6 | Key issues and concerns The accommodation format results in very poor line of sight for detention security provider staff. The compound offices also provide staff with no view of the compound and increase the risk of centre staff being unable to respond to developments in a timely manner, unless alerted or constantly monitoring security cameras. The Commission also found the number of officers working within these compounds to be very low, with up to 150 people being supervised by only 2 to 3 officers at any one time. In contrast to the Hawk and Falcon compounds, the design and layout of the high-security compounds, Cassowary, Kingfisher, Swan and Eagle, was more functional. Swan and Kingfisher each have one wing of 10 rooms, while Cassowary and Eagle have two wings of 10 rooms each. Swan was the most restrictive compound and was used to accommodate people with the highest risk rating as assessed by centre staff. Cassowary was used for those who, for various reasons, required protection from the general population. The staff office within these compounds has good lines of sight into the common areas of each wing and the recreation yard. Each compound is of manageable size – housing as few as 10 and no more than 30 to 40 people – and separated from other compounds by fences. While the design and layout of these compounds was much better than the Hawk and Falcon compounds, the Commission noted in its 2019 inspections of the high security compounds that Figure 2: Hawk compound accommodation outside People in the Hawk and Falcon compounds informed the Commission about concerns that their accommodation could be easily compromised, and their privacy invaded. When asked about why people were unable to lock their rooms (as is the case in all other compounds), Serco and ABF staff advised that there was no practical reason for this other than that it was the way the centre was built. While consideration had been given to installing a swipe card system, the Commission was told that the cost was ‘prohibitive’. Additionally, the condition of the transportable units was generally poor and rooms were small and cramped. 26 … infrastructure in these high-security compounds is harsh and prison-like and generally not appropriate for administrative detention. The compounds also do not offer adequate privacy, particularly due to the lack of bathroom doors, limited secluded spaces and the use of shared accommodation arrangements. The Commission observed that shower curtains had been installed in some compounds to provide some separation between bathrooms and sleeping quarters. Even with curtains installed, however, the Commission is concerned that this does not afford sufficient privacy under shared accommodation arrangements.47