One-year-old daughter of asylum seeker parents held in detention has been receiving treatment for burns at a hospital in Brisbane

A Brisbane hospital is refusing to discharge a one-year-old baby facing imminent removal to Nauru, because doctors believe the island’s detention centre is not safe.

The child, known by the pseudonym of “Baby Asha”, was first removed from Australia, where she was born to asylum-seeker parents, to Nauru in June last year at just five months old, in defiance of a warning to government the move would be “potentially catastrophic”.

Now 12 months old, Asha is back in Australia. She has been in Brisbane for several weeks receiving treatment for burns at the Lady Cilento hospital.

It is understood she was burned when boiling water was accidentally spilled on her.

Immigration department defied advice not to transfer babies back to Nauru Read more

The nature of her injuries meant she could not be treated on Nauru. Her injuries have been treated, but doctors are refusing to discharge her because they regard the environment on Nauru to be unsafe for her.

A spokesperson for the hospital confirmed a 12-month-old girl from the Nauru detention centre was currently receiving treatment.

“As is the case with every child who presents at the hospital, this patient will only be discharged once a suitable home environment is identified.

“All decisions relating to a patient’s treatment and discharge are made by qualified clinical staff, based on a thorough assessment of the individual, delivering the best outcome.”

In June, Guardian Australia revealed that Baby Asha, then five months old, had been removed to Nauru, 4,500km from the Australian mainland, in defiance of advice to the government from Save the Children that the move would be “potentially catastrophic”.

The area of the detention centre to which she was to be sent, Area 9 of RPC3, had been infested with rats, and the tents leaked. The immigration department disputed the assessment and opted to rely on a Transfield risk assessment that outlined a slightly lower level of risk.

Asha was removed to Nauru in early June. She developed gastroenteritis within a week.

Her mother’s breastmilk also failed because of stress, and Asha could not tolerate the formula she was given.

Around 540 asylum seekers are held in the Nauru detention centre, run by Transfield Services on behalf of the Australian government. The Nauru detention centre has been significantly upgraded since last June. Facilities have been improved and the centre is now “open”, with asylum seekers able to move around the island.

Shen Narayanasamy, human rights director for the campaign group Getup!, said while she applauded the hospital’s decision, the family of Baby Asha was still concerned for their future.



“The mother feels safer now that the doctors are trying to protect her child from the clearly abusive conditions Asha faces upon return to detention. But Border Force has overruled decisions of medical experts in the past, so the family remains very scared they will be secretly snatched from the hospital and returned to detention.

“This hospital joins churches and state premiers in pressuring the federal government to just let them stay. The hospital’s serious decision not to discharge Baby Asha to harm sends a loud message to the government that child abuse is unjustifiable, under any circumstances.”



A former Save the Children worker on Nauru said: “This mother is terrified and the family’s situation is extremely tenuous.”

Natasha Blucher, now advocacy co-ordinator with the Darwin Asylum Seeker Support and Advocacy Network, said she had had to explain to Asha’s mother that nothing could be done to stop department or security officials from removing her from the hospital to Nauru.

“I was present on the phone for a discussion in which hospital staff explained to her that no steps are being taken to discharge her baby from the hospital because they believe she does not have a safe home to go to, but the fact remains that they would be unable to prevent her removal if the department sought to do that by force.

“All this mother wants is for her baby to be safe, and unfortunately at the moment nobody can promise her that.”

Guardian Australia sought comment from the department of immigration, and the office of minister Peter Dutton, on Friday night.

Previously, the minister has said he was “not going to send children back into harm’s way”.

High court upholds Australia's right to detain asylum seekers offshore Read more

But he has said the government must remain resolute over its policies of offshore processing and regional resettlement for “illegal maritime arrivals” in order to deter people-smuggling. Baby Asha is classified as an “illegal maritime arrival”, despite being born in Australia, because of the immigration status of her parents.

At senate estimates this week, immigration department secretary Mike Pezzullo said the medical opinions of doctors would always be taken into account in making assessments of whether children would be removed from Australia, but that medical professionals working in the department would provide final advice to him on removals.

“My job is to ensure – and I am not medically qualified – that I have people who work for me who directly understand the policy and the overall parameters in which we are operating, who can then advise me, clinically, to say, ‘I have looked at this. On balance, the appropriate care can be provided on Nauru. They are going back.’”

Baby Asha is not directly connected to the just-concluded M68 High Court case. Those 267 asylum seekers have a government undertaking they will be given 72 hours’ notice before they are moved. Baby Asha does not have this undertaking.

