Documents released under freedom of information show immigration department requested damning data on adults and children be removed • Read the documents

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

Damning mental health data on asylum seekers was withdrawn from reporting at the request of the immigration department, newly released documents reveal.

In July 2014 Dr Peter Young, then the medical director for mental health at International Health and Medical Services (IHMS), told the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) the immigration department “reacted with alarm” to a set of data that showed significant deterioration in the mental health of children in detention.

He said the department asked IHMS to withdraw the figures from reporting in quarterly data sets, after the department saw the preliminary results in a meeting that month.

At the time the secretary of the immigration department, Martin Bowles, said he was unaware of the request to withdraw the figures.

But documents released under freedom of information laws to Young reveal that the department conceded in an internal investigation it had asked IHMS to withdraw the figures.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Dr Peter Young spoke to Guardian Australia in 2014, saying security staff see the sending of sick detainees to hospital as rewarding ‘bad behaviour’.

IHMS began collecting new data in early 2014 based on more robust screening procedures than had previously been applied. The measure used is known as health of the nation outcome scales for child and adolescent mental health (Honosca) data.

Stephen Wood, who now heads a new accountability task force within the department, said in his findings: “DIBP [the department] did ask IHMS on 21 July 2014 to withhold Honos and Honosca data from the quarterly dataset pending further consideration by DIBP and discussion with IHMS.”

But Wood’s report said the department “did not ask IHMS to cease collecting data nor did it ask IHMS to cease using Honos or Honosca screening instruments”.

“The allegation that DIBP covered up health data is false,” the report said.

It said the data had been withheld because IHMS had not obtained approval under its contract with the department to change the screening methods.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Detainees’ medical records were being used against them, Dr Peter Young told Guardian Australia in 2014. Link to video

The department further revised its screening procedures last month, a spokeswoman confirmed.

The department has not previously acknowledged the role it played in removing the data.



Wood’s report discussed a meeting between IHMS and immigration staff at which the preliminary findings of the data were presented.

Young is quoted as saying in the report that the immigration department participants appeared more hostile than they had previously.

Two of the immigration doctors present were “critical and dismissive of data presented, and that one doctor had directed that the conclusions and recommendations in the presentation be redacted”.

But Wood said the tone of the meeting was “not germane to the allegation that DIBP sought data to be withheld”. He did note that the evidence suggested the meeting was generally less cordial than previous meetings.

A week after the meeting, DIBP asked IHMS to withhold the data “pending further consideration”. Wood said the decision was “entirely consistent with requirements under the contract”.

“While IHMS were given approval at DIBP officer level to include Honos in the quarterly data set from the end of January 2014 and, by implication, Honosca, IHMS recognised by 13 March 2014 at the latest that it had no authority under the contract to do so.”

But Young said the review did not explain why the screening data was not still being used. At a conference on Tuesday he said that while the data was still being collected by IHMS, the procedures and analysis had not been developed.

Young told Guardian Australia: “If it wasn’t a cover-up, why don’t they just release the data? And what’s the problem with it being included in reporting?”

A spokeswoman for the department said health screeening tools had been reviewed by the department’s independent health adviser, Dr Paul Alexander, which resulted in the changes to procedures in April.

She said Alexander’s review also indicated there had been no cover-up of the data.

“The review shows that both the department and the service provider were working through the governance process set out in the contract to ensure appropriate screening instrument and assessment tools were being used.”