for treatment, and some described the delays as
contributing to a worsening of those symptoms.
to reduce the risk (such as wearing masks and
undertaking rapid antigen tests).74
The Commonwealth Ombudsman has similarly
identified IHMS staff having trouble procuring
dental care for people in detention who require
significant treatment as being ‘a recurring theme’.73
At the time of the inspection of the Brisbane APOD,
the Commission was advised by staff that detainees
returning from off-site medical appointments were
required to quarantine for between 5 – 7 days,
although exemptions from this requirement could
be requested. The Commission was informed
that the majority of individuals attending off-site
medical appointments had been exempted over the
It is acknowledged that there can be lengthy
waiting times under the public health system for
the general Australian public. IHMS staff advised
that waiting times were equivalent to those
experienced in the Australian community by those
seeking similar treatment through the public health
system. These delays have been exacerbated by
the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and
it was advised that this similarly reflects increased
waiting times being experienced by the broader
Australian community.
An additional factor in the case of individuals
detained in immigration detention facilities
(including hotel APODs) has been the impact
of operational quarantine during the COVID-19
pandemic, where detainees returning from an
external appointment were often required to
undertake a period of quarantine. The specific
quarantine requirements varied across facilities
and at different periods. As an example, the
Commission was advised that in early 2022
individuals detained at BITA were required, as
a matter of course, to undertake seven days
operational quarantine upon returning from
an external appointment. Reduced operational
quarantine periods had been approved in limited
past few months, however there were no figures
available to quantify this. There appeared to be
some confusion about these requirements amongst
detainees, with at least one individual informing
us that they had been told they would be required
to quarantine if they attended an external medical
appointment, but that they were not told they could
request an exemption.
The Commission does not know how many
individuals have been subject to operational
quarantine, either at hotel APODs specifically or
immigration detention facilities more broadly.
A number of individuals detained at hotel APODs
confirmed with us that they had refused to attend
external appointments because they did not
want to be required to quarantine, which then
exacerbated the delays in being able to access
medical treatment. These individuals did not
appear to be aware of any level of discretion
being available with respect to the application of
operational quarantine.
cases where the medical appointment was
considered critical, and the detainees were willing
to adopt additional precautionary measures
The Use of Hotels as Alternative Places of Detention (APODs) • 2023 • 41