Wilson Security says downgraded reports of self-harm or abuse often could not ‘be verified or substantiated’ so were not given to immigration department

This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

The global security firm tasked by Australia to protect asylum seekers on Nauru says it was not required to pass on more than 400 “information reports” from the Nauru detention facility to Australia’s immigration department.

A Senate inquiry is under way into serious allegations following the Guardian’s publication of the Nauru files, more than 2,000 incident reports from inside the detention centre.

Nauru files 'an extraordinary trove of short stories', says Richard Flanagan Read more

The allegations examined the conduct of security provider Wilson Security and how it reported information to the immigration department. The reports showed that self-harm and sexual abuse incident reports filed on Nauru were routinely altered and downgraded in seriousness by the company.



Public hearings are set to begin on Friday, with the secretary of the immigration department, Michael Pezzullo, scheduled to appear, along with a number of departmental officers.

But it now appears that the immigration department may not have been obtaining all records of incidents lodged on Nauru. Wilson Security’s submission outlines for the first time that it did not disclose reports that it designated as “information reports” to the department.

Wilson Security said in its submission: “When an event does not meet the incident classification criteria set by the department, Wilson Security maintains a record of this event as an ‘information report’.”

“Information reports are not subject to performance measures and are not required to be reported to the department. Information reports often contain information that cannot be verified or substantiated and are therefore omitted from statistical reporting.”

The Nauru files: the lives of asylum seekers in detention detailed in a unique database – interactive Read more

The admission from Wilson Security raises concerns because a number of the reports published by the Guardian that were classified as incident reports contained serious allegations or related to self-harm attempts by asylum seekers. Overall there were 431 reports designated as “information reports.”

Reports that appear to have been downgraded:

A report that a girl had been assaulted by an officer was filed as an information report and had its incident type reclassified from an “assault on minor” to “information”.

A report from a female asylum seeker that a Nauruan guard on a school bus had “touched her body” was downgraded from a “major” report to “information” by the security company.

Concern about threats of self-harm by an asylum seeker who said she was concerned she might kill herself in her sleep and was “more down than normal” was reclassified from “minor” to an “information” report.

In February 2015, the company downgraded a report of “abusive/aggressive behaviour” alleged about one of its own guards to from “minor” to “information”, although it is unclear whether the report was subsequently reinstated as “minor”.

A report about an asylum seeker who said she had been refusing food and water for three days and was feeling dizzy and wanted to see a doctor was reclassified from a “major” incident of “food & fluid refusal” to an “information” report.

Wilson Security also faced criticism for allegations of staff misconduct that have emerged in the Nauru files and in other reports.

It said in its submission that it took allegations of staff misconduct seriously, and was “committed to ensuring that there is a fair, equitable and timely resolution of any allegation.”

“Where an allegation of inappropriate behaviour or conduct by a staff member is substantiated, the matter is referred to our human resources management to ensure that the matter is dealt [with] in accordance with our disciplinary procedures, ensuring procedural fairness.”

“All complaints involving allegations about a service provider are also monitored by the department to ensure action taken by the stakeholder against staff involved is commensurate to the allegation.”

“The majority of allegations of inappropriate behaviour reported by refugees, asylum seekers, or the staff of service providers are found to be unsubstantiated and not requiring further action.”

Its submission also said that reporting of leaked incident reports “have in some cases reported unsubstantiated or unproven allegations as fact, and have made generalisations based on the quantum of reports, the majority of which are unsubstantiated”.

A submission from Human Rights Watch Australia said asylum seekers had told the organisation that local police made “little to no effort” to investigate attacks.

“Often police disregard their complaints and sometimes discourage them from filing report,” it said.

They called on the Australian government to “respond effectively to complaints of physical and sexual violence”, and end offshore detention operations in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.