Asia-Pacific

Feb 25, 2014

Meet the companies that run our immigration detention camps

Australia's offshore detention centres are run by global firms involved in everything from weapons to coal seam gas. Here's everything you need to know about those in charge at Manus Island, Nauru and Christmas Island.

Cathy Alexander — Freelance journalist and PhD candidate in politics at the University of Melbourne

Cathy Alexander

Freelance journalist and PhD candidate in politics at the University of Melbourne

When asylum seekers like Reza Berati try to come to Australia by boat, they are not only sent to remote islands, they're sent to detention centres that have been outsourced to massive global companies. The three firms that run these centres have a vast reach and are involved in everything from nuclear weapons to coal seam gas and "investigative services". Two are under investigation for serious fraud. So when 23-year-old Berati died of a head injury inside PNG's Manus Island camp a week ago, amid contested allegations that the camp's security guards were involved in a riot, it's hard to get answers from the Australian government. It does not run the camp and it does not employ the guards. A British security firm called G4S does. The federal government sends all unauthorised boat arrivals offshore; thousands are in the camps now. So who are the firms running Australia's detention centres? Here's a guide to G4S, Serco and Transfield -- which between them have their fingers in some very interesting pies ... G4S: runs Manus Island camp in PNG but will soon be gone

The London-based security giant had a $244.5 million contract from the Australian government to run the Manus Island camp ("operational and maintenance services"). It lost the contract a few months ago and will formally handover to Transfield in early March. G4S was in charge of the camp when Berati died, and has defended its staff and promised to co-operate with the government's investigation. G4S employs almost 625,000 people in 125 countries. Almost half its revenue still comes from Europe, but it's active right through America, Asia and Australia. The company's slogan is "securing your world", and its bread and butter is security-related services for governments and private companies. It provides guards, watches over ATMs, and works in prisons, court escort and data protection. It's a risky business; 18 staff died from "attacks" in 2012. In Australia, G4S runs Victoria's Port Philip Prison and provides patient transport for the state Health Department. The company does prisoner transport in Victoria and South Australia, and it runs electronic monitoring of offenders (more on that later) in SA. G4S operates "guarding and security services ... in every Australian state and territory". It guards everything from hospitals to control rooms and major events. G4S also conducts "investigative services" --  snooping for insurance companies and government organisations. The company has done some work in PNG under the name G4S Secure Solutions (PNG) Ltd, e.g. "manned security" for the UN (see the 2012 annual report). G4S' figures for 2012 looked all right -- global group turnover of 7.3 billion pounds for the calendar year and profit (before tax) of 516 million pounds -- then trouble struck. The firm was placed under a criminal fraud investigation for overcharging the UK government for the cost of e-monitoring offenders. The CEO resigned last May. Previously, G4S made headlines for stuffing up security at the 2012 London Olympics (the army had to be called in). G4S has been criticised for its management of Manus Island, and not just over Berati's death. Just yesterday the ABC claimed the company had hired a former Sri Lankan military officer as acting camp manager.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

20 comments

Leave a comment

20 thoughts on “Meet the companies that run our immigration detention camps

  1. Cathy Alexander

    Additional information: G4S was charged over the death of Aboriginal man Mr Ward in a prisoner transport van in WA in 2008. He died of heat stroke. The air con in the van was not working. G4S was operating the van.

    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3117003.htm

  2. Cathy Alexander

    More additional information: a reader alerted me that David Gonski is the chairman of Transfield’s advisory board. The same Gonski as the federal education adviser and Coca-Cola chair. Interesting, he certainly holds down a lot of positions.

    http://www.transfield.com.au/our-people/advisory-board

  3. paddy

    A highly informative and deeply depressing article.
    Thanks Cathy.

  4. AR

    Private prisons are the future, in as perfect an example as could be imagined of the mindset of the Nu-Rite (Old Wrongs).
    Tory policies, by design, create an underclass & social discontent which always leads to demands from Mrs & Mr Pooter for Laura Norder.
    Enter, via side door, privatisation with the always spurious claim of value for money, with the ethos “reduce service, raise profit” which, in the case of incarceration, seems an iron clad surety to increase recidivism. Win-win,as the snake devours its tail.

  5. Jimmyhaz

    Something about the fundamental well-being of humans being sold around to the lowest bidder seems deeply disturbing to me.

    I honestly can’t see a reason why this shouldn’t be in the public sphere, there is more to think about here than simple monetary cost.

  6. Cathy Alexander

    Good question Jimmyhaz. Setting aside for now the broader ethical question of whether it’s appropriate to send asylum seekers to detention camps in foreign countries, would it be most cost-effective and / or humane for the Australian government to run these camps itself, not outsource to global companies?

    A similar question can be asked about prisons. Are most in Australia stills state-run? There are cases of privately-run prisons I know. Perhaps someone has studied costs / performances in private v public prisons?

  7. Observation

    Its all in the name of privatizing public services and infrastructure. Watch Hockey climb into bed with this lot.

    I heard (not confirmed) that London has sold its deep sewage system to the likes of this lot. It is a cancer running through the world controlling more and more of critical items and their agents are seated deep in governments to steer the ship to their advantage.

  8. Matt Hardin

    When I first watched the film “Robocop” the idea of a multinational (OmniConsumerProducts) running a privatised police force stretched credulity and seemed a mere plot device. Now it seems bloody prescient. And seriously, Serco calls its satellites Skynet? They are not even trying to look like the good guys.

  9. Jimmyhaz

    @Cathy

    A quick google search seems to indicate that the majority of prisons within Australia are publicly-run (although not all to the same extent)

    A read-over of the Australian Institute of Criminologies 1992 report into private prisons, commissioned just after the opening of Australia’s first private prisons:

    http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/3/F/1/%7B3F18DF23-E9A6-4183-A861-68C9CF84FE27%7Dti36.pdf

    Seems to indicate that the press for privatisation of our prison-system overwhelmingly comes from the need for both a more cost-effective solution, as well as for competition in the managerial and administrative sections of the prison staff.

    However, the report gives very little information into how this will be achieved, or how this will be achieved better through privatisation, rather than through increased input from the already existing structures in place (it seems to suggest that the mere presence of private enterprise will somehow boost outcomes, something that stretches credulity).

    A later report, in 1998

    http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/2/C/9/%7B2C9E101C-B20F-48C2-A20F-C6B7DA97D8B9%7Dti84.pdf

    Suggests that the savings undergone by the private prisons amount to 10% in the Australian prison system. There are other locations around the world that give larger savings (15-20% in the US), however, given that 80% of private prison staff in the US qualify for welfare benefits, it fails to take into account any cost beyond the immediate running of the prisons.

    A later report, in 2005, on the (then) recently finished report into the NSW prison operations (public, private, and the mix):

    http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=accfinwp

    Suggests that the government deemed cost was by far the greatest indicator of prison effectiveness, taking precedence over recidivism and other prisoner outcomes. There was very little research done into areas outside of the immediate cost, such as the long-term cost of re-offender’s, or whether the cost-savings delivered in the short-term would transform into larger costs in the longer-term.

    All-in-all, I see very little compelling evidence that the privatisation of Australian prisons is justifiable, especially given the moral quandary that for-profit suffering inevitably raises.

    However, their is a marked difference between the detention camps and the prison system, in that those in the detention camps are not Australian citizens, nor are they guaranteed settlement in Australia. Perhaps our government considers the cost-savings delivered to be worth the inevitable suffering that a lack of regulatory oversight will bring.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...