Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services 1. Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services at the hearing on 19 May 2015 – PART 2 # Question Senator 1. Who runs the whistle blower hotline? HansonYoung How many times (and by how many people) has that hotline been used by staff at Nauru? Assumptions Answer Attachments Our Policy and Process The Whistleblower Integrity Hotline is managed by Transfield Services’ Compliance and Governance Group and operated by Control Risks, an external service provider. As stated in the Whistleblower Policy (attached to our submission), where an employee is concerned about inappropriate conduct observed within the organisation, he or she can discuss it with an immediate manager/supervisor at first instance. However, where the employee feels uncomfortable raising a concern in this manner or is unsatisfied with the response received, the concern can be raised either internally or externally. as outlined below: Have there been any instances where investigations have taken place as a result of a complaint made to that hotline from your staff on Nauru? a. inappropriate conduct can be referred to Transfield Services’ Audit Services and Risk Group; and Are you aware of anyone who has availed themselves of that hotline? b. in instances where a Whistleblower wishes to remain anonymous, he or she can call the Integrity Hotline, which is operated by Control Risks (an external service provider). Period between September 2012 to 31 April 2015 Between the period of September 2012 to 31 April 2015, the Whistleblower Integrity Hotline has not been accessed by any person that informed the Hotline that they were: a. an employee (or ex-employee) of Transfield Services; b. an employee (or contractor) of a subcontractor of Transfield Services; c. an employee or contractor of any other service provider; or d. an employee of any other staff employed by any other person, engaged in respect of services provided at the Nauru Regional Processing Centre (RPC) in Nauru. Between the period of September 2012 and 30 April 2015, there have not been any investigations as a result of a complaint made to that Hotline from Transfield Services staff that work (or have worked) on the RPC on Nauru. Between the period of September 2012 and 30 April 2015, there were not any investigations as a result of a complaint made to that hotline from any other staff engaged (or that were engaged) at the RPC. Persons internally made aware of matters reported All disclosures made via the Whistleblower Integrity Hotline are received by the Audit Services and Risk Team. Based on the nature of the incident and level of confidentiality, if a disclosure was made relating to the RPC in Nauru, the Audit Services and Risk team may report the matter to other personnel within Transfield Services’ including: 1. the People and Culture Manager, Immigration, Human Resources; 2. the General Manager, Human Resources; 3. the Executive General Manager, Logistics and Facilities Management; 4. the Commercial, Strategy and Systems Director; and 5. the Chief Executive Operations-Logistics, Construction and Consulting. 2. When a serious allegation is made (such as was made in November 2013 about the HansonYoung Transfield Services takes all allegations of illegal conduct extremely seriously. When a serious allegation is made (as occurred when allegations were received in November 2013 regarding the sexual assault of a young child), the 13663942/21 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services sexual assault of a young child), who in Transfield Services receives that information? key actions taken in response are as follows: 1. Wilson Security, as Transfield Services’ security services subcontractor, is notified; 2. senior management within Transfield Services are notified, typically the Operations Manager (Nauru based), Welfare Services Manager (Nauru based) and the General Manager, Logistics, are all notified. In cases where there are serious allegations against Wilson Security or Transfield Services’ staff, the Executive General Manager of Logistics and Facilities Maintenance is generally notified immediately. From time to time, other staff or managers at Transfield Services may be notified depending on the assistance or resources be needed to address a given situation; In respect of the November 2013 sexual assault of a young child: a. who in Transfield Services’ staff was made aware of that allegation; and b. what action was taken? 3. where appropriate, referrals are made to Save the Children (for example, where the serious allegation involves a child) and IHMS (for example, where the victim requires medical assistance or counselling support); 4. as we noted in our submission, where the allegation involves potential criminal conduct, the Nauruan Police Force (NPF) is notified; and 5. the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) is notified. The distribution list for notification of serious allegations is reviewed regularly by the Department, the Government of Nauru Operations Manager, Transfield Services, Save the Children, IHMS and Wilson Security. In respect of the November 2013 alleged sexual assault of a young child (we understand that Senator HansonYoung has requested a response about the action taken in response to that incident, which we understand to be that described at paragraph 3.98 of the Moss Review published on 24 March 2015), the standard process as outlined above was followed. The actions taken included: 1. an incident report was completed by Wilson Security on 16 November 2013; 2. as it involved a suspected criminal offence, a report was made to the NPF; 3. the Operations Manager and General Manager of Logistics and Facilities Maintenance of Transfield Services, as well as Save the Children, were notified; 4. the Department was briefed of the incident by the Operations Manager on site in Nauru; 5. the person subject of the allegation was removed, indefinitely, from RPC3 after the incident; 6. the complainant and their parent were informed the person the subject of the complaint had been removed and that a comprehensive investigation would be completed regarding the matter. Both the complainant and his parent expressed their satisfaction with this action taken, and requested no further action regarding the matter; 7. RPC3 was attended by an investigation team. The complainant and person subject of the allegation were interviewed and an investigation was undertaken between 16 and 17 November 2013; 8. the person subject of the allegation was stood down pending investigations; 9. the NPF attended the Centre and met with the complainant and his mother on 17 November 2013. The complainant and his mother informed the NPF that the complainant did not want the Police to pursue a criminal charge; 10. the person subject of the allegation was terminated by Transfield Services on 18 November 2013; and 11. the matter was closed and the Department were informed of the outcome. 3. Following a series of question regarding the Child Protection Protocol, the Senate Committee asked, does Transfield Services HansonYoung Wilson Security is responsible for providing induction training to their own staff. That induction training is carried out in accordance with standards established by Transfield Services and the Department (which are addressed in our submission). In addition, both Transfield Services and Save the Children provide specialised training to the Wilson 13663942/22 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services run the inductions for subcontracted Wilson Security staff? How long does the training go for? training team that are responsible for conducting the inductions. A table containing an overview of the induction training provided by Wilson Security to Wilson Security staff appears below. In the hope that it is of assistance to the Senate Committee, we have provided detail below with respect to the induction training provided to Transfield Services staff. HR Induction: Initial code of conduct and policy training All local and expat employees undertake an induction presented by Local HR Coordinators (for the local employees) and HR Advisors (for the expat employees) on their commencement date. The induction covers a number of matters relating to the safety and security of all persons on site and the behaviours expected of staff towards all persons, including asylum seekers. In the context of this review, relevant topics include: 1. 'fair play' behaviours; 2. the complaints process; 3. cultural awareness; 4. interaction and communications between staff and asylum seekers; and 5. sessions on adopting non-threatening body stances and de-escalation techniques. Transfield Services has in place robust codes of conduct, guidelines and other policies and procedures that clearly communicate to staff our expectations. Transfield Services and its staff and contractors are also required to comply with RPC Guidelines, approved by the Department. In order to ensure our staff members understand those codes and policies, the HR Induction includes sessions on the codes and policies relating to them and the standards we expect. A summary of the main site compliance is delivered in the HR induction, and provided in a summary document. Compliance documents covered within the induction include the following: 1. Site Compliance Documents a. RPCG Service Provider - Communications - Media Handling b. RPCG Service Provider - Code of Conduct – Employees c. RPCG Service Provider - Code of Conduct - Organisational d. RPCG Service Provider - Child Safeguarding Protocol and Code of Conduct e. RPCG Child Related Employment - Statutory Inf. (Police Check) Consent f. RPCG Service Provider - Interaction with Transferees g. RPCG Service Provider - Staff Relationships with Transferees h. Deed of Non-Disclosure of Personal Information i. Confidentiality Agreement j. Document Summary (of site compliance documents) 2. Transfield Services Compliance Documents a. Transfield Services House Rules b. Transfield Services Social Media Policy c. Transfield Services Social Media Policy Addendum d. Police Clearance Application Form 13663942/23 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services Site Safety and Security Induction The Site Safety and Security induction is held at the RPC1 and is conducted by Wilson Security’s Risk and Liaison Officer. The safety and security induction is designed to introduce staff and contractors working at the RPC to policies and procedures to maintain a safe and secure environment. Key areas covered during the induction include:  personal safety;  incident reporting;  security procedures and RPC rules;  hazards;  injuries and near miss;  emergency and evacuation procedures;  emergency codes; and  security requirements for different threat levels. Supervised practical training Once Transfield Services employees begin in their respective roles, a job specific induction and supervised practical training is run by service line managers within the various divisions of the business. As an example, having recruited an employee with suitable experience and qualification to fulfil a welfare role, staff are trained in the use of the Transfield Services welfare framework, case management framework, and in respect of sensitive and appropriate communication with asylum seekers. In addition, given the peculiar demands placed on the Transfield Services Welfare Team, further training is provided by Transfield Services and the other service providers on various topics. Topics covered through this practical training include:  communicating effectively;  working with interpreters;  working with asylum seekers;  effects of trauma / trauma counselling;  aggression de-escalation;  behavior management; and  assisted voluntary return. Ongoing structured training Ongoing structured training is conducted to reinforce expectations of RPC staff including with respect to their interactions with asylum seekers. In particular, training has been delivered on the following topics:  the wellbeing of asylum seekers;  ethical behaviour and conduct towards asylum seekers;  the RPC Personnel - Code of Conduct; and  cultural awareness. A variety of structured training is delivered on site and is conducted by Line Managers, HR Advisors HR 13663942/24 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services Coordinators (local employees), Supervisors and team leaders (both expat and local) dependant on the subject matter. Annexure A: Induction training conducted by Wilson Security for Wilson Security Staff General Induction provided to all Wilson Security staff and preferable prior experience Role Training Experience All Officers The pre-deployment orientation program is conducted over a 1 day period and includes the following modules: Wilson Security look to attract a diverse range of experience, the following experience is highly regarded – language skills, remote deployment, police, military, health services, human services. a. local cultural awareness; b. cross cultural communication; c. personal security; d. wellbeing planning; e. code of conduct; f. professional boundaries; g. workplace health and safety; and h. information security. The general induction program runs for 7 days and includes the following modules: a. human rights standards; b. duty of care; c. self-harm and suicide awareness; d. mental health awareness; e. psychological support program; f. cultural awareness; g. behaviour management; h. working with children; i. security in the RPC; j. presence and safety checks; k. searching and screening; l. logbooks, registers and 13663942/25 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services notebooks; m. key control; n. fire awareness; o. radio communication; p. arrivals and departures; q. planning and conducting escorts; r. working with interpreters; s. local legislation; t. situation awareness; u. tactical communication; v. incident management; w. crime scene and investigations; x. report writing; y. intelligence collection; z. risk management; aa. operational safety; bb. crisis response; and cc. first aid. Position Specific Induction Training and preferable prior experience Role Training Experience Emergency Response Officers Public order level 1 (1 day) Minimum fitness requirement Public order level 2 (3 days) Batons and handcuffs (1 day) Negotiators Crisis negotiation (3 days) Individuals with the following attributes – excellent communication, rapport building, empathetic, problem solving Trainer Certificate IV Training and Assessment Minimum qualification Certificate IV Training and Assessment Individuals with security training background highly regarded 13663942/26 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services Investigator Certificate IV Government Investigations Minimum qualification Certificate IV Government Investigations Individuals with police or government investigations background highly regarded Risk Specialist Certificate IV Security and Risk Management Minimum qualification Certificate IV Security and Risk Management Individuals with risk management background highly regarded Intelligence Officer Intelligence Officer Course (3 days) Individuals with intelligence collection background highly regarded Individuals with the following attributes – excellent communication, rapport building, empathetic, problem solving Intelligence Analyst Diploma Intelligence Analysis Individuals with intelligence analysis background highly regarded Look for individuals with the following attributes – excellent report writing, critical thinking Air Escort Air security escort course (5 days) Minimum fitness requirement Team Leaders Leadership development (2 days) Individuals with the following attributes – excellent communication, natural leaders Team leader command course (3 days) Supervisors Leadership development (2 days) Emergency management course (3 days) Minimum 2 years; experience in managing large teams is highly desirable The following qualification is highly desirable Certificate IV Security and Risk Management Security Operations Manager Leadership development (2 days) Emergency management course (3 days) Minimum 5 years’ experience in managing large teams is highly desirable 13663942/27 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services The following qualification is highly desirable Diploma Security and Risk Management Security Manager Leadership development (2 days) Emergency management course (3 days) Minimum 5 years’ experience in managing large teams is highly desirable The following qualification is highly desirable Diploma Security and Risk Management 4. How many requests have been made to Wilson Security, to have staff dismissed/stepped down? HansonYoung When and under what circumstances has this occurred? 5. From what materials are the tents constructed? Transfield Services has set out in the table below requests it has made to Wilson Security that staff be stepped down or dismissed due to findings of inappropriate conduct or dissatisfaction with their performance during the period September 2012 to 30 April 2015. The table identifies the dates on which this has occurred and the circumstances of each request. The table does not include occasions where Wilson Security has disciplined or dismissed staff on its own initiative (i.e. absent a request from Transfield Services). Carr Date Employee Circumstances November 2014 1 sub-contractor employee Inappropriate behaviour at the local airport April 2015 2 sub-contractor employees Breaches of Wilson Security’s employment terms and its following policies/codes: • Wilson Code of Conduct; • Offshore Code of Conduct; and • Information Security Policy. During the Inquiry, a number of questions were asked with respect to the materials from which the accommodation provided within the Nauru RPC is constructed. In response, we note the following. How long have people been in tents? 1. In or about September 2012, when the RPC was first established, both the asylum seekers and staff were housed in army-style, canvas tents. When were Transfield Services informed that the detainees were going to be kept in “tents” indefinitely? 2. Demountable accommodation was built to house the asylum seekers and was complete in or about June 2013. Asylum seekers lived in these buildings for roughly one month until destroyed by fire in July 2013. 3. As an urgent, contingency measure, the army-style canvas tents that the asylum seekers had initially occupied were re-erected. 4. In or about September 2013 the army-style canvass tents in RPC2 and RPC3 were replaced with marquees. The asylum seekers continue to reside in the marquees installed in September 2013. 5. The exterior of the marquees (the walls and roof) is made from Flame Retardant Vinyl, being a layered polyester yarn fabric coated on both sides with PVC flame retardant (Vinyl) and varnish. All marquees also have a solid floor made out of commercial grade particle board flooring, supported by treated pine bearers. 13663942/28 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services 6. Various other features are provided in the marquees as is detailed in the following table. Position in Marquees Babies 0-4 months Minors 4 months to 4 years Family Marquees SAMs Marquees SAFs Marquees Internal Walls Y Y Y N Y Insulation Y Y N N N Hard external walls, security screen mesh walls inside of the marquee fabric Y N N N N A/C Y Y N N N Baby Change Table and sink Y N N N N 7. Transfield Services is currently working with the Department to further enhance ventilation, screening and lighting in the marquees. Improvements include: a. increased ventilation via the provision of central duct air conditioning, fans (ceiling fans for families and wall fans above the door for single adult males and single adult females); b. additional insulation; c. added screening (including floor to ceiling partitions) for families of three or more persons such that their accommodation is transformed into a studio living arrangement; d. added screening for single adult males and females such that marquee accommodation is transformed into 2 person rooms with floor to ceiling partitions; e. additional lighting in walkways, open areas, toilets, ablution areas and laundries; and f. additional lighting in accommodation areas. 8. As at the date of providing these responses, Transfield Services has not been notified that this style of accommodation will be permanent. 6. It was noted that we would provide additional information in respect of training provided on professional boundaries. Reynolds Transfield Services’ Code of Conduct, policies and guidelines in combination with the relevant induction training, provided by Wilson Security or Transfield Services, appropriately inform our staff of expected behaviours. As detailed in our submission, Transfield Services has in place robust Codes of Conduct, guidelines and other policies and procedures that clearly communicate to staff our expectations in respect of improper conduct. Transfield Services and its staff and contractors are also required to comply with Site Rules as legislated by the Government of Nauru, as well as the RPC Guidelines approved by the Department. All offers of employment and written contracts of employment issued by Transfield Services require individuals to confirm they will comply with 13663942/29 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services company policies and procedures. As is described in further detail in response to question 3 above, in order to ensure RPC staff are aware of such policies, all staff employed or contracted by Transfield Services to work at the RPC are required to attend an induction onsite which includes sessions on the codes and policies relating to the standards expected. Some of the specific topics covered include: a. interaction and communication between staff and asylum seekers; b. ensuring fair play behaviour; c. the complaints process; d. cultural awareness; e. duty of care; and f. prevention of harassment of any kind. It is also made clear that disciplinary action will be taken should the employees breach the various obligations (this includes, where necessary, termination or referral to police and other government authorities). As part of the induction and on-boarding process, employees are provided with induction materials when commencing employment. Topics covered during induction include company values, House Rules, and employer expectations as we all as contract environment induction which incorporates the RPC Rules, Guidelines and Site Safety and Security inductions. This includes education and training on the following RPC Guidelines which are relevant to professional boundaries: a. Service Provider- Code of Conduct (Organisations); b. Service Provider- Interaction with Transferees; and c. Service Provider- Staff relationships with Transferees. Our personnel are provided with both structured and unstructured training requirements which are established to reflect the training requirements for the environment and individual positions. Training is provided via a number of avenues including the following: a. Structured training: ongoing structured training is held to provide refresher training on key policies and systems and to update staff as policies evolve. Training of this kind occurs periodically to address, amongst other issues, the following topics: b. professional boundaries; i. working with displaced families and children; ii. dealing with cross cultural difference through communication and understanding; iii. working with people in detention environments; iv. wellbeing of asylum seekers; v. ethical behaviour and conduct towards asylum seekers; vi. the “RPC Personnel - Code of Conduct”; vii. cultural awareness; and viii. professional boundaries. c. Virtual structured training sessions on the aforementioned topics are also available to staff. d. Wellbeing Support Services: Regular training and updates are provided to personnel through a dedicated 13663942/210 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services system. The system is available 24/7 and provides the following: 7. What was the process of engagement with the Moss Review and the Department? Reynolds i. professional boundaries tip sheets; and ii. professional boundaries podcasts. Please refer to Annexure 1 to this table, below. Can Transfield Services go through the recommendations that you've acknowledged should be, and are being, implemented? Where have Transfield Services seen the improvements occurring, and how are we doing that? 8. When did Transfield Services first become aware of allegations of sexual exploitation (i.e. trading of marijuana and cigarettes for access to showers)? HansonYoung Transfield Services became aware of allegations that contraband might be being exchanged for sexual favours in or about June 2014. Investigations were undertaken at that time by the Nauruan Police force in consultation with the AFP in respect of these matters. The incident reported in the Moss Review relating to alleged sexual favours being sought from an asylum seeker in exchange for the provision of an extended period in the shower only became known to Transfield Services on or about the time that the media reports leading to the Moss Review were published. We note that an information report relating to this allegation was completed by a staff member of Save the Children on 28 September 2014 in which that staff member reported a discussion with the asylum seeker on 26 September 2014. Was it before or after the Moss Review? What action was taken at the time? All of the above allegations were investigated, reported to the Nauruan Police for investigation and made known to the Department. The AFP Representative on Island was also briefed regularly. We do not have all the details of the police investigation but do understand that searches were conducted and numerous persons were interviewed. 9. When was Mr Osborn made aware of the allegations of rape as outlined in the Moss review? Who else in the management team were made aware of the allegations? What action was taken at the time? HansonYoung 1. Standard reporting procedures When a serious allegation is made, such as rape, the Operations Manager and Welfare Services Manager of Transfield Services are notified via telephone and in writing via a written incident report in accordance with the Incident Reporting Framework and Incident Reporting Guidelines. The General Manager of Logistics is also notified by the Operations Manager on site (as occurred in respect of the incident referred to above as reported on 24 August 2014), usually via telephone call or in person. Where there is a serious/critical incident, the General Manager Logistics is also required to report incidents to the Executive General Manager of Logistics and Facilities Management .This usually occurs via telephone or in person. This is not part of the formal reporting for contractual or operational obligations, but is considered to be good practice. 2. Action taken at the time of the specific incident (including reporting) Transfield Services understands the first allegation of rape outlined in the Moss Review to be an incident reported on 24 August 2014. Although reported on that date, the rape was alleged to have occurred approximately one month earlier. The allegation was first reported to a Transfield Services Cultural Advisor on 24 August 2014. The allegation was immediately treated as a critical incident and the Department, Government of Nauru, service providers including Transfield Services Operation Manager and the NPF were notified in accordance with the Incident Reporting Guideline. 13663942/211 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services The asylum seeker who had made the report was referred to IHMS for counseling and support. The asylum seeker was then moved to supported accommodation at RPC1 overnight pending the attendance of the NPF Domestic Violence Unit on 25 August 2014. She also engaged with Transfield Services Welfare Officers. The asylum seeker who was subject of the complaint was placed on immediate discrete observational watch. The allegation was investigated by the NPF Domestic Violence Unit. On 15 October 2014, the NPF advised that following the completion of a full investigation the case had been submitted to the Department of Public Prosecutions with a recommendation that it be closed due to insufficient evidence. The asylum seeker who made the initial report was advised of this outcome on 24 September 2014. With respect to the second allegation in the Moss Review, the allegation was made in confidence and not previously reported by the victim. As such, Transfield Services is unable to provide further information. 3. Reports received by Mr Osborn Mr Osborn has made inquiries and his recollection is that he was notified in line with the usual practice and received a telephone call notifying him of the incident on the same day the allegation was received. Notification by telephone or in person is the usual practice so as to ensure that reports to Mr Osborn are made without delay. As is typically the case when critical incidents are notified to Mr Osborn, no written report appears to have been sent to him regarding this incident. As described above, immediate and appropriate action was taken by Transfield Services on receipt of these allegations. 10. Request for detail in respect of allegations: a. How many cases of child abuse allegations have been reported? b. How many cases of exchange of sexual favours for contraband have been reported? c. How many cases of sexual assault and rape of either both women, men and minors have been reported? HansonYoung A. Child Abuse As the Committee is aware, both an Incident Reporting Framework and a Complaints Management Framework are in place at the Centre. While both frameworks allow for incidents and complaints to be categorised or grouped in various ways, neither framework provides a specific category for “child abuse”. We have therefore taken a very broad approach to what the Senate Committee might consider an allegation of “child abuse” when answering this question. Therefore, the numbers provided below include the following types of allegations: (a) In respect of the above matters, when was Transfield (and specifically Derek Osborn) first made aware of these and what are their status. (b) All allegations (whether or not adverse findings are made) of any kind of physical abuse of a child, including shoving, pushing and grabbing, regardless of the identity of the alleged perpetrator and regardless of whether or not medical treatment of any kind was required, including: (i) allegations of physical abuse of a child by a parent, guardian, sibling or other close family member, including domestic/family violence and inappropriate discipline; (ii) allegations of inappropriate physical contact by a child on another child, for example children fighting; (iii) allegations of physical abuse of a child by a staff member, including inappropriate restraint; (iv) allegations of physical abuse of a child by an adult transferee; (v) allegations of physical abuse of a child by any other person, including inappropriate discipline by a teacher external to the Centre; and (vi) all allegations, whether the subject of charges, adverse findings or not. All allegations (whether or not adverse findings are made) of any kind of sexual abuse of a child regardless of the identity of the alleged perpetrator. This includes: (i) allegations of sexual abuse of a child by a parent, guardian, sibling or other close family member, including inappropriate discipline; (ii) allegations of inappropriate sexual contact by a child on another child; 13663942/212 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services (iii) suspected sexual abuse as a consequence of observation of sexualised behaviour in a child; (iv) allegations of sexual abuse of a child by an adult transferee; and (v) all allegations, whether the subject of adverse findings or not. Based on this very broad approach, the number of allegations of child abuse that have been reported to Transfield Services includes 67 allegations, made up of: a. 52 allegations of child abuse recorded via Incident Reporting framework to 30 April 2015 ; and b. 15 allegations of child abuse recorded via Complaints Management framework from 21 February 2014 to 30 April 2015. As to the above allegations they comprise the following:  Parental Violence    Minor against Minor Violence Allegation by Minor against Service Provider Allegation by Minor against Adult Asylum Seeker Each of these allegations has been reported to the Department. Transfield Services first received a report of child abuse in November 2013. B. Exchange of Sexual Favours for Contraband: 5 allegations, made up of: a. 5 allegations recorded via Incident Reporting framework to 30 April 2015 ; and b. 0 allegations recorded via Complaints Management framework from 21 February 2014 to 30 April 2015. Each of these allegations has been reported to the Department. Transfield Services first received a report that sexual favours were being exchanged for contraband on 22 January 2014. C. Sexual Assault/Rape 33 Allegations, made up of: a. 25 allegations recorded via Incident Reporting framework to 30 April 2015; and b. 8 allegations recorded via Complaints Management framework from 21 February 2014 to 31 April 2015. As to these 33 allegations we note that these allegations include the following allegations, regardless of severity: (a) all allegations (whether or not adverse findings are made) of any kind of alleged sexual assault, including verbal threats of the same, regardless of the identity of the alleged perpetrator and regardless of whether or not medical treatment of any kind was required including: (i) allegations of inappropriate touching; (ii) allegations of inappropriate advances; (iii) allegations of threats of sexual misconduct or sexual assault; and (iv) allegations, whether the subject of charges, adverse findings or not. 13663942/213 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services As to the above allegations they also consist of allegations made by:   Adult Asylum Seeker against Adult Asylum Seeker Adult Asylum Seeker against Service Provider    Minor Asylum Seeker against Adult Asylum Seeker Minor Asylum Seeker against Service Provider Service Provider against Adult Asylum Seeker   Service Provider against Service Provider Minor Asylum Seeker against Minor Asylum Seeker Each of these allegations has been reported to the Department. Transfield Services first received a report of an allegation of sexual assault or rape in November 2013. Given the serious nature of the allegations recorded in our responses in A to C above, Transfield Services’ usual practice is that incidents of this kind would be reported to the Nauru based Operations Manager immediately on receipt. In addition to that, consistent with our response to Question on Notice number 10, above, the Nauru based Operations Manager would typically then promptly report an incident to the General Manager Logistics (or in his absence, the Executive General Manager Logistics and Facilities Maintenance) if there was an allegation against any staff member of Transfield Services or Wilson Security. This would be done via email or telephone, but usually by telephone. In relation to Mr Osborn’s first awareness of allegations in the nature of those recorded in our responses in A to C above, to the best of Mr Osborn’s recollection, these reports were passed on to him by telephone or in person in line with the usual practice. Please break these matters down by complainant (how many against ex-pats, local employed staff and fellow asylum seekers). Allegation No. of incidents involving allegation against staff No of incidents involving allegations against an asylum seeker Child Abuse 30 37 Exchange of Sexual Favours for Contraband 4 1 Sexual Assault/Rape 15 18 We have not been able to provide a breakdown as to the number of ex-pat and local staff. 13663942/214 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services 11. When was Transfield Services (specifically Mr Osborn) informed of or given a copy of the intelligence report dated 30 September 2014 in relation to Save the Children staff on Nauru? HansonYoung Transfield Services was given a copy of the intelligence report dated 30 September 2014 in relation to Save the Children Staff on Nauru on that date. The report was provided to Transfield Services by Wilson Security. Neither Mr Osborn nor any other Transfield Services’ manager or staff member requested that Wilson Security prepare an intelligence report specifically targeting the activities of Save the Children staff. Were any other members of Transfield Services management staff given a copy of that report? When were they given a copy? Did Mr Osborn or his staff request that this intelligence report be written? 13663942/215 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services 2. Questions provided by Senate Select Committee by letter dated 20 May 2015 and the subject of further correspondence by Transfield Services on 26 May 2015, and by the Senate Select Committee on 26 May 2015 (Question 1) 1. Question Transfield Services’ assumptions or clarifications sought The Regional Processing Centre Guidelines ‘Transferee – Complaints Management’ document provided with your submission, states that asylum seekers are able to raise complaints with service provider staff. Please provide a breakdown of the number of complaints service provider staff have received concerning: Transfield Services only took over the Complaints In accordance with the Regional Processing Centre Guidelines ‘Transferee – Complaints Management’ (CMR Guidelines) verbal Management Framework on Nauru from 21 complaints and written complaints may be made to Transfield Services by asylum seekers. February 2014 (when we were engaged to As to the written complaints made between the period of 21 February and 30 April 2015, the number of complaints received concerning provide welfare services to Single Adult Males). the matters set out below are as follows: Prior to that time the Salvation Army was a) 31 complaints were received in relation to accommodation. All complaints have been resolved as set out in the attached responsible for the Complaints Management schedule. Framework. b) 78 complaints were received in relation to amenities and facilities. All complaints have been resolved as set out in the While we have some information from the attached schedule. Salvation Army Complaints Management Framework, it is limited and we cannot be certain that it is accurate, comprehensive, complete or recorded in the manner in which we are required to do so under our contract with the Department. Accommodation, facilities and amenities complaints.xlsx On that basis, we propose that we provide the breakdown of the number of complaints received by Transfield Services (or its staff or subcontractors) from the time that we were c) 725 complaints were received in relation to staff. Most of the complaints while catalogued as a staff complaint relate to alleged responsible for the Complaints Management inappropriate conduct (non-physical), alleged unfair treatment (non-physical), inappropriate conduct (non-physical), issues Framework, which is 21 February 2014 to the end relating to provision of services and alleged verbal abuse/threat.. Of the complaints received in relation to staff, 18 were of a of the calendar month 30 April 2015 which we are nature that triggered a referral to the NPF. In respect of those referred to the NPF, 11 are still the subject of open confident we can provide accurately based on the investigations. All of the complaints have also been notified to the Department and all of the complaints not referred to the NPF information available to us. have been resolved. To assist the Committee we provide a breakdown of complaints between service providers below. a. Accommodation at the NRPC b. Amenities/Facilities at the NRPC c. Staff at the NRPC i. Of the above complaints, what (if any) actions have been undertaken by Transfield to address the concerns raised? [See also note below] Transfield Services’ Reply i. 96 were complaints against an employee of Transfield Services or involved complaints relating to provision of Transfield Services’ services delivery. Of this number, 17 were complaints against a local staff member and the balance was in respect of Expat staff. ii. 403 were complaints against an employee of Wilson Security or involved complaints relating to provision of Wilson Security services delivery. Of this number, 75 were complaints against a local staff member, 2 complaints were against both local and expat staff. As to 50 of the complaints, it was unclear from the complaint whether the complaint was against a local or expat staff member. The balance of the complaints were in respect of expat staff. iii. 75 were complaints against an employee of IHMS. Of this number we understand that, all 75 complaints were in respect of expat staff. iv. 136 were complaints against an employee of Save the Children. v. 11 were complaints against an employee of the Department. vi. 3 were complaints against an employee of another organisation. Of this number we understand that 2 were complaints against a local staff member and the balance were in respect of expat staff. vii. 1 complaint was in respect to Wilson Security and Save the Children. 13663942/216 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services 2 How many complaints pertaining to accommodation, facilities or Transfield personnel were escalated to a higher level review/external third party? No clarification needed What were the outcomes of those reviews? As already noted, all staff complaints were notified to the Department. Also, 18 incidents were reported to the Nauru Police Force. We note: (a) 11 are still current (i.e. still subject of open investigations); and (b) seven have been finalised. Out of the incidents reported to the NPF: (a) 15 were complaints against local staff; and (b) three were against expat staff. Beyond the usual processes of reporting under the Complaints Management Guidelines, which requires that any complaints regarding accommodation and facilities be escalated to the Department, there was no further escalation of any such complaints to a higher level of review as far as we are aware. As to any complaints against employees of Transfield Services and Wilson Security since September 2012 and 30 April 2015, all complaints were notified to the Department pursuant to the CMR Guidelines. The Regional Processing Centre Guidelines ‘Incident Management – Incident Reporting’ document provided with your submission, states that ‘minor’ incidents must be reported in writing to the Department within three hours. a. How many asylum seekers have been reported as having clinical depression? Transfield Services assumes that each of the As Transfield Services has not received any response to the contrary, Transfield Services has responded to the matters in Question 2 questions in a. to d. below require answering as to on the basis of this assumption. the number of times that Transfield Services has reported such matters to the Department. If this is not the case, please let us know. Transfield Services does not provide health services (including any mental health services). These are provided by IHMS under a contract with the Department. Please refer to previous column and response provided. Transfield Services does not provide reports to the Department as to whether any asylum seekers have been diagnosed with clinical depression and it would be considered inappropriate for us to provide or be provided with such reports given that they are confidential and also sensitive information protected under Privacy Legislation. Given the above, we respectfully suggest that IHMS is best placed to provide this information. b. How many instances of failure of main systems/power failure have been reported? No further clarification needed Between September 2012 to 30 April 2015 there have been 15 reported incidents of Failure – Electricity / Water / Sewerage. 13663942/217 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services c. How many instances of failure of service providers IT system for 6 hours or more been reported? d. How many cases of food poisoning have been reported? No further clarification needed Between September 2012 to 30 April 2015 there have been no reported instances of failure of service providers IT system for 6 hours or more. As is the case with respect to a. above, Transfield Please refer to previous column. Services does not hold information relating to any medical services. 13663942/218 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services The Regional Processing Centre 3 Guidelines ‘Incident Management – Incident Reporting’ document provided with your submission, states that critical incidents be reported in writing to the Department within 3 hours. How many of the following critical incidents has Transfield reported to the Department: a. Actual self-harm b. Attempted serious self-harm c. Serious assault d. Unplanned use of force resulting in bodily harm (personnel or asylum seekers) e. Serious public health risk The Department’s Guidelines have changed from The total number of incidents reported between September 2012 – 30 April 2015 is as follows: the time that we were engaged in September 2012 and consequently, the definition of incidents, their categorisation and the time within which they Incident Total Number No. of No. of No of No of No of Name of Incidents incidents incidents incidents incidents incidents are required to be reported to the Department involving involving involving involving involving over time has also changed. In that regard, allegation allegation allegations allegations allegations of incident reporting has changed to reflect proposed against local against against against an asylum changes in the Department’s guidelines since staff Service asylum seeker ex-pat September 2012 to date. Changes to the reporting Provider: seeker against staff guidelines have taken place by way of formal Service -TS Provider amendments to the Guidelines and on other -Wilson occasions have occurred by way of notifications -SCA by the Department to Transfield Services and Wilson. -IHMS Given the above, and that we assume that the Senate Committee is interested in knowing the number of actual or allegations of incidents in a. to e. that have been reported to the Department, we provide the following information to the Committee in reply to its questions: 1. all incidents of actual or alleged actual selfharm that Transfield Services (or its subcontractor Wilson Security) has reported to the Department, whether they are classified as critical or major under the Guidelines, noting the classification has changed over time; 2. all incidents of actual or alleged attempted serious self-harm (or alleged self-harm) that Transfield Services (or its subcontractor Wilson Security) has reported to the Department, whether they are classified as critical or major under the Guidelines, noting the classification has changed over time and that reporting was initially require regarding incidents of ‘attempted self-harm’ and then subsequently ‘attempted serious self-harm’; 3. all incidents of actual or alleged serious assault (or major assault – requiring offsite medical treatment ) that Transfield Services (or its subcontractor Wilson Security) has reported to the Department, whether they are classified as critical or major under the Guidelines, noting the classification has changed over time and that reporting was initially require regarding incidents of ‘major assault – requiring offsite medical treatment’ and then subsequently ‘alleged serious assault’; How many of the incidents were referred to Police How many of the incidents referred to Police are still open for investigati on -Other Self-Harm (Actual) 253 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Of these 10 were categorised critical Attempted Serious Self-Harm 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Assault 211 10 0 Wilson Security (8) 201 48 34 17 Of these 2 were categorised as critical SCA (1) Other (1) Use of Force 13 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Serious public health risk 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sexual Assault 9 3 0 Wilson Security (3) 5 2 4 4 Of these 2 were categorised as critical 13663942/219 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services 4. all incidents of actual or alleged unplanned use of force resulting in bodily harm of personnel or asylum seekers, whether they are classified as critical or major under the Guidelines, noting the classification has changed over time and that we were not required to report any unplanned use of force that did not cause any bodily harm until July 2014; and 5. all incidents of actual or alleged serious public health risk (or public health risk – serious’), whether they are classified as critical or major under the Guidelines, noting the classification has changed over time. The definitions of the following terms is as applied by our subcontractor, Wilson Security and we will outline this where needed in our reply to this question:  actual self-harm;  attempted serious self-harm;  alleged self-harm;  serious assault;  major assault – requiring offsite medical treatment;  unplanned use of force resulting in bodily harm (of personnel or asylum seekers);  serious public health risk; and  Public health risk – serious’. We also note that our reply to this question will be on the basis of the incident reports that have been received and logged by our subcontractor Wilson Security. To the extent that any incident reports have been reported directly to the Department by other service providers, such as IHMS, Save the Children or the Salvation Army and not also included in an incident report provided to Transfield Services or Wilson Security, these will not be included in the statistics that Transfield Services has. 4 It has been alleged that tents at the NRPC have mould growing inside, and that condensation drips onto asylum 1. Is Transfield aware of these allegations? Are these allegations true? Transfield Services is aware of the presence of mould in marquee accommodation in the Nauru RPC. 13663942/220 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services seekers whilst they sleep. Is Transfield aware of these allegations? a. Are these allegations true? Transfield Services is aware of one report of condensation dripping from the marquees. 2. If so, how extensive is the mould? b. If so, how extensive is the mould? As a result of the physical conditions in Nauru (relative humidity is commonly greater than 85%; temperature in the mid 30s degrees Celsius), eliminating the presence of mould has posed an ongoing challenge to Transfield Services and the Department. c. Is the presence of mould considered a health risk? Mould is present to varying extents across RPC1, 2 and 3 and affects the asylum seeker and service provider accommodation, and sections of the mess and ablution facilities, and the management and administrative areas. d. For how long has Transfield been aware of the problem? e. How many tents out of the total population are affected? f. Does Transfield plan on relocating asylum seekers out of affected tents? 3. Is the presence of mould considered a health risk? Transfield Services is committed to addressing the issues with mould in asylum seeker accommodation and staff accommodation. It has engaged a number of remediation strategies and is also working with the Department to roll out improvements to ventilation and more air conditioning units (which are highly effective in eliminating mould). 4. For how long has Transfield Services been aware of the problem? Despite the conditions of Nauru leaving all structures susceptible to the growth of mould, the accommodation in the RPC has evolved quite frequently. In this regard, we note: g. What actions has Transfield taken to address the problem? i. when Transfield Services arrived in Nauru in late 2012, the asylum seekers and staff were housed in army issued tents there were no issues with mould at this stage; h. Has the Department been made aware of the problem? ii. in or about June 2013, the asylum seekers were moved into demountable accommodation though these were only inhabited for a short period before they were destroyed by fire; and iii. following the destruction of the demountable accommodation, the asylum seekers were returned to army issued tents for an interim period until September 2013 when the existing marquees were rolled out to replace the existing army tents. i. If so, what was the response from the Department? In or about March 2014, mould became apparent on the interior and exterior of the marquees in RPC2 and 3. In order to address the issue, Transfield Services cleaned the marquees with sodium hypochlorite (bleach) wash downs. This improved the situation for a period though mould typically reappeared within a few months. In or about May – June 2014, it became clear that bleach wash downs were not a viable permanent solution. The mould within RPC1, which was constructed by others, was initially contained within the walls of the buildings and was not visible upon inspection. In or about June 2014, the paint in the buildings began to come away revealing some mould. 5. How many tents out of the total population are affected? All of the marquees, being in the order of 140 in RPC1 and RPC2 and in the order of 20 used for administrative and mess functions, are affected to varying extents. 6. Does Transfield plan on relocating asylum seekers out of affected tents? Asylum seekers have not been relocated from marquees, rather, remediation strategies are being undertaken as described below with priority given to those marquees worst affected by mould. Because each panel of each marquee can be removed and replaced very quickly, it is preferable to replace marquee panels with clean ones and not require asylum seekers to move. 7. What actions has Transfield taken to address the problem? As was noted above, once asylum seekers were housed in the marquee style accommodation beginning in September 2013 Transfield Services initially addressed the issue by cleaning the marquees with sodium hypochlorite (bleach) wash downs. While this was effective for a time, mould typically regrew within several months and it became clear in or about May - June that bleach wash downs were not a viable permanent solution. Transfield Services has developed a “Procedure for Mould Decontamination” and a “Mould Remediation Plan” that outlines the approach that Transfield Services takes in respect of the mould. In this regard we note: 13663942/221 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services i. we have created a schedule according to which we have begun to systematically remediate the marquees by cleaning inside and outside of the walls and the roof of the marquee with a specialised chemical, either cleaning or replacing the floor and roof panels, and by applying an inhibitor to prevent regrowth; ii. we have purchased an industrial high pressure steam cleaner; and iii. Transfield Services recently engaged a supervisor to be dedicated to the Mould Remediation Action. In addition to the Mould Remediation Plan, Transfield Services is working with the Department to roll out improvements to ventilation and more air conditioning units (which are highly effective in eliminating mould). 8. Has the Department been made aware of the problem? i. Yes. 13663942/222 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services 3. Questions provided by Senate Select Committee by letter dated 28 May 2015 # Question Senator Assumptions 1 1. In the Department's submission, it is noted that accommodation provided in RPC2 and RPC3 consists of '10m x 12m vinyl marquees'.[1] N/A N/A a. Are these facilities provided by Transfield? If so, where has the Transfield sourced these white vinyl marquees? Please list all suppliers that that have supplied marquees for use in Nauru. b. Are they rented or were they bought, and what resources were allocated to this procurement? c. Does the manufacturer recommend these marquees be used as dwellings? [1] 1] Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Submission 31, pp 33-34. Answer a. Are these facilities provided by Transfield Services? If so, where has the Transfield Services sourced these white vinyl marquees? Please list all suppliers that that have supplied marquees for use in Nauru. The vast majority of 10m x 12m vinyl marquees within RPC2 and RPC3 (approx.120 of 140).were sourced by Transfield Services pursuant to a request by the Department. Transfield Services procured the marquees from Barlens to replace the army style tents that were erected following the destruction of the demountable buildings in July 2013. Other quotes were sought at the time though only Barlens could supply the required quantity in the timeframe requested by the Department. The remaining twenty marquees were procured directly by the Department. Our understanding is that these were purchased from Toll. b. Are they rented or were they bought, and what resources were allocated to this procurement? The marquees used for accommodation procured by Transfield Services were purchased outright. In the order of … was spent on the purchase of the marquees and flooring and … was spent on “hardwalling”. We note only a portion of this “hardwalling” would have been used in the 10 x 12 metre marquees provided as accommodation. c. Does the manufacturer recommend these marquees be used as dwellings? Transfield Services had no direct dealings with the manufacturer as the supply of the marquees was managed by Barlens. As a result we do not have specific instructions from the manufacturer as to whether the products are recommended to be used as dwellings. In any event, substantial modifications have been made to the marquees, including variously: i. solid floors; ii. internal walls; iii. Insulation; iv. hard external walls, security screen mesh walls inside marquee wall fabric; v. A/C; and vi. baby change and sink tables. 13663942/223 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services Annexure 1 - Response to Transfield Services Questions of Notice 1. What was the process of engagement with the Moss Review? The process of engagement included lengthy and detailed responses and communication with the Moss Review during October 2014 to December 2014. That process included: (a) a detailed written submission to the Moss Review addressing the terms of reference and incorporating information relating to alleged physical and sexual assaults or misconduct; (b) a detailed response to numerous questions asked by the Moss Review in respect of specific incidents both inside and outside the scope of the initial terms of reference; (c) attendance by a number of our staff, and the staff of Wilson Security, at interviews with Mr Moss, both in Nauru and Australia; (d) facilitating an inspection of the RPC by the Moss Review. During that time a number of representatives of the Moss Review interviewed a number of asylum seekers. Asylum seekers were also given the opportunity to address the Moss Review on any complaints or concerns (through meetings or via confidential written complaint forms); and (e) responding to numerous other ad hoc questions and requests for assistance and information issued by the Moss Review. 2. What was the process of engagement with the Department? The process for engagement with the Department included: (a) assisting the Department respond to the Moss Review on matters relevant to our provision of services or that of our subcontractors; and (b) assisting and fully co-operating with the Moss Review as the Department requested that we do. 3. Can Transfield Services go through the recommendations we have acknowledged should be, and are being, implemented? Where have Transfield Services seen the improvements occurring, and how are we doing that? We provide below a table that lists the recommendations made or issues raised by Mr Moss that are relevant to Transfield Services taking into account the scope of our role on Nauru. In respect of each of the recommendations or issues raised, we have outlined the approach taken by Transfield Services in response. Our response to the recommendations has been developed and implemented in close collaboration with the Department, Government of Nauru and other service providers. We also make the following general observations regarding our response to the Moss Review recommendations. a. A number of changes have been made to the facilities and infrastructure of the RPC to improve the personal safety and privacy of the asylum seekers. b. A more structured approach has been taken in respect of the meetings and other interactions between the Department, the Government of Nauru, the NPF and Australian Federal Police, and the various service providers by introducing a roster, standing agendas for such meetings, and the distribution of minutes following such meetings. An illustration as to the structured approach of these meetings is discussed in more detail below. 13663942/224 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services c. Transfield Services, in collaboration with the Department, has conducted a review of the incidents and allegations raised within the Moss Review to ensure the processes in place in respect of reporting and responding to such incidents and allegations are adequate. d. An addendum to the Corporate Communications Policy has been released that further articulates the obligations of our employees with respect to their communications on social media. e. The scope of the training, support and supervision provided to all Transfield Services and Wilson Security employees (and in particular to Nauruan staff) has been supplemented and will continue to expand. This is especially the case with respect to Nauruan employees. f. Wherever requested to do so, we have worked with and assisted the Department, the Nauruan government and other service providers to ensure implementation of the Moss Review’s other recommendations. [See table on next page] 13663942/225 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services Recommendations in the Moss Review Transfield Services Approach or Response RECOMMENDATION 1: The Department and the Nauruan Government take into account the personal safety and privacy of asylum seekers when making decisions about facilities and infrastructure at the Centre. While facilities and infrastructure do not fall within the scope of the services provided by Transfield Services, we are collaborating with the Department to identify and implement ways in which facilities and infrastructure can be enhanced to better ensure privacy and personal safety. Improvements to ventilation, screening and lighting Transfield Services are working with the Department in respect of the following improvements to accommodation which will enhance personal safety and privacy: 1. increased ventilation via the provision of central duct air conditioning, fans (ceiling fans for families and wall fans above the door for single adult males and single adult females) and insulation; 2. added screening (including floor to ceiling partitions) for families of 3 or more persons such that their accommodation is transformed into studio living; 3. added screening for single adult males and females such that marquee accommodation is transformed into 2 person rooms with floor to ceiling partitions; 4. additional lighting in walkways, open areas, toilets, ablution areas and laundries; and 5. additional lighting in accommodation areas. Transfield Services has also installed privacy walls in response to specific privacy concerns where those have been raised from time to time by individual asylum seekers. Increased living space With the gradual decrease in asylum seeker numbers at the RPC and in the accommodation, there has been a reduction in the number of asylum seekers per tent, resulting in overall general increase in personal living space and privacy. Increase in rostered female staff The use of female employees in RPC3 has increased since completion of the Moss Review including 13663942/226 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services security guard, cultural advisors and cultural shop fronts. This has resulted in increased consultation with female asylum seekers and programs and activities. Continuous review and improvement of existing practices and procedures Transfield Services identifies privacy and security concerns at the RPC in the following ways: 1. individual risk ratings of asylum seekers; 2. collection and analysis of complaints; 3. intelligence gathering and analysis; 4. attendance in the placement review committees; 5. provision of intelligence reports; 6. review of marquee capacity; 7. asylum seeker consultative committees; and 8. interaction with asylum seekers by cultural liaison officers. Information regarding privacy and security concerns that is obtained through these mechanisms is communicated to the Department and the Government of Nauru and informs our review of our own existing practices and procedures. RECOMMENDATION 2: Contract service providers review their guidelines relating to sexual harassment and sexual relationships to ensure that staff members understand what behaviour is acceptable in the context of a Centre with a diversity of cultures. Since the release of the Moss Review, Transfield Services has reviewed its corporate policies and practices, both independently collaboratively with the Department, to ensure that staff members understand what behaviour is acceptable in the context of an environment with a diversity of cultures. RECOMMENDATION 4: Nauruan Government officials and the Department review and enhance the The Moss Review raises concerns in respect of the management of a number of incidents that have occurred at the RPC. We have engaged in a detailed review of these incidents with the Department with a Having done so, we are confident that our existing policies and guidelines appropriately inform staff about expected behaviours. In this regard, as we detailed in our submission, Transfield Services has in place robust Codes of Conduct, House Rules and other policies and procedures that clearly communicate to staff our expectations in respect of improper conduct. Transfield Services and its staff and contractors are also required to comply with RPC Guidelines approved by the Department. 13663942/227 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services existing policy framework for identifying, view to ensuring the procedures in place are adequate. reporting, responding to, mitigating, and As a consequence of this process, the Department has recently ensured greater clarity regarding the role preventing incidents of sexual and other of service providers in investigations by directing that: physical assault at the Centre. All staff 1. Transfield Services will not undertake any investigative process in relation to incidents involving members working at the Centre minors. Incidents involving minors are to be referred, by Save the Children, to the NPF for (Nauruan, Departmental and contract investigation; service provider) must understand the framework and their responsibilities under it. 2. Transfield Services is to continue its current practice of cooperating with and supporting the NPF during the investigation process; and 3. where Transfield Services is considered the relevant service provider associated with the incident and/or the incident involves Transfield Services employees, we are required to make all reasonable inquiries and take all reasonable steps in relation to the incident in accordance with Transfield Services’ internal processes and contractual requirements. Transfield Services is engaged in an ongoing review of the Incident Reporting Guidelines with the Department with respect to amendments suggested by us that we believe would enhance the existing investigation framework. RECOMMENDATION 6: The Department and the contract service providers continue to work with the Nauruan Government to ensure that a robust child protection framework is developed. Following the Moss Review, the Department has instructed us that Save the Children is in the process of updating the Child Safeguarding Protocol and Code of Conduct. Additionally, we note that the Australian Attorney General’s Department is working with the Government of Nauru developing a country wide framework. At this stage, Transfield Services is not participating directly in these updates though is willing to participate and collaborate with the Department, the Attorney General’s Department or the Government of Nauru. In respect of the existing “RPC Guideline – Child Safeguarding Protocol”, Transfield Services is working with all relevant stakeholders to ensure it is implemented effectively. In this respect, we note: 1. Transfield Services currently provides training in relation to this protocol to our staff during inductions, and Wilson Security and Save the Children also provide training in respect of working with children. Extracts of Transfield Services induction modules and that of Save the Children 13663942/228 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services include those attached. 2. We continue to monitor and engage with the Department in respect of changes to the protocol. 3. Transfield Services has engaged a Senior Child Welfare Advisor to provide organisational advice on best practice in relation to working with children and young people. 4. Transfield Services participated in the recent Department Child Protection Workshop held in Nauru between 4 and 6 May 2015. 5. With our new Senior Child Welfare Advisor, we have developed targeted training modules in relation to the identification and elimination of child abuse (including training on appropriate professional boundaries) and on child welfare and safety. Training for our staff and Wilson Security staff will commence in both Australia and Nauru from June 2015 and will occur by way of two full days training that is compulsory for all current staff. Induction (for new employees) and refresher training on these topics will also form part of our training schedule going forward. The new child safety and welfare training will be supported by packs of training material and other resources that are to be provided to attendees at training sessions in hard copy and which will also be available on line. 6. We are (with other service providers) meeting to discuss the need to allocate areas of the Centre to provide enhanced play space and other amenities for children and parents. The need to ensure child safety and appropriate supervision at any such allocated spaces is a key consideration being discussed at these meetings. RECOMMENDATION 7: All contract service providers review their existing policies in relation to social media to ensure that their staff members have a clear understanding of their obligations concerning its use. Transfield Services has recently reviewed its Corporate Communications Policy. In this respect we note: 1. throughout the period November 2014 to February 2015, Transfield Services undertook a review of our social media policy to strengthen the existing confidentiality obligations on Transfield Services and employees working on the Department contract, and to protect the safety of our employees and the asylum seekers; 2. in February 2015, the Social Media Policy Addendum for all staff at Nauru (and Manus Island) was released; 3. following the Moss Review, in or about 27 March 2015, the Department requested that Transfield 13663942/229 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services Services review its Corporate Communications Policy; 4. that review was completed by about 7 April 2015 and copies of the relevant policy provided to the Department on or about 20 April 2015; and 5. it was acknowledged that there is consistent practice in this respect between the Department and Transfield Services. Following the introduction of the Social Media Policy Addendum, a number of measures have been undertaken to ensure all members of staff have a clear understanding of their obligations concerning its use, and the application of the Corporate Communications Policy more generally. We note: 1. the key points in the Policy Addendum were discussed with managers prior to its distribution in February 2015; 2. when the Social Media Policy Addendum was introduced in in February 2015, staff were required to read it and confirm their understanding by signing confirmation sheets; 3. the document was developed into structured training delivered to managers in March 2015 complementing earlier structured training from March 2014 about the global Social Media Policy; 4. staff now receive the Policy Addendum and sign off on receipt and understanding during induction; 5. induction training covers the confidentiality obligations under the Department contract; and 6. a focus group with welfare staff has been run to take and address questions about the Policy Addendum. There are also a series of measures that are being finalised and are to be rolled out in the near future to ensure compliance, including: 1. detailed face-to-face training on the Transfield Services Code of Business Conduct, including social media as a topic, is scheduled to occur on Nauru in June 2015; 2. online training modules on the Social Media Policy are due to be introduced to Nauru staff in July 2015; and 3. Transfield Services is currently working with Wilson Security on running the Transfield Services 13663942/230 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services online training modules for Wilson Security staff in the Wilson learning management system. RECOMMENDATION 8: The Department review contract provisions and other guidelines to ensure that the obligation on contract service providers to report any data loss is explicit The Department has sought and obtained confirmation from Transfield Services that we are aware of our obligations pursuant to contractual provisions requiring us to report any incident of data loss. RECOMMENDATION 10: The Department ensure that Nauruan operation and management of the Centre is enhanced through a more joined-up approach between the Nauruan operations managers and the contract service providers. To ensure that full participation is encouraged in meetings between stakeholders at the Centre, and so that those meetings are as effective as possible, all stakeholders have now been provided with a meeting timetable that clearly articulates the time and location of all of the relevant meetings for all invitees. Additionally, all stakeholders have also been briefed with standard agendas for such meetings, information with respect of the role of the chair and the recording and distribution of minutes. RECOMMENDATION 18: The Department work with Nauruan authorities and contract service providers to develop new strategies and training programs to build the capacity of the contract service providers' Nauruan workforces. Supervision and training of Transfield Services and Wilson Security Staff In the discussion in respect of recommendation 10, the Moss Review notes that “the supervision and training provided to the Transfield Services and Wilson Security staff members, particularly locally engaged Nauruans, needs to be enhanced”. Additionally, the discussion around Recommendation 18 notes that “the capability of Nauruan staff members needs to be enhanced through training and personal development”. Transfield Services takes these comments very seriously. We have invested considerable time and effort in ensuring that training programs in place within the RPC in respect of all employees are of the highest quality and demonstrate our commitment to ensuring the competency and continuous improvement of our and our subcontractor’s staff. However, we are committed to continuous improvement and we are building on the existing programs so as to ensure the training and support offered to our staff is enhanced in response to the concerns raised by the Moss Review. Specifically, in combination with the Department we have revisited the relevant training programs and materials and made a number of enhancements in direct response to those concerns. We note the following: a. A new traineeship for a Nauruan local in a specialist behaviour management role was introduced in October 2014. b. Four Australian based Nauruans have recently completed a general traineeship and have all successfully obtained a Certificate III in Security Operations. All four are now employed at the 13663942/231 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services RPC. c. Four Nauruan locals have successfully completed a traineeship in training and have obtained their Certificate IV in Training and Education. This training allows them to deliver mandatory training to Nauruan staff. d. A traineeship for local Security Operations Manager (Command 2) has been approved by Wilson Security management and will shortly be advertised. This is a senior management position on island. e. Tranfield Services is in the process of developing a peer support network of dedicated officers to assist local employees who seek support and assistance independently for their respective employers. It is intended that participants have a background, or history that is characterised by elements of functional relationships that encourage exploration, empowerment and positive change. f. Planning is underway for the commencement of Certificate II in Security Operations Training for all local staff. g. Transfield Services began cooking classes for local staff in or about April 2015. h. In order to supplement the induction provided, we have recently requested that Wilson Security provide additional Child Safeguarding Protocols and Code of Conduct training to all Transfield Services local staff. We note that in respect of the Child Safeguarding Protocol training: i. RECOMMENDATION 11: Greater cooperation between the contract service providers be· encouraged, i. the program was developed by Save the Children; and ii. the Wilson Security employees who provide the training are Certificate IV trained in “Training and Assessment” and were instructed as to how to provide the Child Safeguarding Protocol training, by Save the Children. Transfield Services are in discussion with the Wilson Security trainers with respect to rolling out the Child Protection Protocol training more broadly. Roles and responsibilities of the various service providers As was stated in response to Recommendation 4, Transfield Services considers that we do have an appropriate understanding of the framework under which we operate at the RPC and the responsibilities 13663942/232 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services including through the Department: each of the various service providers hold. However, as already noted steps have been taken to enhance participation and effectiveness at the regular meetings that take place between the Department, the a. ensuring that contract service service providers and Nauruan Operations Managers. provider staff members have a clear understanding of each other's roles and In order to facilitate continuous improvement in this space, we engage regularly with the Department and responsibilities; other service providers with respect to facilitation of effective collaboration. For instance: b. reviewing the range of meetings at the Centre to ensure that information is shared effectively; and 1. Transfield Services actively participated in a recent review of all on site meetings lead by the Department in Nauru in response to this recommendation (See further information in respect of Recommendation 10 and 18 above); and taking a more proactive role to ensure that contract service providers are working cooperatively together and are responsive to each other 2. following discussion with the Department, Transfield Services has confirmed its commitment and participation in a National Joint Committee Meeting between stakeholders. RECOMMENDATION 12: The Department ensure that the relationship between Transfield Services/Wilson Security and the Nauruan Police Force becomes more structured and is based on cooperative and consistent interaction. In order to ensure a “joined up approach” is adopted between Transfield, Wilson and the NPF, Transfield Services and Wilson Security have a number of interfaces with the Police that include both Formal and informal meetings. The formal meetings with the police include:  the Joint Intelligence Meeting;  Selected ECO Training (depending on the scenario);  ECO Activities; and  Joint Working Group Meetings (Chaired by the Nauruan Government). Following the release of the Moss Review, Transfield Services as well as the Department and other stakeholders have increased the frequency of meetings with the NPF, and greater structure has been introduced to these meetings through the development of standing agendas and the distribution of minutes (see response to Recommendation 10 and 18, above). Additionally, Transfield Services has also been facilitating additional ‘walk throughs’ of each RPC by the NPF to address concerns expressed by the Moss Review that there needed to be greater visibility of the NPF at the Centre. 13663942/233 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services RECOMMENDATION 15: The As is described above in response to Recommendations 10 and 18, the meetings between all Department ensure that there is a more stakeholders have become more structured. In this regard, we note that the enhancements discussed joined-up approach between the Wilson elsewhere also apply to the fortnightly meetings of the Joint Security Committee which is attended by Security intelligence unit and the representatives of the Department, Wilson Security, Transfield Services, the Government of Nauru, the Nauruan Police Force Nauruan Local Authorities. RECOMMENDATION 17: The Department and contract service providers review and enhance existing efforts to ensure that Nauruan staff members are treated with respect and that there is courteous regard shown for the Republic of Nauru. This requirement could be enhanced through: The specific suggestions made by the Moss Review already form part of Transfield Services’ standard procedures and training. However, we welcome the opportunity to improve this aspect of our work and we are working with the local community to identify ways in which we can enhance the existing procedures and training. a. the induction programs for all non-Nauruan contract service provider staff members about Nauruan culture and Nauruan society be delivered by Nauruans; b. establishment of a framework to deliver positive messaging about Nauru; c. the Department taking the lead with its contract service providers to assist Nauruan authorities to continue to find ways to introduce asylum seekers and Nauruans to each other's cultures and traditions 13663942/234 Questions taken on notice by Transfield Services 13663942/235