Grave concerns for Indigenous man's wellbeing after ‘close to 800 days' in solitary confinement at SA prison
Robert Barnes is serving an 11-year sentence at Yatala Labour prison in Adelaide and is in the high-security G Division.
Uncle Major 'Moogy' Sumner, one of the state's most prominent Aboriginal elders, said Barnes, an Indigenous man, was in prison after assaulting a corrections officer
Sumner and Mel Turner, a former Aboriginal liaison officer (ALO) at the prison, both said they had not previously heard of anyone being kept in solitary confinement for that long. 'It's getting close to 800 [days],' Turner said.
Sumner, a Ngarrindjeri elder, environmental activist, former Greens candidate and member of South Australia's First Nations voice said he had been stopped from seeing Barnes because he spoke to the voice about the situation.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
'I was going to see him, then I got told that because I'm a member of the voice in SA and I took it to the voice – and somehow they found out I mentioned it there and said I couldn't go in and see him,' Sumner said.
'That's what the voice is for. Anything wrong with Aboriginal people, we take it to the government.'
Sumner is due to meet the state's correctional services head, David Brown, on Friday regarding Barnes's situation.
'We'll talk about what we can do. We have to get [Barnes] out of there,' Sumner said.
The Human Rights Law Centre defines solitary confinement as isolation 'for 22 hours a day or more without meaningful human contact'.
'Prolonged solitary confinement is solitary confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days.'
The centre has condemned it as a 'cruel practice that causes irreparable harm to the people who are subjected to this form of physical and sensory isolation', and called on governments to ban the 'archaic and inhumane' practice.
Turner said she advocated for Sumner to visit Barnes, at which point she was told Sumner could not come in because he had spoken to the voice.
'I said 'Wow, I'll tell Major Sumner', and [the person] said, 'You can't tell him and you can't tell the prisoner',' Turner said. She said she last saw Barnes at the end of March.
Turner has claimed she had been targeted and bullied and felt she had to resign from her role as an ALO, which she did in June.
'I resigned because I was pushed out,' she said.
In a letter to Brown sent in May, seen by Guardian Australia, Turner said she had been 'hindered' in performing her role because of a ban on ALOs from accessing G Division, which was 'heartbreaking and soul-crushing' because her role is 'specifically aimed at preventing Aboriginal deaths in custody' and Barnes had self-harmed and attempted suicide twice.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
She said Barnes's sister told her he had tried to kill himself on Tuesday, the same day a protest was held outside the prison.
SA Greens senator Barbara Pocock wrote to acting premier Susan Close to confirm exactly how long Barnes has been in solitary confinement, saying UN standards known as the Nelson Mandela Rules prohibit solitary confinement for more than 15 consecutive days.
'We send people to prison as punishment, not for punishment,' Pocock said in a statement on Wednesday.
'I am told this prisoner has already attempted suicide and self-harm on a number of occasion and I, along with many others in the community, hold grave fears for his health and wellbeing while he is held under these conditions.'
In the letter to Close, seen by Guardian Australia, Pocock asked exactly how many days Barnes had been in solitary; whether UN rules had been breached; whether certain books and materials had been withheld; whether ALOs and Sumner were stopped from visiting; whether any officer had said Sumner was stopped from visiting because he was a member of the SA voice; and whether Close had confidence in the leadership and management at the prison.
'In view of these serious allegations and the clear threat and risk to Mr Barnes' health and wellbeing, I request that your government initiate an immediate investigation of these matters,' Pocock wrote.
Guardian Australia has contacted the South Australian government and the Department of Correctional Services for a response.
The department has told other outlets in a statement that it cannot comment on individual cases but 'continues to provide cultural and mental health support to identified prisoners in need across the system', including at Yatala.
It also said Sumner was not banned from DCS sites, the ABC reported, and that an offer had been made for him to visit Yatala next week.
Sumner said he had been told he could not see Barnes.
Support is available at Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636, Lifeline on 13 11 14, and at MensLine on 1300 789 978.
Indigenous Australians can call 13YARN on 13 92 76 for information and crisis support; or call Lifeline on 13 11 14, Mensline on 1300 789 978 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Ministers urged to explain plans to re-establish extraditions to Hong Kong
Ministers have been urged to explain plans which would once again allow Britain to extradite people to Hong Kong. The move could put at risk dissident Hongkongers who have fled to the UK to avoid recrimination by the Chinese government, a senior Conservative warned. Shadow Home Office minister Alicia Kearns urged the Government to ensure 'protections will be put in place to ensure no Hongkonger, CCP (Chinese Community Party) critic or anyone targeted by the CCP will be extradited under the new arrangement'. The UK's extradition treaty with Hong Kong was suspended by the then-Tory government after a new national security law was imposed on the territory by China in 2020. The treaty meant Hong Kong could request that someone living in the UK suspected of a crime at home could be handed over to face justice, and vice versa. Fears that the law could lead to human rights abuses were behind the UK's reasoning to put the agreement on ice. Ministers have now introduced a law change in the Commons which would tweak how Hong Kong is designated under the 2003 Extradition Act. The statutory instrument introduced in the Commons on July 17 would effectively re-establish an extradition route with Hong Kong, as well as Zimbabwe. It also changes how Chile is classified under the Act because the South American country has signed an international extradition treaty. In a letter to shadow home secretary Chris Philp seen by the PA news agency, security minister Dan Jarvis suggested the change was needed as no extradition to Hong Kong can currently be made 'even if there were strong operational grounds to do so'. Mr Jarvis added: 'The way to resolve this situation is to de-designate Hong Kong and Zimbabwe from the Act so that we can co-operate with them on the case-by-case ad hoc basis available for non-treaty partners. 'The safety and security of our citizens is our top priority. 'Ensuring that territories are correctly designated under the Act will ensure that the UK can accept extradition requests in a lawful and timely way to ensure the public is not put at risk.' Writing in response to Mr Jarvis, shadow minister Ms Kearns questioned why the Government had taken the step, as she said the situation in Hong Kong had 'worsened' in the years since the national security law was introduced. She pointed to the case of Jimmy Lai, the 77-year-old British national and proprietor of the Apple Daily newspaper, who is facing detention by the Chinese government, as well as other critics of Beijing. 'Has the Government assessed political freedom and the rule of law have been returned to Hong Kong, or have you decided these issues are no longer saleable alongside the 'reset' in relations between the UK and China?' Ms Kearns asked in her letter. In a post on social media, she added: 'I urge the Government to give urgent reassurances on how this system will be safely managed and what protections will be put in place to ensure no Hong Konger, CCP critic or anyone targeted by the CCP will be extradited under the new arrangement.' The Hong Kong national security law criminalises anything considered to be secessionist from China, and has led to a crackdown on critics of Beijing. Some 150,000 Hongkongers have moved to the UK under a special visa scheme launched in early 2021, after the law was introduced. Since coming to power, Labour has sought to reset relations with China with the aim of boosting trade, after the Conservatives took an increasingly hawkish attitude towards the country while they were in office. The Home Office, which is responsible for extradition law, has been contacted for comment.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Australians lost $1bn through collapsed investment funds. What happened and how can workers keep their super safe?
Thousands of Australians recently lost more than $1bn in retirement savings after the collapse of funds linked to their superannuation platforms, sparking warnings from the corporate regulator about risky investment schemes. While only a small share of the population has been affected, some investors have seen their entire super balances wiped. Here is how the collapses happened, and what Australian workers can do to avoid a similar situation. Over the past year or so, more than 12,000 Australians have been exposed to three major collapsed or frozen investment schemes: First Guardian, Shield Master Fund and Australian Fiduciaries. The failures have so far led to collective losses of up to $1.2bn. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic) blocked investment in Shield in February 2024 and froze the assets of First Guardian in February 2025 after its managers blocked most investors from accessing their funds in May the previous year. The corporate regulator is also investigating concerns about Australian Fiduciaries including alleged inadequate management of conflicts of interest. First Guardian, which held $505m for about 6,000 investors, described its investments as focused on shares, property, private equity and fixed income, according to federal court-appointed liquidators. The liquidators found the company had put nearly $70m into businesses connected to its directors while more than $240m was invested offshore. One director also allegedly bought a Lamborghini with nearly $550,000 of company money. Investors have been warned they will probably only get a portion of an outstanding $446m back, and not until 2027 at the earliest, after liquidators said they expected to conclude directors breached their duties, the value of investments may have been overstated and funds may not have been properly recorded. The fund's May 2024 balance sheet indicated it had grown that to $525m but more than half of that was in question and investors were not likely to recover their entire investment, receivers for Shield reported in November 2024. They found managers had overstated the value of investments in a real estate fund and nearly $7m had been spent on a former director's personal expenses. Some investments would not be recovered for more than two years, the receivers said in December. In these cases, investors switched to superannuation products that would let them invest in First Guardian or in Shield with financial advisers' help, after being cold-called by salespeople, Asic says. The corporate regulator has put the spotlight on salespeople pressuring customers to invest in specific products. Red flags for consumers include cold calling and high-pressure sales tactics, or offers of prizes, free superannuation health checks, or free consolidation of lost super, according to Asic's deputy chair, Sarah Court. 'These calls don't have the hallmarks of a typical scam. The caller will seemingly have your best interests at heart, and they say they want to help you find a better super product or locate lost super for free,' she says. 'If you are unsure or are feeling pressured, just hang up.' Customers and financial advisers reached the products through superannuation platforms, including one operated by an arm of Macquarie Group, that temporarily chose to offer one or both products, Asic says. Super funds are highly regulated and they are discouraged from investing in schemes that are risky or opaque, according to Xavier O'Halloran, the chief executive of advocacy group Super Consumers Australia. Nearly 15 million among the 18 million accounts in Australia are in MySuper products, default super funds that employers offer workers, which did not invest in the collapsed schemes, he says. While all investment carries risk, MySuper products are diversified, and so not reliant on a single investment or asset class. Some Australians invest in less scrutinised schemes, especially through self-managed super funds. Asic recently warned it had growing concerns that peoplewere being encouraged by salespeople and cold-callers to switch from safe investments into complex and risky schemes. Phil Anderson, the general manager of policy, advocacy and standards at the Financial Advice Association Australia, encourages people to research their investments and check details with their financial advisers if they're worried they might be in an inappropriate investment. 'It is quite evident that there's failings in the system,' Anderson says. 'Don't be rushed into doing something. Challenge the adviser: Why is this the right thing for me? … What track record do these investment options have?' Investors can also spread their superannuation between different investment options within or across funds to limit the chance of a single collapse knocking out their entire savings, Anderson says. Customers can check what assets their super is invested in and how it is performing when superannuation funds release their annual statements for 2024-25 in coming months. People who have been told to swap from a MySuper product can also ask their adviser if their prospective fund has been checked by the regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. Asic has encouraged those who have lost money in a collapse to make a complaint about their adviser to the sector's independent ombudsman, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. If a customer has lost money but their advice firm has gone into liquidation or insolvency, they may be able to appeal to the sector's compensation scheme of last resort. However, not all of the losses may be recompensed. Last resort compensation payouts are capped at $150,000 per individual and would only cover any clients who accessed the products under the guidance of an adviser, meaning any customer who made the decision without advice would not be eligible. The compensator is expecting claims against advisers linked to the funds but has received no claims for Shield and only one for First Guardian, according to the scheme's chief executive, David Berry. That has made it impossible to determine how many investors will be eligible, how much they might be paid or when they might be compensated, he said. This shortfall has led to calls for increased regulation of the products responsible for the losses, known as managed investment schemes, but also for reform of the compensation scheme of last resort so it covers those who invested without advice. Guardian Australia attempted to reach representatives of the funds Shield, First Guardian and Australian Fiduciaries, including through the firms' liquidators or administrators where applicable. Financial advice firm Interprac and superannuation platform trustees Macquarie, Equity Trustees, Diversa and Netwealth each declined to comment.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Two-year-old sexually abused at family daycare by man living at the premises, mother claims
A mother has claimed her two-year-old daughter was sexually abused at a family daycare service by a man she did not know was living there. The alleged offender was the partner of the woman running the service, located at a private home in New South Wales. Police, the Department of Education and the Department of Communities and Justice investigated, but the woman told Guardian Australia that, without physical evidence, no charges were able to be laid and no action was taken against the man or the service, which is still operating. Jennifer* said her daughter Ava* was two years old and attending a family daycare centre – a service run by an individual in their home, but which still receives the federal childcare subsidy – when she started talking about interactions with a man she didn't know. Some were innocuous, others rang alarm bells. 'It was sort of like, 'Who is [this person]?' It was just a bit off, it was just strange,' said Jennifer, who says she had no idea there was a man living at the home where the service operated. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Jennifer called the woman running the centre to ask her about it. 'I, in good faith, rang [her] the next day, thinking that there would actually be an explanation for it all.' But Jennifer said the response from the woman about the man – who was the woman's partner – was defensive and angry, something that raised 'red flags' for Jennifer, so she un-enrolled Ava. In the months that followed, Jennifer said Ava's behaviour changed. 'She regressed in toilet training, she'd just become sort of more anxious than she'd ever been and getting scared all the time, like really bizarre stuff like screaming … which she'd never been before.' By this point nearly three years old, Ava then disclosed that the man had exposed himself to her and he had touched her private parts, Jennifer said. Ava's disclosures came after seeing something that reminded her of the family daycare. She told her parents that some of the incidents occurred when she was in the daycare's sleep room. Jennifer reported the alleged incidents to police, who investigated, taking a statement from Ava and from her parents. Ava had to undergo a medical assessment by a specialist doctor who deals with potential child victims of sexual abuse but there was no physical evidence of assault. The man was not charged with any offences against Ava. Jennifer said that before reporting to police, she consulted with friends in the police force, who told her that a conviction or even a charge against the man was very unlikely. 'Basically, this has been everyone's advice the whole time: you won't get a conviction unless she's got an STD, or there's semen, or physical evidence. You won't get a conviction. But if there's a record of investigation, it might help someone in 20 years' time, basically. That's what it was for … in 20 years' time, when people start reporting things … there's something on record.' Jennifer praised the police and the Department of Communities and Justice, which served as a liaison with the family and organised support, including counselling, for them, but said the process was still incredibly distressing for Ava. 'She knew what was going on. She's a pretty smart chicken. Even though she was so young, she sort of knew … she remained upset and anxious for quite some time.' An assessment of Ava's behaviour, from a new daycare service that Jennifer eventually enrolled Ava in, seen by Guardian Australia, said Ava 'shows signs of anxiety' and an 'ongoing difficulty to separate from parents' as well as 'distress around sleeping'. The education department also conducted an investigation into the childcare service after the reports were made to police but, in a summary of its findings, seen by Guardian Australia, it wrote: 'There was insufficient evidence to substantiate a breach of the National Law and Regulations. Insufficient evidence to determine [the man] posed a risk to children. No further action was taken by the department. The case was closed.' Jennifer says the department of education investigation left her with more questions. Had they looked into whether the man was present at the service when the children were there? Had they looked into whether the woman running the service left some children alone while she was getting the other children to sleep? 'Why can't they tell us these key points?' she says. 'You don't have confidence because they don't give you answers. 'The investigation… absolutely made me even more distrustful.' In response to general questions about its procedures, the NSW Early Childhood Education and Care Regulatory Authority said that if a police investigation does not result in charges, the authority still conducts its own investigation and has the power to take strong action. It said it had issued 211 prohibition notices to people working in early childhood education and care in NSW over the last four and a half years and had prosecuted 34 providers, nominated supervisors and individuals since 2021. None of the prosecutions were for incidents involving alleged sexual abuse. Family daycare centres provide care to more than 71,000 Australian children, including around 22,000 in NSW, making up 5.1% of all early childhood education and care services. The service Ava attended is still operating. Guardian Australia has not confirmed whether the man is still living at the premises. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Jennifer said that she was shocked to learn that family daycare centres have no regulatory obligation to inform parents of who lives at the home, although every member of a household where a family daycare operates must have a working with children check. She says she had no idea that the woman running the service had a partner living in the home. 'It wasn't until Ava came home and started talking about [him], and we're like, 'Who is [this person]?'' Jennifer would like to see this change, to make it mandatory for all family daycare centres to inform parents of who lives at or will be present while their children are in care. She would like to see reform to the way investigations into those working with children – or in close proximity to them – happen, so action can be taken against people who have had credible allegations made against them, even if the level of proof does not reach that required for a criminal conviction. 'That's a hard one because, you know, you don't want innocent people to be punished,' she said. '[But] the level of evidence required for a conviction in court is so high; for beyond reasonable doubt. And when you've got no physical evidence and you've got the words of the two-year-olds, it's not going to stand up in court.' But she says the Department of Communities and Justice, when it met with the family, had a more 'child-centred' focus in talking about the case. 'They came to the house and sat down with us and went through everything and they were amazing and they explained how even though there's no evidence doesn't mean that it didn't occur. It was just more of an open finding. 'They were more believing. And so I feel like there needs to be more of a child-centred approach … rather than a criminal approach. 'I feel like whatever the DCJ were doing felt more holistic without outright coming out and saying like, yes, he's guilty.' Jennifer suggested there could be a threshold of proof, lower than the criminal threshold, that allowed regulators to take actions or impose prohibitions, when there were credible allegations. 'So maybe, I don't know, [this man] shouldn't be in the house when she's operating her family daycare,' she suggests. The incident happened a number of years ago and Jennifer says Ava is, for the most part, doing well. She has friends, thrives at sport and in school, but 'she has her moments, she'll melt down and sometimes we're like: is that part of it? Sometimes you wonder what part of the trauma carries through.' Jennifer and her partner debate what to tell Ava about it when she is older. 'That's a real struggle for us, how do we handle this in the future? Do you want to know this when you're older? Do we have a duty to tell her? It's a quagmire.' 'For my partner and I, we think about it all the time. Occasionally we say to each other, 'God, I was thinking about that today. Like, I can't believe … I've been able to hold it together.'' *Names have been changed to protect privacy In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. If you or someone you know is affected by sexual assault, family or domestic violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit In an emergency, call 000. International helplines can be found via
