Is the 'Pacific Solution' unravelling?

[Xenon4017]

No easy answers to this problem,

 

Oh yes there is. We swap every asylum seeker who arrives in Oz for 2 asylum seekers from a UN camp elsewhere and give them PR (and help to integrate etc).

 

In this way we reduce the global number of refugees by double the number that arrive here. No one can then claim that we're not doing our bit. And we've removed the link between place of claim and place of eventual resettlement, which will deter the economic refugees but not the genuine refugees.

 

To claim asylum is a human right. The UN charter recognizes that refugees may choose where they lodge their claim. But nowhere does it say that refugees have the right to choose where they are eventually resettled. It's this implicit link that underscores our current problems.

[Keith and Linda]

.......your right in that the answer is not easy.....

......but this doesn't excuse the apathy......or antagonistic attitude of some...

......minorities have often been treated with fear distrust....

......often through lack of understanding......but theses people have fled persecution.....

.......a send them back attitude smacks of selfish and inhumane intolerance for a human being.....

.......who decides what level of violence is safe enough to return to...?

.......what must they have suffered to pass the test......?

........perhaps if more of us showed an interest.......cared what happened....

.........governments would be forced to find a better solution to the one they have know....IMO of course....tink x

 

I also agree it is a difficult one to answer and there will always be various ways in which attempts will be made but just because some people do not share the same passion for there own view as you do with yours equals apathy? If some one also voices a differing opinion on the subject to yours, they are been antagonistic?

 

The present government got voted in, and by a majority, on one of their pledges to stop the boats and stop the deaths at sea, this they have in general terms achieved, so lets give them credit for reducing the potential of lost lives on that front. This has also reduced the number of people that have to be so called processed and this number will keep reducing as less are now arriving, therefor less to be so called wrongly treated, which we hope will reduce to nil over a relatively short time now.

Nobody can deny that there are both illegal and legal asylum seekers but if we can minimize and or stop the illegal ones then we can better devote time and resources to genuine cases. I may not agree with all the processes this government is doing in this matter but I think stopping the boats is a big step in the right direction. Obviously some will not agree with me and will post to condemn me for voicing my opinion, but they are not going to change my view as much as I will not change theirs no matter how passionate they are. A change of government may help their cause, guess we will just have to wait and see what the majority have to say again, apathy?

[MARYROSE02]

I fully support Australia's official refugee programme and I am not a racist. There is a finite limit to the numbers of people who can be allowed into Australia, or any other country. How many people can you fit into a lifeboat? And you cannot simply dismiss anybody who is worried about the way that our society is changing by calling them racist reactionaries. Look what happened with the allegations into child abuse in Yorkshire where social workers who knew what was happening were basically told to keep quiet for fear of upsetting racial minorities.]

 

I fail to see how the people who owned and operated the unseaworthy boats and cramming them to overflowing with people who, despite supposedly being destitute refugees, had enough money to pay for their passage, should be considered as public benefactors.

 

Increasing the number of 'offical' refugees, would make no difference to the illegal intake, so what should the Australian government have done? Arranged charter flights or ships to fetch anybody who wanted to come here?

 

I noticed that, even before the coroner has made his investigation into the death of the Iranian, people are already accusing the authorities of letting him die. But just this morning I heard a lawyer for his family admit that he was receving anti-biotic treatment for his wound. Even if he wasn't given the correct medical treatment, it does not follow that this was a deliberate policy of the Australian government. Doctors and nurses make mistakes, as we all do. Who amongst us has never gone back to see their GP, because they are still feeling unwell? We do not automatically rush to make a claim of medical malpractice.

[Harpodom]

Who knows if there was negligence in the case of the Iranian man who died recently?

 

No one really knows one way or the other, apart from those people who were personally involved. Hopefully all will be revealed by the coronial inquest.

 

HOWEVER, this hasn't occurred out of a clear blue sky......concerns have been raised BY THE ACTUAL DOCTORS WORKING IN THE SYSTEM, about the standards of care given to 'transferees'.

 

Surely it is a matter of time before something awful happens

 

 

 

Doctors reveal 'harmful' standards of medical care for asylum seekers

 

 

 

A group of doctors has revealed the shocking standard of medical care they are made to provide asylum seekers at the Christmas Island detention centre in a 92-page “letter of concern” given to their employer in November.

The forensic report, written by 15 doctors and obtained by Guardian Australia, is the most comprehensive document yet on the failings of medical procedure inside detention centres and is a damning indictment of the Australian government’s care for refugees.

The report documents “numerous unsafe practices and gross departures from generally accepted medical standards which have posed significant risk to patients and caused considerable harm”.

It paints a vivid picture of the indignity of detention through distressing and detailed case studies.

The doctors claim:

• asylum seekers are examined while exhausted, dehydrated and filthy, their clothing “soiled with urine and faeces” because there are no toilets on the boats

• patients are “begging for treatment”

• asylum seekers must queue for up to three hours for medication. Some have to queue four times a day

• antenatal care is unsafe, inadequate and does not comply with Australian standards; there is an ultrasound machine on the island but rarely anyone who knows how to use it

• there is a high risk of depression among children and no effective system for identifying children at risk

• basic medical stocks are low; drugs requested by doctors are not provided

• long delays in transferring patients to mainland hospitals are leading to “risks of life-threatening deterioration”.

The doctors claim their professional integrity has been put at risk and that they are being paid to compromise their medical ethics.

They describe a fundamental conflict of interest between their employer, IHMS (International Health and Medical Services) and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

They write: “We have concerns that decisions made by IHMS regarding the provision of care to patients have been compromised by their relationship with the DIBP. As a result, these decisions are not always in the best interest of the patient.”

They fear exposing themselves to possible repercussions for working in such a system. "It is of concern that practitioners working within IHMS may be putting any registration they have with Ahpra [Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency] at risk by participating in unethical conduct and in gross departures from clinical standards," they say.

The report was written in November at the invitation of IHMS, which provides medical care to more than 2,000 asylum seekers detained on Christmas Island and the many thousands of men, women and children processed there on their way to camps on Manus and Nauru.

Glimpses of the medical troubles on Christmas Island have been given in the past by whistleblowers and peak bodies such as the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. But the doctors’ report to IHMS is the most comprehensive account yet of failings in medical care and practice on the island.

They write: “Even when mitigating factors, such as the remote location and the practical limitations imposed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection are considered, many aspects of the IHMS health service fall well below accepted standards for clinical practice and are unnecessarily dangerous.”

The doctors claim the problems begin the moment asylum seekers reach Christmas Island. They say flaws in initial health assessments are made even worse by the Abbott government’s demand that all asylum seekers who can must depart within 48 hours for Manus or Nauru.

The doctors document with case studies unsafe and inadequate antenatal care; inadequate medical care for children; the risk of life-threatening deterioration in patients waiting to be flown to hospitals on the Australian mainland; shortages of facilities, equipment and medications; unsafe prescribing practices; poor treatment of diabetes; and inadequate programs to prevent the spread of infectious diseases among detainees.

IHMS told Guardian Australia they were taking the letter “seriously” and that senior medical staff had held discussions with “the majority of co-signatories regarding the issues raised”.

The statement continued: “As per the terms of our contract, and recognising the range of issues, we have shared the letter with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection”.

Guardian Australia understands the letter was passed to the department shortly after it was delivered to IHMS in November.

IHMS said they do not accept that is any under a conflict of interest with their obligation to their patients and the department of immigration and border protection.

“IHMS values the contribution of all of our professional medical staff to ensure our care to people in detention remains of the highest standards.”

IHMS identified Dr John-Paul Sanggaran as the principal author of the letter.

IHMS said thatDr Sanggaran was employed on Christmas Island in September and October 2013. "This was during a period of high intensity, with an unprecedented number of arrivals and an increased number of people presenting with a range of significant complex medical conditions."

They added: "We look forward to working constructively with Dr Sanggaran to review these matters and to resolve his concerns."

Dr Sanggaran told Guardian Australia: "I'm hopeful that there will be improvements in the care of those detained on Christmas Island and that improvements already made can be maintained."

Despite repeated requests, the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, would not provide a comment.

Health induction assessments (HIAs) on arrival:

 

Asylum seekers are examined while exhausted, dehydrated and filthy, their clothing “soiled with urine and faeces” because there are no toilets on the boats.

“The arrivals frequently express their embarrassment at their state. They apologise for the smell and filth they are covered in.”

An extract from the letter of concern documents the conditions that most asylum seekers experience on arrival by boatAt busy times the assessment may take as little as five minutes. The doctors report a case of TB that went undiagnosed for 44 days. “Potentially the entire camp has been exposed.”

The asylum seekers’ own medical records have been thrown away. “This is a serious patient safety issue.”

Their medications have also been discarded without being recorded. Glasses, hearing aids and prosthetics are confiscated and often destroyed.

“A single replacement hearing aid has not been seen by any undersigned doctor working for IHMS.”

A number of hitherto standard health checks were abandoned in July and September this year as Canberra demanded faster transfer to Manus and Nauru.

The doctors conclude: “HIAs, as carried out by IHMS, are not fit for purpose and unreliable. They cannot and should not be relied upon for any reasonable assessment of a person’s health.”

Transfers

The most urgent cases are supposed to be flown to the mainland within two weeks. “Despite this, few category one patients leave before four weeks and some wait at least as long as two months. There have been periods of time where no patients have left the island despite needing immediate tertiary attention.”

Among the case studies in the report are a baby needing heart surgery who waited two months to be flown to the mainland; a child placed on the transfer list for more than two months who was flown instead to Nauru; a man eventually sent to the mainland who returned to the island not having been treated; and others with disabilities and significant injuries still waiting for transfer at the time of the writing of the report.

Antenatal care

“Antenatal care provided by IHMS is unsafe and inadequate and does not comply with Australian standards.” The doctors are particularly concerned by the difficulty of conducting ultrasounds. There is a machine at the island hospital. “However, there are usually no ultrasonographers available, as they only visit every few months and cater primarily for local residents.”

A woman with a “very high-risk pregnancy” – thought to be twins by medical authorities in Indonesia and on Christmas Island – was transferred to Nauru. The doctors write: “IHMS management stated to staff the Department of Immigration and Border Protection were ‘setting an example’.”

Paediatrics

Backed by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and UNHCR, the doctors view detention as “unsuitable for children and a contravention of human rights”. They believe their duty of care to children requires “advocating for their immediate removal from the detention environment”.

The doctors say there is inadequate screening for nutritional deficiencies, inadequate testing of sight and hearing and no monitoring of growth and development for the hundreds of children detained on the island.

“None of the scheduled physical and developmental assessments that would normally occur in the community (typically by a maternal child health nurse) occur at Christmas Island immigration detention centre.”

They say there is “no effective system in place” to detect children and adolescents at risk because of “the deleterious effect of indefinite detention” and “no child specific mental health services on the island (i.e. no paediatric psychologist or psychiatrist)”.

Disabilities

“Christmas Island immigration detention centre is unsuitable for any person living with significant intellectual or physical disability. The detention environment exacerbates their burden of care and the facilities and medical services provided are inadequate to accommodate their needs.”

A young woman with cerebral palsy resulting in severe physical disability is wheelchair bound in one of the island compounds. "She was flagged by several medical officers from her arrival as not suitable for the detention environment." At the time of writing the report, though exhibiting signs of mental distress, she had not been transferred.

Conduct and ethics

The doctors claim they have been complaining about these issues to IHMS for some time, hence the invitation of the health contractor for them to put their complaints in writing.

The doctors see at the heart of the problems on Christmas Island a conflict of interest between the demands placed on IHMS by the Department of Immigration and their own duty of care to their patients.

 

An extract from the letter of concern records a September 2013 meeting in which doctors are told they are 'being paid to accept the risk'

 

The doctors reject the view they say was expressed by IHMS management in September that they are “being paid to accept the risk”. The doctors argue that “payment for risk is clearly in conflict with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency code of conduct for doctors”.

They write: “IHMS must therefore not put its doctors or itself in a situation where financial inducement means that its care for patients is compromised.”

According to the doctors the same IHMS manager told them in September: “There will one day be a royal commission into what is taking place on Christmas Island. He suggested we document well.”

IHMS said they could not confirm the meeting.

With Oliver Laughland

Edited September 8, 2014 by Harpodom

[Parley]

People die every day in the real world.

Sadly a lot of people will have died today whether by accident, sickness, infection or for a miriad of reasons.

 

It is not totally unexpected that the odd person will die in a detention centre or a prison as we all have to die sometime.

[Keith and Linda]

Come come now parley, you should know by now that someone has to be blamed for this, after all people don't just die of infections these days do they?

[Parley]

Sadly they do.

Even free people getting the best of care, still die from serious infection.

[Harpodom]

Guys, guys....you wouldn't allow your own prejudices to colour your view on what happened, would you?

[Keith and Linda]

Guys, guys....you wouldn't allow your own prejudices to colour your view on what happened, would you?

 

No prejudices to colour by me just a view on everyday life, some things are sad and in some circumstances unfortunate, but some things, like no more drowning's at sea, are not so.

[Harpodom]

No prejudices to colour by me just a view on everyday life, some things are sad and in some circumstances unfortunate, but some things, like no more drowning's at sea, are not so.

 

Reminds me of 'in difficult circumstances, difficult things happen'

[Harpodom]

[h=1]High court verdict spells the end for Australian immigration detention as we know it[/h]

Thursday’s high court verdict, which dealt another blow to the federal government’s plans to give asylum seekers temporary protection visas, set significant new limits on Australia’s policy of mandatory detention. It will throw into doubt the legality of detention of thousands of people in Australia, potentially spelling the end for Australia’s mandatory detention regime as we know it.

 

In the unanimous decision handed down on Thursday, the court threw out the federal government’s strategy of granting temporary visas to asylum seekers through a legal loophole. Unable to get temporary protection visas through parliament, the federal government had been granting other temporary visas which blocked asylum seekers from applying for permanent visas, but Thursday’s case ruled against that practice.

More importantly, and for the first time, the court clearly set out the constitutional limits on immigration detention. It was previously unclear for what purposes the government could detain non-citizens. The court has now clearly stated that the government can lawfully detain someone in only three circumstances: to consider whether to let someone apply for a visa; to consider an application for a visa; or to remove someone.

Detention is only lawful if these purposes are being “pursued and carried into effect as soon as reasonably practicable”, the court held. The length of detention must be assessed by what is “necessary and incidental” to execute and fulfil those purposes. These limits on detention are constitutional. In other words, parliament cannot override them by introducing new legislation.

Thursday’s decision has profound implications for asylum seekers and refugees in Australia. The detention of thousands of people who arrived irregularly before July 2013 is now potentially unlawful and the government will have to either release these people or at least resume processing. Prolonged cases of detention can be challenged before the courts. The policy of locking people up indefinitely, without carefully considering whether it is justified in the individual case, is unlawful under Australian law.

 

The court’s decision finally provides clarity about the limits of mandatory detention. Since 1992, the court has heard a series of cases dealing with aspects of the issue. That year, in the case of Chu Kheng Lim, the court held there were two limits on detention. First, it had to be for a “legitimate purpose” – to enable a visa application to be considered, or to remove a person from Australia. Second, detention had to be “reasonably capable of being seen as necessary” for that purpose.

In other words, if it were not possible to remove someone, then the detention could no longer be justified. The court said that detention that did not meet these conditions would be unconstitutional, because it would infringe on the exclusive power of judges to detain people.

 

Since then, however, the high court has tended to question or overlook these limits. Most famously in 2004, in the much criticised case of Al-Kateb v Godwin, the court effectively authorised mandatory and indefinite immigration detention in Australia. The majority in that case held that the Migration Act required a person to be detained even if there was no reasonable prospect of removal. The court held that this was constitutional.

 

Since Al-Kateb, lawyers have challenged Australia’s detention laws in a variety of ways – generally without success. However, in recent years the high court has become increasingly receptive to such challenges. In part, this is probably because in practice detention has become longer, more routine and more extensive.

Since September 2013, the average time spent in detention facilities in Australia has risen from 100 to 350 days, and there are currently nearly 4,000 asylum seekers in detention facilities. These numbers don’t include asylum seekers living in detention in the community.

 

Thursday’s case sets clear limits to the government’s power to detain asylum seekers indefinitely, without review or consideration of individual cases. In doing so, the high court has reaffirmed the role of judges in reinforcing the rule of law in Australia.

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/high-court-verdict-spells-the-end-for-australian-immigration-detention-as-we-know-it?view=mobile

[Guest]

Reminds me of 'in difficult circumstances, difficult things happen'

 

That sounds a bit like "sh*t happens." Did he follow that up by glaring at a journalist for a couple of minutes and giving the impression that he wanted to punch him for the having the impudence to ask him a question?

[jgt]

Harpo.............................hi:wink:

[Harpodom]

Harpo.............................hi:wink:

 

Hi mate, I thought about you the other day!

[Harpodom]

That sounds a bit like "sh*t happens." Did he follow that up by glaring at a journalist for a couple of minutes and giving the impression that he wanted to punch him for the having the impudence to ask him a question?

 

It was WAAAY worse than that mate.

 

The '**** happens' gaffe was just about Abott trying to ingratiate himself with some soldiers, trying to sound pithy and tough in a 'Marlboro Man' sort of way. I think he meant it in the best possible way but it backfired on him and, well.....

 

The 'in difficult circumstances, difficult things happen' gaffe (it was a gaffe, but the docile MSM just let it sail through to the keeper) was him trying to downplay the Sri Lankan govt's awful human rights record, and their use of torture, as Sri Lanka is currently in Australia's good books, what with their whole 'cracking down on illegal migration thing.

[Parley]

Why was it a gaffe ?

[pablo]

Why was it a gaffe ?

 

Because it downplays torture?

[Zack]

One of the reasons for the problems is "fighting amongst factions". They all struggle to get out of a place where they are being persecuted, travel with family in squalor, taking risks to try and get a better life, pay a lot of money on the promise someone is going to take them to Australia, and they can't even let their factionism go for a while, even when they are living with people who presumably are looking for the same as them. A better life.

 

In the meantime Aus is expected to let them in and bring all their problems with them. We already have too many fighting abroad in Syria, Iraq etc. and people already living here who can't get on with each other because their allegiance lies with some faction or other in the place they left. We aren't quite as bad as the UK and their home grown terrorists yet but give it a few years of lax controls and it will be.

 

Maybe Manus Island is closing as there are not as many Asylum seekers making it now and there's no need for the extra room. Don't think it's unravelling at all but instead points to it being quite successful.

 

Another one of the reasons for causing trouble listed

 

Preventing asylum seekers access to mobile phones. wtf, you wouldn't think a mobile phone would be high enough on their priority to cause an issue about it. I suppose without their mobile though, they can't be letting the press know on a daily basis how badly they are being treated. They probably got the Guardian, Sarah Hansen-Young and their lawyers on speed dial.

 

It may seem harsh and inhumane to many.But Australia is doing the best thing for the security of it's people.Britain is weak.They are doing nothing about the Muslim jihardi's that have left Britain to go and fight for ISIS.The Govenment says up to 500 have gone.But Muslim elders say over 3000.These Muslims in Britain admit their aim is to take over the country.And behead anyone that insults Islam.If Tony Abbott thinks that sending Australian troops to !raq or anything else,he should think again.He will only Make Australin people a target for these low life Muslims,That will only bite the hand that feeds them.stay out of Iraq.have nothing to do with wars in the middle east.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Zack

[flag of convenience]

It may seem harsh and inhumane to many.But Australia is doing the best thing for the security of it's people.Britain is weak.They are doing nothing about the Muslim jihardi's that have left Britain to go and fight for ISIS.The Govenment says up to 500 have gone.But Muslim elders say over 3000.These Muslims in Britain admit their aim is to take over the country.And behead anyone that insults Islam.If Tony Abbott thinks that sending Australian troops to !raq or anything else,he should think again.He will only Make Australin people a target for these low life Muslims,That will only bite the hand that feeds them.stay out of Iraq.have nothing to do with wars in the middle east.

It doesn't sound harsh and inhuman it is. I'm afraid it has little to do with security, as these issues can be sorted out in a matter of months and not prolonged confinement. Those not in need of refuge shouldn't be detained but returned if judged economic refugees.

 

It is hardly the extremists that are fleeing their country but those that are fleeing the extremists. Seems to me that is the reason western nations have become reinvolved in issues on the ground in the region many are fleeing from. Namely to protect the innocent.

 

Yes becoming involved will of course make Australia potentially a greater target at home and abroad. A bit of a shame Abbott felt the need to broadcast so shrilly Australia's joined at the hip ongoing stance with USA yet again, when a low key involvement would have been ample.

 

Your post does suggest an anti Muslim slant to it when in fact I'm sure you'd agree most Muslims want to live in peace and are totally against the extremists which have other agendas outside of a religious one.

[Harpodom]

It doesn't sound harsh and inhuman it is. I'm afraid it has little to do with security, as these issues can be sorted out in a matter of months and not prolonged confinement. Those not in need of refuge shouldn't be detained but returned if judged economic refugees.

 

It is hardly the extremists that are fleeing their country but those that are fleeing the extremists. Seems to me that is the reason western nations have become reinvolved in issues on the ground in the region many are fleeing from. Namely to protect the innocent.

 

Yes becoming involved will of course make Australia potentially a greater target at home and abroad. A bit of a shame Abbott felt the need to broadcast so shrilly Australia's joined at the hip ongoing stance with USA yet again, when a low key involvement would have been ample.

 

Your post does suggest an anti Muslim slant to it when in fact I'm sure you'd agree most Muslims want to live in peace and are totally against the extremists which have other agendas outside of a religious one.

 

He's behind in the polls flag.

 

If I was a cynic I'd think that his rushing to join in this latest war was an attempt to make voters forget about that train crash of a budget.

[flag of convenience]

He's behind in the polls flag.

 

If I was a cynic I'd think that his rushing to join in this latest war was an attempt to make voters forget about that train crash of a budget.

 

Now that would be cynical. Surely his prime intent is to ensure our safety in our beds at night? If you don't stop the enemy at source, next it'll be your suburb being under attack. Something along those lines was used by the same mob to justify going into Nam the halt the Reds anyway. Doesn't sound the rhetoric has changed a great deal. A recent poll looked at suggested majority of Australians fear an attack on home soil. As such nothing like a 'crisis' to galvanise support behind a faltering government.

[MARYROSE02]

He's behind in the polls flag.

 

If I was a cynic I'd think that his rushing to join in this latest war was an attempt to make voters forget about that train crash of a budget.

 

But Bill Shorten is 100 percent behind Tony Abbott on this issue. Why isn't he doing what the Leader of the Opposition usually does ie find fault with the Goverment of the day?

[MARYROSE02]

Now that would be cynical. Surely his prime intent is to ensure our safety in our beds at night? If you don't stop the enemy at source, next it'll be your suburb being under attack. Something along those lines was used by the same mob to justify going into Nam the halt the Reds anyway. Doesn't sound the rhetoric has changed a great deal. A recent poll looked at suggested majority of Australians fear an attack on home soil. As such nothing like a 'crisis' to galvanise support behind a faltering government.

 

So Menzies was wrong to take Australia into war with Germany as soon as Britain declared war?

[flag of convenience]

So Menzies was wrong to take Australia into war with Germany as soon as Britain declared war?

 

It could be said Pig Iron Bob was wrong to sell iron to the Japanese pre WW2 when they were inflicting pain on the Chinese. I note USA did not answer the call to arms and stand shoulder to shoulder with Britain, The Empire and France on the declaration of war. Afraid Australia has always been a bit of a follower.

[flag of convenience]

But Bill Shorten is 100 percent behind Tony Abbott on this issue. Why isn't he doing what the Leader of the Opposition usually does ie find fault with the Goverment of the day?

 

There have been critiques from the other side but not a turn around of complete policy. No Labor leader is likely to attempt such a move since the issue is so politicised.