Negligence and Human Cruelty

I think he'd like to, but he won't be able to do it - legally at least. This one has the potential to be very embarrassing, but it might at least get something done about the conditions of detention.

I need to make a separate point. I actually worked in a detention centre in the NT a couple of years ago. I'm not going to say much more than that except that I wasn't involved in security or the detention centre process. I saw how the centres were run and I have to say they were run extremely well. The Department kept on Serco and held the company accountable for everything that went on. To their credit Serco's management - with whom I have no connection now, nor do I want anything to do with them in the future - were accountable and responsible. If a detention facility can be said to be humane then those were. I've been in custodial facilities and prisons and I can tell you the detention centres were way different from those places. But it was down to DIAC and the then Minister. I remember saying to one of my colleagues that if the Coalition got in things would change. And they have.
This is what has to be exposed by the inquest - the punitive approach of this government. I have no doubt that DIAC and the contractors are doing exactly what the government wants, the previous, far more humane approach has been booted in favour of Morrison's punishment policies.

 

Duty of care. You hold someone somewhere, you look after them because they have no freedom. That goes for anyone in any form of custody whatsoever.

 

Poor outcomes because a persons health problem is not diagnosed correctly or in a timely manner is not uncommon. Especialy where that person does not present early in the piece. It is not different because they happen to be in an illegal immigrant camp.

 

Hmmm, there seems to be a polarity of opinions regarding this one. I will go as far to say this; the conditions (especially in mental health sense) they live in are appalling, it is very unjust for any human being to be detained against their will for committing no crime but seeking shelter from war and hardship. And on the case of "they are seeking asylum here as opposed to elsewhere as to the economic and developed nature of the country", I agree, to a point. I don't see them being accepted nor seeking to attain refugee status in any other neighboring nations, "So why not try the Western nation over there"? "Surely they'll treat us well", which, in a sense is exploiting our bleeding hearts, but on the other hand they are desperate for a better standard of living... it's a hard line to draw, whichever way you cut it.

And what to do with them? We have three options; 1. Send them back. 2. Detain them. 3. Let them in. The option The Greens party prefers, being; No. 3 "let them all in" opens the floodgates to hundreds of thousands of unskilled, non-naturalized culturally alien immigrants, that cannot speak a word of English and would likely burden the economy to breaking point. Now, on point 2, if they are to be detained; there is definitely room for reform in the way they are treated and housed, but even that can be debated; as to culldav's point; there are many native Australians who suffer day-to-day, some with finances, homelessness, drug addiction, mental illness and many other forms of destitute ways of living. And they are within our borders, and Australians to start with, and they're being treated just as badly by the same system.

The problem is Gwendoline, be you a ALP or Lib/Nat supporter, the consensus on both sides of the fence is "detain them". And the detention conditions have not improved under either leadership, and will likely stay unchanged as to the vast majority of Australian's opposition to Refugees in general, and a severe lack of empathy.

 

We have seen many "pro" and "anti" refugee media stories over the years, and the one thing they both seem to have in common, is that the refugees coming to Australia by boat from Indonesia have all been living in Indonesia for many years before venturing to Australia. Therefore, wouldn't this suggest that these refugees living in Indonesia for many years have already found shelther, and a safe haven from wars they are fleeing - considering Indonesia in not invloved in any war?

Anyone who lives years in Indonesia, and then pays smugglers $10,000 to smuggle them illegally into Australia, are not genuine refugees fleeing war in fear for their lives; they are financial opportunistic migrants trying to enter another country via a loophole.

It was my understanding the UN was established to manage international refugee crisis situations on behalf of independent countries, and their bureaucrats get paid by the international community to oversee that refugees in camps are being re-settled in countries or repatriated. Seems like the UN bureaucrats haven't been doing anything physically practicle to help these camp refugees, except throwing lavish cocktail parties around the world at our expense to discuss the same matter that they have failed to resole for over 40 years.

We also need politicians from "all" political parties to stop using human beings as political bootballs in their political disputes with Indonesia. Australia needs strong leaders, who will tell Indonesia and the UN bureaucrats, that Australia is a soverign country, will not accept any individuals arriving from Indonesia illegally by boat seeking refugee status without documentation, and anyone who does arrive will be immediately returned to Indonesia within 48 hours regardless of circumstance.

This would instantly close all the detention centre's down, and save the Australian tax payers a fortune. It would also instantly stop the people smuggling trade, as people would know regardless of their situation, that if they arrive by boat, they don't have legal hope of getting refugee status and being settled in Australia.

We need an immigration Minister who will get of their fat lazy arse and travel to refugee camps, and develop an appropriate policy that will enable Australia to increase its intake of genuine refugees waiting in refugee camps. Instead of Minister who is accepting financial opportunist migrants from Indonesia, who engage in illegal activity by paying people smugglers to smuggle them into Australia via a backdoor refugee process.

 

I always had thought they'd made the trip entirely from their homeland to the shores of Australia in one deft stroke of the paddle, not cut their journey short in Indonesia and then attempt the trip... That would lean heavily to the opportunistic argument. A vital misconception on my part.

 

I always thought the same, but a documentary on SBS demonstrated that the majority live in Indonesia for years before attempting the journey to Australia. One family they interviewed who was going to come to Australia by boat, had been living in Indonesia for 8 years; another family interviewed had been living in Malaysia for 3 years, and Indonesia for another 3 years, before they were getting on a boat to come to Australia. Apparently this is a common phenomenon among the supposed refugees interviewed in Indonesia, and the refugees interviewed in detention centres.

 

This is the illogical argument we always hear from the the crusading do-gooder groups.

Refugees arriving in Australia via boat are fleeing their homeland due to wars and personal violence due to those wars, but they never offer any explanation how they arrived at their conclusion, when the individuals arriving by boat from Indonesia to Australia have been previously living in Indonesia for years. Their argument would only be logically if the individuals came straight form their home country to Australia without a few years stop-over in Indonesia first.

Not even our media take them to task about these illogical statements. Some who lives in Indonesia for years, and then pays a smuggler to smuggle them into another country illegally is NOT by my definition a legitimate refugee, and certainly not the actions of someone fleeing their homeland due to wars and personal violence due to those wars.

 

Cd and Katchy,
I don't buy your right wing extreme view That the Greens would let them all in, that is utterly bullocks.
It is this atypical Murdoch bull(*)(*)(*)(*) media hype you express.

I think I am more Green orientated, but I do understand that we cannot take everyone knocking at our doors.

War refugees are welcome, however.

It is the duty of any government, to sort them out, and to send those back, who aren't genuine refugees.

Abbotts extreme measures are unaustralian and controversial of someone, who signed the UN charta.

Anyway, my thoughts,
regards

 

I'm a greeny too, but I cant get behind the Green's party as its policies are whack (not in a good way). I don't know how many lives were lost under Chris Bowen's time as Immigration Minister, over 1000 or something? But I'd rather have 2000 boat people living in detention in the tropics complaining about the free food and security, then 10 bloated at sea being nipped on by fish because their boat sank on the way over. If offshore detention serves as a deterrent to stop people trying it, then its a good policy - because the best way to cure a problem is not to treat the symptoms constantly ad infinitum - but to stop the cause at the root.

 

At,
you a Greene? Then you can call me Mother Theresa....

It was never the Liberals intention to save 1000 lifes, but to stop (mainly) Muslims from entering Australia.

Everything else is a lie!

Regards

 

Technocentric environmentalism is still environmentalism, sort of...

 

Accepted. The difference is that in a detention centre there is a regime for reporting of illness which must be followed. If the deceased didn't advise the health services in time then that will come out in the inquest, as will any other piece of information that illuminates the incident.

 

I would suggest being a Greens supporter, you investigate their policy on refugees entering Australia - it just might surprise you what their ridiculous intentions really are.

They would accept everyone arriving by boat from Indonesia, and increase Australia's intake of refugees by an additional 100,000 per year - that is their public policy.

This is the main reason why the majority of people like myself, who like and agree with some of their environmental policies, could NEVER trust them regarding other major important decisions, as being a truly competent political party capable of managing all the communities issues. While ever the Greens have these ridiculous "wack-job" ideas, they will always be destined to be a fringe political party in Australia.

This is the Greens political philosophy. Swamp Australia with a minimum 150,000 refugees per year that cannot speak English, and put massive pressure on our already over burdened schools, health care, housing, and welfare, and just go our into the back yard and pick the money off the trees to pay for it all. When they were asked how all these resources would be funded, the Greens said they would increase taxes on mining and big businesses to pay for it.

Lets assume that works for a few years, until the mining companies and big businesses realise they can set up their mining companies and businesses in other countries that don't charge the same amount of tax as Australia. Where do the Greens get the money to pay for everything, now these businesses and mining companies have gone?

As you can appreciate, by just taking one step back, we can see that the Greens proposal of accepting that amount of people is NOT practical. But you try explaining that to that stupid Sarah Hanson Young, who is being paid a $100K plus salary at tax payer expense to suggest an idea that a 10 year old would reject.

 

I think there are 300,000 homeless Australians who would mind bedding down in one of those comfortable safe centre's for the night. But don't refugees complain these centre's are not up the 5* standards for them?

 

It’s an interesting juxtaposition to some extent. The homeless are ‘unfenced’, boundless, so to speak. And doing it tough, Aslyum seekers in detention centres are behind prison wire, restrained with no mobility to go anywhere. And doing it tough. To suggest the homeless would like to live behind prison wire, cramped 20 to a room, wading through sewerage with no shoes and treated like criminals and afforded no dignity, I think your premise is bonkers, culldav.

Tell me you believe that if every cent from buying ridiculous bubbles boats and money spent incarcerating asylum seekers was suddenly no longer spent, that that money WOULD go to the homeless. It wouldn't, and you know it. During the 2000 Olympics they went out of their way to HIDE the homeless from Sydney... not HELP them or give them permanent homes. If you think IMPRISONING the homeless like asylum seekers are IMPRISONED is a good idea, then you really need to rethink things. Wishing PRISON on the homeless would be a terribly mean wish.

 

They are only imprisoned until we know who they are. Once their idenity is determined a decission is then made as to whether or not they are a genuine refugee.

 

Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention. They are not 'living' there but languishing there. In cramped, dirty conditions. In LIMBO for long years. They're not allowed to work, children not allowed to go to school, they have to stay out of sight... you call that 'living'? No chance for self-determination but just a state of languishing and being in limbo.

http://www.johnmenadue.com/population/html_files/Signatories_to_the_Refugee_Convention.html

http://www.ajustaustralia.com/info/mythsfacts.php

 

Refugee's are processed in Indonesia for resettlement. It's managed by UNHCR and IOM afaik.

 

Abolish all entitlement spending, allow anyone to purchase land or freely travel onto others' with their permission.

 

It comes down to this; while the living conditions are indeed somewhat horrid, and perhaps should be improved; they knew that and came here anyway. There is no good situation for those people, just like tens of millions upon millions more around the globe, and including tens of thousands within our own borders. But coming here and sailing their boats into Australian territory, almost all of them being intercepted right outside the detention centers themselves, is akin to walking up to a prison gate, throwing eggs at the prison walls and begging to be detained.

 

Homelessness is a social problem with causes and solutions. Putting homeless people in detention centres isn't a solution.

 

Yes. Australia's massive homelessness problem just seems to be always psychologically and financially swept under the convenient carpet, and in the meantime, $billions of tax payers money and psychological resources get diverted into helping and supporting people who know they are doing the wrong thing by paying smugglers to smuggle them into our country illegally.

There is an easy and simply solution to stop people smuggling and close down all detention centres, but we don't have anyone with the balls or guts to do it. Anyone arriving by boat from Indonesia will not be given refugee status in Australia, and returned to Indonesia within 48 hours.

 

We always hear just one side of the story and I'm sick to death of hearing it all the time. We always hear in the biased media and by scum-bag politicians how evil and bad the people smugglers are, but their selective opinions forget to mention that if these so-called financial opportunistic refugees didn't facilitate the situation by engaging in illegal activity in the first place by paying people smugglers $10,000 to smuggle them into another country through the backdoor, then none of these would be occurring.

Both the people smugglers and financial opportunistic refugees should be equally sharing the blame in this situation, because they are both knowingly engaging in an illegal activity, but only the people smugglers seem to be copping the blame for the situation, and the "totally innocent" refugees are getting off Scott free.

 

At this point it may be timely to point out that:

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/do...ts about refugees and asylum seekers 2010.pdf