Invisible Isolation Raises Oversight Concerns
Children in Australian youth detention centres continue to be held in conditions amounting to solitary confinement, despite official claims that the practice is prohibited. Across the country, isolation is rarely called solitary confinement. Instead, detention systems rely on terms such as ‘isolation’, ‘separation’, ‘segregation’, ‘seclusion’ and ‘lockdown’. The language may differ, but the outcome is the same: children confined alone in cells for hours, days and sometimes weeks, exposed to serious and lasting harm.
Ambiguity around terminology creates confusion and plausible deniability, leading to difficulties in enforcing and regulating these harmful practices. Definitions and terminology also vary widely between states; the AHRC’s ‘Left Alone’ report detailed how many states use multiple terms for slightly varying isolation practices, and some terms have different definitions across states as well. For example, the term ‘separation’ in the Northern Territory means separating a child from other children, whereas in Queensland, the same term means separating that child in a locked room. In New South Wales, ‘separation’ means separating a group of children from other children to maintain order in the centre, while ‘segregation’ refers to isolating an individual child for the safety of themselves or others. If this whirlwind of terminology and definitions feels confusing, that’s because it is. The sheer ambiguity and lack of national consistency in terminology across state jurisdictions is what makes identifying and monitoring isolation practices so challenging.
Despite the plethora of terms used to denote isolation practices across Australian youth detention centres, few jurisdictions explicitly use the term ‘solitary confinement’, which is expressly defined and condemned in international law. ‘Solitary confinement’ has far greater negative connotations attached to it than ‘separation’ or ‘isolation’. The result is that the frequency and severity of this practice in youth detention is undermined and obscured.
The official position of several states is that solitary confinement is firmly prohibited in their jurisdictions, but we know that this is simply not the reality. For example, despite the Queensland government’s position that their centres don’t use solitary confinement, reports out of the Cleveland Youth Detention Centre have consistently described extensive use of isolation and separation practices on the juvenile detainees. Queensland detention centres are not alone in their use of isolation either; these practices are routinely used across the country.
A 2025 report into the use of isolation at the Adelaide Youth Training Centre shone a light on a particular aspect of this issue. Most jurisdictions in Australia focus on prohibiting identified isolation practices being used for disciplinary purposes or situations outside the ‘ordinary routine’ of the Centre. An ‘ordinary routine’, however, often involves periods of isolation including shift changes or overnight stays. The Report observed that this approach essentially allowed youth detention centres to incorporate routine periods of isolation into their operations with no regulatory consequences. As a result, children in detention are being regularly subjected to isolation that causes irreparable harm to their physical, mental, and social development, sometimes with fatal consequences.
The AHRC’s ‘Left Alone’ report also highlighted deliberate attempts by detention staff to circumvent restrictions on isolation practices, citing examples where periods of separation were kept just under the maximum period by excluding overnight hours from the count, or by confining the young person for different misbehaviours on consecutive days. These reports are not only highly disturbing but demonstrate that the current framework is deeply inadequate in protecting children from harm. We need far stronger restrictions and monitoring frameworks to ensure that these loopholes in the regulations are closed.
The ambiguity surrounding the terminology of isolation practices cannot continue to obscure this issue from the public. Governments and detention centres must be held accountable for the measures used against children in detention. Prohibiting ‘solitary confinement’ is not enough; there must be national recognition of what constitutes isolation and steps taken to ensure that no child is exposed to harm while in detention
Protection starts with being able to identify what these practices are and when they happen. This cannot happen until there is consistency in the terminology and definitions used to describe isolation.