6 | Key issues and concerns periods of self-isolation to avoid pressures to buy and use drugs. As a consequence of the inability to control the trafficking of contraband, centre staff and people detained reported that drug and alcohol (home brew) use was widespread at the centre. A written submission provided to the Commission ahead of the inspection, also raised this same concern. Interviews with people in detention and staff largely affirmed previous reporting by the Commonwealth Ombudsman that ‘people enter immigration detention “clean” but either resume or commence taking illicit substances when detained’.48 One person interviewed reported buying any drug he was offered, in an attempt to make himself feel less distressed about being in immigration detention. This was causing him significant financial problems and putting pressure on his family. Serco staff also reported that they were aware of a growing number of drug debts, because ‘detainees tell us’ and staff overhear things. Centre staff have limited power to control the flow of contraband into the centre and do not have the type of legislative powers required to manage the behaviours typically associated with the prison system. The Commission was told that contraband was being thrown over the fence line49 and that, through developing good relationships with local police, there had been a number of arrests made as a result. Local police were also conducting proactive perimeter sweeps as a deterrent to this method of infiltration. While these actions and the arrests have made some impact, the influx of contraband through other means remains a more significant problem. The Federal Court of Australia has affirmed that mobile phones cannot currently be taken from 28 people detained in immigration detention.50 The ability to arrange trafficking of contraband with contacts outside the centre has arguably become more easily facilitated because of this.51 The Commission recognises the risk management challenges that have arisen because of mobile phones being used by people detained in immigration detention, however, the significant benefits for the wellbeing of people in detention and their capacity to maintain contact with people outside detention need to also be recognised.52 This was more significant during the suspension of visits because of COVID-19 lockdowns.53 The Commission has in the past stated that it considers any blanket prohibition on mobile phones in immigration detention would not be a necessary, reasonable, or proportionate response to the risks arising from their use.54 Instead the Commission has stated: A more appropriate response would be to restrict or remove mobile phones on an individual basis, and only if the individual is found to have used their phone to conduct unlawful activity, or to carry out other forms of serious misconduct.55 Another method of infiltration described to the Commission was though centre mail. At the time of the inspection, court action affirming the right of detained people to order consumables from outside the centre through mail,56 led to the centre receiving up to 128 kilograms of consumables three times per week. The Commission was told that the centre does not have the resources to effectively screen such a large quantity of goods. Nevertheless, significant contraband had been detected through the existing screening procedures. Subsequent to the inspection, this court decision was overturned by the Full Court of the Federal Court and the previous ‘outside food