[IMG]http://images.smh.com.au/2013/12/16/5012626/cb_al_scott_20131216064839883516-620x349.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]The Abbott government has disbanded a key group that provided advice on the health of asylum seekers in detention, as research reveals psychiatric problems - such as self-harm - are the most common reasons for the large number of detainee visits to hospital emergency departments.
They have sacked the people in the country who know the most about refugees.
Members of the Immigration Health Advisory Group (IHAG) received letters late on Friday telling them the group would be dissolved and replaced by one adviser.
Dr Paul Alexander, the group's chairman and a former head of Joint Health Command in the Defence Force, will become the sole independent health adviser to the Immigration Department.
"This is probably one of the most serious, high-risk approaches that [the] government could take in terms of the outcomes for asylum seekers and refugees," a source close to the situation said.
"They have sacked the people in the country who know the most about refugees. Torture and trauma services … psychologists who have worked extensively with refugees, mental
health nurses who know about refugees."
The group included 12 medical professionals, among them psychiatrists, psychologists and GPs, with specialist knowledge about refugees.
According to Choong-Siew Yong, the Australian Medical Association's representative on the group, it was an important conduit back to professional organisations that had expressed
concern about the standards of healthcare and the health needs of asylum seekers in detention.
"The decision to disband the group raises questions about how the concerns of the professions will be addressed,” Dr Yong said.
"There's a shutdown of information [about asylum seekers] but this is a shutdown of government accepting the need for independent expert professional advice," said Professor Louise
Newman, the director of the Centre for Developmental Psychiatry and Psychology at Monash University, and a member of the group.
Read more: [url]http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-sacks-asylum-seeker-health-advisers-20131215-2zfg8.html#ixzz2nb6hZzP1[/url][/QUOTE]
Tony's a real hero alright.
I'm surprised he doesn't just go the whole hog and order asylum seeker boats to be sunk with torpedoes.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;43196525]I'm surprised he doesn't just go the whole hog and order asylum seeker boats to be sunk with torpedoes.[/QUOTE]
Because then the Governor General would have an actual reason to liquidate Parliament
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;43196525]I'm surprised he doesn't just go the whole hog and order asylum seeker boats to be sunk with torpedoes.[/QUOTE]
I think we're about five minutes away from him doing that anyway. The guy was half-elected on xenophobia.
The government is slowly eroding all the safety nets which attempted to alleviate the fact we keep refugees in fucking concentration camps, disgraceful.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43196864]The government is slowly eroding all the safety nets which attempted to alleviate the fact we keep refugees in fucking concentration camps, disgraceful.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they'll find a way to blame it on Labor. :v:
So what're the odds of this guy getting the boot, Aussies?
Isn't refusing asylum seekers and refugees directly transgressing several worldwide policies ?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;43198473]Isn't refusing asylum seekers and refugees directly transgressing several worldwide policies ?[/QUOTE]
Do you think our Politicians give a single fuck about Worldwide policies?
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;43198461]So what're the odds of this guy getting the boot, Aussies?[/QUOTE]
Not high enough I'm afraid. I have the feeling that as long as most people feel that their taxes and utility bills go down a bit (whether or not that is actually true) then they'll think Abbott did good.
I thought Australia was normal, how was this guy elected?
He is an American Tea Party level lunatic.
Some Australian people are alright, but I find that in general Australians are uneducated, impressionable people with a brain the size of a peanut (speaking as an Australian).
[QUOTE=person11;43198859]I thought Australia was normal, how was this guy elected?
He is an American Tea Party level lunatic.[/QUOTE]
labour did a bunch of stupid garbage so people pretty much voted for liberal out of spite without actually looking into what abbot stands for
The Liberal government might as well start building gas chambers on Christmas island.
That's sad. I guess that is what happens when you have two potential PMs ripping their own party apart.
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;43198461]So what're the odds of this guy getting the boot, Aussies?[/QUOTE]
As fallacious as it is to say it, very rarely do federal governments in Australia get any less than two terms (around 6 years) in government. There is even a possibility of three terms, in my opinion.
I am legitimately hoping those nine years will alienate labor more and put more votes on the greens. Hopefully that time and the labor party will get rid of Bill Shorten and the labor right wing as well.
That's my super optimistic view of the situation.
Shh gerbe1 its one term tony at this point
Didn't they recently set a record for the lowest approval rating this close to an election?
[QUOTE=gerbe1;43199032]As fallacious as it is to say it, very rarely do federal governments in Australia get any less than two terms (around 6 years) in government. There is even a possibility of three terms, in my opinion.
I am legitimately hoping those nine years will alienate labor more and put more votes on the greens. Hopefully that time and the labor party will get rid of Bill Shorten and the labor right wing as well.
That's my super optimistic view of the situation.[/QUOTE]
It would be interesting to see what the greens could bring the country, it sure would be a refreshing changed. However, I don't know if I would really want to vote for them. I'm not fully supportive of some of their policies.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43199039]Shh gerbe1 its one term tony at this point[/QUOTE]
Oops sorry, I lost myself in being realistic for a moment there :v:
As much as that would be awesome, if you actually watch Tony's interviews and the interviews of other ministry members, you can see as deplorable as most of them are all they have to do is remain unified, display no evidence of democratic process within their ranks and make it clear that it is Tony's iron fist that rules the Liberal party and the majority will lap it up.
Tony is getting better at interviews as well, which is scary.
[editline]16th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=-n3o-;43199084]It would be interesting to see what the greens could bring the country, it sure would be a refreshing changed. However, I don't know if I would really want to vote for them. I'm not fully supportive of some of their policies.[/QUOTE]
What policies exactly?
[QUOTE=gerbe1;43199106]What policies exactly?[/QUOTE]
They're wanting to end Australia's Defence Treaty with the United States. I think America is a important and strong friend. I don't mind if the greens were to changed the ANZUS treaty or replace it with something else.
I mean that ANZUS treaty is defently out date, and New Zeland isn't even part of it anymore. But, I just would hope that the Greens would still support working with the US military/government like they are now.
[QUOTE=-n3o-;43199137]They're wanting to end Australia's Defence Treaty with the United States. I think America is a important and strong friend. If the Greens were going to stop or change the ANZUS treaty, I think it would have a major negative effect on the ADF in regards to training, defense and technology.[/QUOTE]
I find it peculiar that so many people want to take back our sovereignty from the British and their monarch but not from the US. Look at where being bff's with the US has gotten us in terms of wars we don't need or want.
As far as I am aware Australian forces are better trained than US anyway, defense training exercises can just as easily be acquired from allies like the British and possibly even closer allies in Asia.
It's really a classic example of bullying and peer pressure, involving ourselves with the US like we do.
New Zealand put the ANZUS on ice and reviewed the situation and in the end came back to it. There are always options there.
Our defence force is more vital as a peace keeping agent than a defence force anyway. There is a lot of good to be done, and is done, through that channel.
Having said all that, I don't particularly want to see the Greens in full power. Merely with the balance of power. A hung parliament is the most democratic parliament.
I couldn't stand the Greens being elected even though some of their policies are alright but most are stupid
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43199247]I couldn't stand the Greens being elected even though some of their policies are alright but most are stupid[/QUOTE]
Everyone says that but most of their policies are fine...?
[editline]16th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Eonart;43199249]I also feel the need to state that I'm half-Indonesian and half-Australian so Tony fucking over all the Indonesian refugees really fucking gets me on a personal level.[/QUOTE]
The refugees aren't actually Indonesian are they? They're just coming from Indonesia.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;43199223]As far as I am aware Australian forces are better trained than US anyway, defense training exercises can just as easily be acquired from allies like the British and possibly even closer allies in Asia.
It's really a classic example of bullying and peer pressure, involving ourselves with the US like we do.
New Zealand put the ANZUS on ice and reviewed the situation and in the end came back to it. There are always options there.
Our defence force is more vital as a peace keeping agent than a defence force anyway. There is a lot of good to be done, and is done, through that channel.
Having said all that, I don't particularly want to see the Greens in full power. Merely with the balance of power. A hung parliament is the most democratic parliament.[/QUOTE]
This post is so bad, I mean really, why comment on defence issues at all if you know literally nothing? You've just made up complete junk to try sound smart.
a) Australian forces better trained than US? Such a dumb point, quantifying skill levels of militaries is something that 12 year old kids do (my army is better than yours etc), it's very hard, if even possible at all to quantify the overall quality of one nation's entire military training compared to another.
b) Defence training exercises acquired elsewhere? What? Almost every single defence exercise that Australia is involved in also involves the US, and we gain a huge amount of resources from the US each exercise, i.e. exercise red flag is amazing in training fighter pilots at an elite level, we simply can't ever have anything like red flag in Australia because we don't have the numbers, the space, the time, or the technology. Yep we could get involved in other exercises, and we could still run our own exercises that we currently run as well (aces north etc), but they wouldn't be anywhere near as beneficial to any partner without the US involved.
c) The vast majority of our military hardware is US developed, so we benefit both economically and technologically from buying their shit. If we didn't buy US aircraft we'd be buying russian aircraft, and then while the initial purchase might be easier and cheaper, crew conversions and hardware/parts would be a complete nightmare and not worth the hassle and huge cost.
d) NZ put ANZUS on hold over the whole nuclear sub issue, and then came back - so yeah, it is an option for Australia to leave, but there is no reason to leave, and NZ coming back should be a pretty clear sign that leaving was a bad move. If it was such a good idea for NZ to cut ties with the US through ANZUS, why come back?
e) Our defence force isn't "more of a peacekeeping force", and it's hilarious that you would make that sort of statement on the exact same day that we pull troops out of Afghanistan after almost a decade. It obviously has a use in peacekeeping (East Timor as a great example), like any military does. If we really were a peacekeeping force we wouldn't have half the hardware we have, and half the government agencies that we have under the DoD would be completely pointless (DSTO etc).
It's just so hilarious that you'd happily cut defence ties with the largest global power which pours trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs into our economy through defence alone. But hey, Tony's government didn't support a car manufacturer, what an idiot that guy must be right!
[QUOTE=Tony;43202463]This post is so bad, I mean really, why comment on defence issues at all if you know literally nothing? You've just made up complete junk to try sound smart.
a) Australian forces better trained than US? Such a dumb point, quantifying skill levels of militaries is something that 12 year old kids do (my army is better than yours etc), it's very hard, if even possible at all to quantify the overall quality of one nation's entire military training compared to another.
b) Defence training exercises acquired elsewhere? What? Almost every single defence exercise that Australia is involved in also involves the US, and we gain a huge amount of resources from the US each exercise, i.e. exercise red flag is amazing in training fighter pilots at an elite level, we simply can't ever have anything like red flag in Australia because we don't have the numbers, the space, the time, or the technology. Yep we could get involved in other exercises, and we could still run our own exercises that we currently run as well (aces north etc), but they wouldn't be anywhere near as beneficial to any partner without the US involved.
c) The vast majority of our military hardware is US developed, so we benefit both economically and technologically from buying their shit. If we didn't buy US aircraft we'd be buying russian aircraft, and then while the initial purchase might be easier and cheaper, crew conversions and hardware/parts would be a complete nightmare and not worth the hassle and huge cost.
d) NZ put ANZUS on hold over the whole nuclear sub issue, and then came back - so yeah, it is an option for Australia to leave, but there is no reason to leave, and NZ coming back should be a pretty clear sign that leaving was a bad move. If it was such a good idea for NZ to cut ties with the US through ANZUS, why come back?
e) Our defence force isn't "more of a peacekeeping force", and it's hilarious that you would make that sort of statement on the exact same day that we pull troops out of Afghanistan after almost a decade. It obviously has a use in peacekeeping (East Timor as a great example), like any military does. If we really were a peacekeeping force we wouldn't have half the hardware we have, and half the government agencies that we have under the DoD would be completely pointless (DSTO etc).
It's just so hilarious that you'd happily cut defence ties with the largest global power which pours trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs into our economy through defence alone. But hey, Tony's government didn't support a car manufacturer, what an idiot that guy must be right![/QUOTE]
a.) The point I was making was that if you argue that training is a benefit from our relations with the US then you have to be able to quantify the skill level. The fact that you can't is even more indicative that the benefit from the US treaty can be found elsewhere.
b.) If you can train with US forces, what is preventing exercises with British forces, or even Canadian forces. Red Flag can be Maple Flag just as easily. These sorts of co-operative efforts [I]can[/I] be acquired from other nations. In fact yes, we can be involved in exercises with the US military without the ANZUS treaty. Maple Flag again as an example runs off of Canadian relations, not USA. ANZUS isn't the sole thing connecting Australia and the US.
c.) Crew conversions and hardware/parts still occur with the current Air Force make up a la F-111 > Super Hornet. Again, it's naive to think that we can't access US military hardware without the treaty, half of the US's enemies have access to the stuff. I don't think if in this ludicrous hypothetical (we're not about to get rid of the relations any time soon, I'm just acknowledging it truly is not so damaging if we were to) we ditched American hardware we'd go to Russia anyway, if the Greens were in charge and ditched the US they'd keep clear of Russia just as well.
d.) NZ came back to score political points for the current government of the time, it wasn't a matter of benefit, they had been out of the treaty since 1985. If it was such a painful hit to their military you'd think they'd be a bit quicker about it. Additionally, despite the ANZUS treaty being suspended with New Zealand they continued to work with the US in non-nuclear related exercises. Not a pretty clear sign of mistake at all. They survived for 20 years without the full treaty, can't have been so terrible.
e.) First two objectives of the defence force is essentially be prepared to defend against a direct armed attack and secondly to be a peace force (not directly worded but it is for cohesion of our region which essentially means peace). I did say more vital, not more of, which have two different meanings. The latter means that the majority of the forces action is as a peace keeping force, a point which you have adequately rebutted.
The former means that it is more valuable and essential as a peace keeping force in the modern era, the benefits from co-operating with regional forces as set in place by John Howard's first term which includes as you mentioned operations like the East Timor deployment. Keeping the region peaceful is a more effective way of keeping Australia safe than military profligacy and exponential military growth.
I don't deny that the current strategy is valuable. But I believe that, perhaps a little more difficult, setting a new paradigm for military operation is well within our capability and that highlighting the irrelevancy of the US military obsession is a valuable part of that paradigm.
Trillions of dollars go to the US's military development, we don't get trillions of economic benefit in Australia. Those jobs can be maintained too, you don't need the US for that, you need diplomacy and cunning, which Australian politicians on both sides of the board have, though rarely use.
In fact you can argue that the US's excessive spending is something that should be discouraged by cutting these formal ties, as purely symbolic as that may be, we're well beyond the cold war era now, our defence operations should reflect the fact. Those trillions should and could be spent elsewhere with great success.
[editline]17th December 2013[/editline]
For the record, I support the move to reduce the focus on the car industry in Australia, it isn't beneficial to our economy long term, it's not efficient. Though I do believe there is space for car manufacturers that could have been maintained if the situation was handled better, but we still have Toyota and possibly that may be handled better when the time comes.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;43199032]As fallacious as it is to say it, very rarely do federal governments in Australia get any less than two terms (around 6 years) in government. There is even a possibility of three terms, in my opinion.
I am legitimately hoping those nine years will alienate labor more and put more votes on the greens. Hopefully that time and the labor party will get rid of Bill Shorten and the labor right wing as well.
That's my super optimistic view of the situation.[/QUOTE]
What's wrong with the Labor right wing? It's healthily positioned between being too far right (Liberal) and the Greens. The reason we directly avoided the GFC was because of the Labor right wing and their Keynesian economic policy.
[editline]17th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Eonart;43199030]I hope someone kills Abbott at some point. He's just fucking things up more and more.[/QUOTE]
Wow. I don't like Liberal, but if I was in a room with a button that when pressed would kill Abbott, I wouldn't press it. His party was as fairly elected into government as it could be, and someone assassinating him I reckon would only strengthen support for the Liberal party. Also, it would be pointless. The deputy PM will become the new PM, and government policy would remain the exact same as it is now.
[editline]17th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=DwarfOverlord;43198971]Some Australian people are alright, but I find that in general Australians are uneducated, impressionable people with a brain the size of a peanut (speaking as an Australian).[/QUOTE]
Just because you don't agree with the party other people vote for doesn't mean that those voters are idiots. And I seriously doubt half of Australians are idiots. Liberal has some dumb policies, but I think for most people they vote for Liberal because they believe Liberal will keep jobs in Australia and more efficiently use tax dollars. I won't doubt that the Murdoch media has been an influence in the political arena, and who knows if Liberal can deliver on those reasons which I reckon is why people vote for them, but calling the other side uneducated and accusing them of having peanut-sizes brains is only what 13 year olds arguing over the Internet do.
[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;43198992]labour did a bunch of stupid garbage so people pretty much voted for liberal out of spite without actually looking into what abbot stands for[/QUOTE]
labor did a bunch of stupid garbage... like what?
[QUOTE=shackleford;43208432]labor did a bunch of stupid garbage... like what?[/QUOTE]
The carbon tax for one was dumb. Labor had good intention with wanting an ETS (which Turnbull also wanted; part of the reason why he lost the Liberal leadership), but somewhere along the way they just half-assed it and settled for something which is much less economical, much less effective. Aside from that I reckon Labor did okay when they were in government, and it was a shame that they lost government in the last federal election. My representative to federal government is Labor's candidate, so thankfully my vote didn't feel wasted.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
