Stop the boats. 5k a head. (cont. in Part 2)

[Maggie5]

Funny because you're the one clinging on to one sentence of my post out of context and ignoring the other 90%... You know the actual argument?

Read it again and get back to me

Try reading my original post then get back to me
Balance, right?
Let's just stick to the topic of the policy as I am not interested in 'the balance of not calling Abbott Hitler'.

 

[WA ROO]

it seems you will be able to buy Australian citizenship for $60,000 if the gov't and David Leyonhjelm have their way. We certainly value our country, this seems cheap to me.

My Buddhist,Sikh and Hindu friends wish they had just rocked up on a boat when Rudd,Gillard Rudd were in charge

 

[Maggie5]

My Buddhist,Sikh and Hindu friends wish they had just rocked up on a boat when Rudd,Gillard Rudd were in charge

Your point is...

 

[WA ROO]

Your point is...

Did everything by the book and it cost a lot more than "rocking up on a boat"

 

[Maggie5]

Did everything by the book and it cost a lot more than "rocking up on a boat"

Oh, okay then, no point other than political.

 

[CM86]

Did everything by the book and it cost a lot more than "rocking up on a boat"

How much did it cost them?
How much would it cost them to "rock up on a boat[sic]"?

Do you actually have any friends?

 

[sherb]

I was trying to bring some balance to the debate where others see it as another opportunity to call Abbott Hitler.

Hitler? Nah.

There's little doubt in which direction the Abbott government is heading though.

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

 

[sherb]

http://www.julianburnside.com.au/the-border-force-act-trying-to-silence-health-workers/

Above excerpt from the act was taken from burnside's website about why whistleblowers will probably escape prosecution.

From the mouth of Burnside



For all the scaremongering, if the government really wanted to prosecute doctors and other whistleblowers, why include this exception which basically lets them off the hook?

It's pretty obvious. The govt believes some social workers and other staff are agitating asylum seekers to commit self harm and other actions as a political and public relations protest. If anything that's who are the real targets rather than the members of the AMA.

After all labor helped pass the bill without protest so are the alp trying to jail doctors too?

The doctors don't seem as confident as you do.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ecute-them-over-new-laws-20150701-gi24pr.html

 

[midorigreenwood]

The doctors don't seem as confident as

Julian Burnside.

The exception in section 48 clearly covers folks like medical staff who feel the need to expose processes they feel threatens the life or well being of people.

Again the bill has bipartisan support so are labor trying to jail doctors too? Or is that section of the bill targeted at people other than doctors or whistleblowers?

 

[sherb]

Julian Burnside.

The exception in section 48 clearly covers folks like medical staff who feel the need to expose processes they feel threatens the life or well being of people.

Again the bill has bipartisan support so are labor trying to jail doctors too? Or is that section of the bill targeted at people other than doctors or whistleblowers?

I am aware the bill has bipartisan support. What's that got to do with anything? That just makes Labor as grubby as the government.

And if the people in the firing line (the health professionals) think they have a problem, then there is indeed a problem.

 

[Maggie5]

Julian Burnside.

The exception in section 48 clearly covers folks like medical staff who feel the need to expose processes they feel threatens the life or well being of people.

Again the bill has bipartisan support so are labor trying to jail doctors too? Or is that section of the bill targeted at people other than doctors or whistleblowers?

Love your balance, still manage to show your bias.
Like a number have people have posted, it is not about party politics it is about policy. Why have it at all, what are either party hoping to achieve?

 

[CM86]

Julian Burnside.

The exception in section 48 clearly covers folks like medical staff who feel the need to expose processes they feel threatens the life or well being of people.

Again the bill has bipartisan support so are labor trying to jail doctors too? Or is that section of the bill targeted at people other than doctors or whistleblowers?

Labor are trying to hide their secrets just as much as the Libs... Why is this such a sticking point for you?
I haven't seen any one defend Labor's stance on this... but you keep bringing it up...

So, if a Dr comes out and says that the lack of mandatory reporting is dangerous to the children's well-being, when the Coalition has consistently said that there are no problems, what will happen to the doc?

 

[midorigreenwood]

I am aware the bill has bipartisan support. What's that got to do with anything? That just makes Labor as grubby as the government.

Or some people are scaremongering to create a publicity storm.

When something has support from opposing sides of politics it means its not as extreme as some are making it out to be.

And if the people in the firing line (the health professionals) think they have a problem, then there is indeed a problem.

That's not a really strong argument

Jim carrey believes vaccines cause autism but he isn't a medical expert.

 

[midorigreenwood]

The ama battered the libs' doctors copayment budget idea through bad publicity so what makes some think they don't have political clout?

However if even Julian Burnside, perhaps the preeminent refugee advocate and human rights lawyer in oz is saying that folks like doctors are covered by section 48...

perhaps there is something there?

 

[sherb]

Or some people are scaremongering to create a publicity storm.

When something has support from opposing sides of politics it means its not as extreme as some are making it out to be.

Oh rubbish.

It could easily mean that both sides of politics have gone to the gutter on the issue. In fact it does.

That's not a really strong argument

Jim carrey believes vaccines cause autism but he isn't a medical expert.

Too right it's a strong argument.

If the people in the coalface think it is a problem, then bloody hell it is a problem.

I'd take their concerns over yours any day. Or Jim Carrey's for that matter.

 

[GuruJane]

Yes, there has been a spike in onshore applications (1st column). However the number of successful claims are relatively stable (2nd column).

Australia maintains a measure of control through the visa system. In the past it was a lot harder to get a valid student/tourist visa for certain nationalities than to pay people smugglers.

2006-07
3723 1692

2007-08
3987 1898

2008-09
5072 2173

2009-10
5981 2364

2010-11
6335 2099

2011–12
7063 2272

2012–13
8480 2555

2013–14
9646

Mids have you got a link to these figures? They are fascinating in regard to the rise in numbers from 2009 2013 compared to the relative stasis in the numbers of protection visas passing the processing test.

And do you have comparable figures for those years for the boat arrivals - arrivals and visas granted?

 

[midorigreenwood]

Mids have you got a link to these figures?

The department of immigration used to publish a report called asylum trends. The last one was for 2012/2013.

http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/asylum-trends-aus-2012-13.pdf

It covers boat (ima) and plane arrivals (non-ima)

 

[GuruJane]

However if even Julian Burnside, perhaps the preeminent refugee advocate and human rights lawyer in oz is saying that folks like doctors are covered by section 48...

perhaps there is something there?

It's just too much to bear - Julian Burnside himself belling the cat. From his very own website:

The restriction in section 42 is modified by a series of exceptions in sections 43 to 49. Most of those exceptions are not presently relevant. However the exceptions include these:

• disclosure to an authorised person for a purpose relating to the protection of public health, or the prevention or elimination of risks to the life or safety of an individual or a group of individuals; (s. 44 & s. 45 in conjunction with s. 46(d))
• disclosure to an authorised person for the provision of services to persons who are not Australian citizens; (s. 44 & s. 45 in conjunction with s. 46(j))
• section 48 has arguably the most important exception:

“48 Disclosure to reduce threat to life or health

An entrusted person may disclose protected information if:

(a) the entrusted person reasonably believes that the disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to the life or health of an individual; and

(b) the disclosure is for the purposes of preventing or lessening that threat.”

[In my (Burnside's)nopinion, if a health worker learned facts while employed by a service provider in detention and genuinely believed, on reasonable grounds, that those facts represented a serious threat to the life or health of one or more asylum seekers, and, that disclosing those facts might help prevent or lessen that threat, the disclosure would not constitute an offence.

Similarly, if any other employee of a detention centre operator formed the same belief, and disclosed the facts believing that disclosing them might help prevent or lessen that threat, the disclosure would not constitute an offence.

Dear oh dear - here is Julian Burnside, no less, belling the cat. CM86 must be going off his head with the horrors. My feelings go out to him.

So how are we then to assist BF posters like CM86, who have been thrashing about and frothing at mouth here in the belief that honest and true health workers are going to be imprisoned by the evil Abbott govt for having exposed heinous sexual abuse practices on Manus Island and Nauru -
now that Burnside SC has advised to the contrary.?

Perhaps Chief could arrange for secure donations from BF afficionado/as to pay for counselling - kicking off with substantial donation from Chief himself - for, if needed, serious psychotherapy to those afflicted? Big Footy clearly has a duty of care towards those who have been gulled into believing anything the Guardian/Fairfax Media/ABC publishes about detention centres, national security, global warming, Tony Abbott or Joe Hockey. And no doubt other issues as well.

Surely we don't want to see ordinary run of mill posters like CM86 being carted off to funny farm just because they have been gulled by BS?
Surely Big Footy is bigger than this?

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

For all the scaremongering, if the government really wanted to prosecute doctors and other whistleblowers, why include this exception which basically lets them off the hook?

Because they don't want anything dragged up in court.
Nice use of the term, "let's them off the hook". For what doing their job and obeying the requirements for mandatory reporting.

It's pretty obvious. The govt believes some social workers and other staff are agitating asylum seekers to commit self harm and other actions as a political and public relations protest. If anything that's who are the real targets rather than the members of the AMA.

They do not believe that. That's how they feed the chooks like yourself

After all labor helped pass the bill without protest so are the alp trying to jail doctors too?

Who cares! There's a tally-ho papers difference between the two parties.

“48 Disclosure to reduce threat to life or health

An entrusted person may disclose protected information if:

(a) the entrusted person reasonably believes that the disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to the life or health of an individual; and

(b) the disclosure is for the purposes of preventing or lessening that threat.”

Who decides what's a serious threat to the life and health of an individual?

They can only release such information legally if they have permission from the secretary of the department, if they are authorised by law, or if a court or tribunal orders or directs them to do so.

The secretary would have to be satisfied that the information would help the person to perform their duties or powers to give them permission to release it.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ecute-them-over-new-laws-20150701-gi24pr.html

Oh, the secretary of The Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Nothing to see here then, carry on

 

[WA ROO]

Do you actually have any friends?

From all over the world
A lot of whom now call Australia home

 

[medusala]

And if the people in the firing line (the health professionals) think they have a problem, then there is indeed a problem.

Right, so if mining companies think there is a problem with a carbon tax, there is indeed a problem?

Not entirely convinced re your logic

 

[sherb]

Right, so if mining companies think there is a problem with a carbon tax, there is indeed a problem?

Not entirely convinced re your logic

Well of course it depends what the motivation is, doesn't it?

In the case of the mining companies, it's profit that is front and centre of their concerns.

 

[medusala]

Well of course it depends what the motivation is, doesn't it?

Yes absolutely. Abbott haters saying the sky is falling in, what a surprise.

Who is abusing these children? Asylum seekers? Oh hang on, lets blame Abbott for the fact illegal immigrants are abusing children. Yes, that is the issue.

"Fairfax Media reported in May that the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse had ordered the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to produce documents following an inquiry by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which revealed 44 instances of children being sexually abused between January 2013 and July 2014"

 

[medusala]

Yes sir.
Whatever you say sir!

Why don't you attach blame to the illegal immigrants who are molesting children? Why the silence on the despicable acts? Why just blame Abbott?

 

[sherb]

Yes absolutely. Abbott haters saying the sky is falling in, what a surprise.

Who is abusing these children? Asylum seekers? Oh hang on, lets blame Abbott for the fact illegal immigrants are abusing children. Yes, that is the issue.

Who is doing that?