, Flinders University Faculty of Social Sciences, School of Political and International Studies, Adelaide, South Australia Campion, Edmund, 1982, Rockchoppers: Growing Up Catholic in Australia, Penguin Books, Ringwood, Victoria Campion, Edmund, 1987, Australian Catholics, Penguin Books, Ringwood, Victoria Cornish, Sandie, 2002, The Call to Hospitality: Catholic Teaching on Refugees, Catholic Social Justice Series No.44, Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, North Sydney Crisp, L.F. 1967, Australian National Government, Longmans, Croydon, Victoria Crittenden, Ann, 1998, Sanctuary: A Story of American Conscience and the Law in Collision, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, New York Cunningham, Hilary, 1995, God and Caesar at the Rio Grande: Sanctuary and the Politics of Religion, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis CWA & ACSJC – Catholic Welfare Australia and Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, 2001, Election Special: Searching for the Common Good: Federal Election 2001, Leaflet, Catholic Welfare Australia, Curtin, ACT and Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, North Sydney G. Davis, J. Wanna, J. Warhurst and P. Weller, 1993, Public Policy in Australia, 2nd Edition, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards Henderson, Gerard, 1986, ‘The Catholic Church and the Labor Split’, in J. Davidson (ed), The Sydney-Melbourne Book, George Allen & Unwin, North Sydney Hogan, Michael, 1987, The Sectarian Strand: Religion in Australian History, Penguin Books, Ringwood Hogan, Michael, (ed), 1990, Justice Now!: Social Justice Statements of the Australian Catholic Bishops, 1940-1966, Dept. of Government and Public Administration, University of Sydney, Sydney 23

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

HREOC, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2001, National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/, consulted October 2002 Hughes, G.E.F., 1978, ‘Bishops

and Pawns’, pp.35-40 in Quadrant, December, 1978

Jupp, James, 1994, Exile or Refuge?: The Settlement of Refugee, Humanitarian and Displaced Immigrants, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra Jupp, James, and Kabala, Marie (eds), 1993, The Politics of Australian Immigration, Bureau of Immigration Research, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra McCallum, Mungo, 2002, Girt By Sea: Australia, the Refugees and the Politics of Fear, Quarterly Essay Issue 5, Black Inc., Melbourne, 2002 McMaster, Don, 2002, Asylum Seekers: Australia’s Response to Refugees, Reprint with new Preface, Melbourne University Press, Carlton South Manne, Robert, with Corlett, David, 2004, Sending Them Home: Refugees and the New Politics of Indifference, Quarterly Essay Issue 13, Black Inc., Melbourne, 2004 Mares, Peter, 2001, Borderline: Australia’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney, 2001 Marsh, Ian, 1995, Beyond the Two Party System: Political representation, economic competitiveness and Australian politics, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne Matthews, Trevor, 1997, ‘Pressure Groups’, in Smith, Rodney, Politics in Australia, 3rd edition, Allen & Unwin, Sydney NCCA – National Council of Churches Australia 2001a, http://www.ncca.org.au/mediarelease/20010328-cwsrefugees.asp NCCA – National Council of Churches Australia 2001b, http://www.ncca.org.au/mediarelease/20010816-nccarefugeesunday.asp O’Farrell, Patrick, 1977, The Catholic Church and Community in Australia: A History, Nelson, West Melbourne, Australia Palmer, Glen, 1997, Reluctant Refuge: Unaccompanied Refugee and Evacuee Children in Australia 1933-45, Kangaroo Press, Simon & Schuster Australia, East Roseville, NSW, 1997 Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1994, Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Asylum, Border Control and Detention, Parliament of Australia, February 1994 Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2001a, Flood, P., Report into Immigration Detention Procedures, Parliament of Australia, February 2001 Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2001b, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, A Report on Visits to Immigration Detention Centres, Ransom, Helen, 2002, ‘Bishop Urges Action on Asylum Seekers’ Plight’, in Kairos Catholic Journal, Vol. 13, No.3, Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, 2002, http://www.melb.catholic.aust.com/kairos/1303/bishopurgesaction.htm, consulted 1/12/2003 Rayner, Moira, the 2001 Walter Murdoch Lecture, presented 31/10/2001, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia 24

Moira Byrne: the Catholic church’s response to child detainees

Geoff Stokes, 1983, ‘South Australia: Consensus Politics’, pp.132-164 in Andrew Parkin and John Warhurst (eds), Machine Politics in the Australian Labor Party, George Allen and Unwin, Sydney Thompson, Roger C., 1994, Religion In Australia: A History, (Australian Retrospectives Series; Series Editor, David Walker), Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia Tomsho, Robert, 1987, The American Sanctuary Movement, Texas Monthly Press, Austin, Texas, United States Warhurst, John, 1990, The Catholic Church and Public Policies: The Inquiry into Wealth Distribution, paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Australasian Political Studies Association, Hobart, 24-26 September 1990 JOURNALS Quarterly Essay NEWSPAPERS Age – The Age Australian – The Australian CV – Catholic Voice (Catholic newspaper, Australian Capital Territory) GLW – Green Left Weekly SCM – The Southern Cross Monthly (Catholic newspaper, South Australia) SMH – The Sydney Morning Herald TC.com TotalCatholic.com, email newsletters (United Kingdom) TWA – The Weekend Australian TWAR – The Weekend Australian Review Cathnews, 24/1/01, http://www.cathtelecom.com/news/101/97.asp. WEBSITES HREOC – Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, www.hreoc.gov.au DIMIA – Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, www.immi.gov.au Ninemsn polls 2001, http://news.ninemsn.com.au/other.aspx?id=3928 Roy Morgan polls 2001, http://oldwww.roymorgan.com/polls/2001/3438/ Newspoll 2002, http:www://newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/cgi-lib.803.1.0202_detention_centre.pdf

25