"Asylum seekers at off-shore detention centres asked doctors for breast enlargements, IVF treatments, Botox and cosmetic dentistry, the director of health services has said."

It is clear that the millions of dollars spent by Labor (much in marginal electorates) advertising its tough stand against economic asylum seekers seems not to have reached those actually planning to come to Australia or already in transit. That most asylum seekers are unemployed several years on, getting priority in social housing, above those already in need, needs to be reviewed.

It is time to take the sugar off the table. The welfare state where asylum seekers can come for free housing, education and the dole, needs to be changed. While I don't go as far as removing all welfare, some restrictions such as TPVs where family members cannot be brought in, are a start. I suggest further measures such as only getting housing in rural areas where labor is needed, and a work for the dole policy.

SM,

""Asylum seekers at off-shore detention centres asked doctors for breast enlargements, IVF treatments, Botox and cosmetic dentistry, the director of health services has said.""

What's your source?

Should have been included in the thread opener.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/10/05/09/45/refugees-asked-for-breast-enlargements-and-botox-doctor-says

Here's your proof of Labor's people smuggling model.

Labour/Greens buried its head in the sand for 5 years after putting the sugar on the table and now has the nerve to criticize Abbott in Indonesia. They are pathetic and it is plain to anyone with open eyes. Their 'compassion ' has led to countless deaths. Why are we surprised at this latest revelation.

For anyone to ask for those things is further proof they are just ECONOMIC INVADERS that would be the last thing a real refugee would be concerned about unless they had disfiguring injuries.

We could start by deporting them.

I agree that asylum seekers, or anyone else in Australia on welfare payments, should not have access to state funded non-essential cosmetic surgery.
I doubt it is as big a problem as SM makes out though.

Why are you carrying on about Labors policy now they are not in power SM?
Surely all this free stuff will stop now that tough old Abbott is in charge?

Once he buys all the thousands of fishing boats in Indonesia (lol!) all these problems will stop won't they?

After reading about the latest terrible asylum seeker drownings off the coast of Italy, I was embarrassed to think of many Australians attitudes to boat people here.
Italy even had a period of National mourning for all the recent deaths.

What do many Australians do?....Blame the poor dead asylum seekers.

As if the death of their relatives at sea is not a bad enough 'punishment' for them daring to try for a better life for their family here in the 'Lucky' country .

Suseonline - Quote "daring to try for a better life for their family here in the 'Lucky' country ." That to me is the definition of an economic refugee.

Yes bypass a lot of safe countries to get the welfare for life country.

Thanks, SM,

Of course you wouldn't be in the business on OLO of highlight some extreme examples...would you?

Here's what she said...on the one hand:

"These are the more extreme examples..."

And on the other:

"But I soon went from dealing with mostly human misery to human demands."

So which is it?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/seeking-asylum-and-breast-job/story-fn9hm1gu-1226733279729

Scott Morrison:

"A spokesman for Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said these types of requests were "lavish" ... Those seeking to come illegally by boat won't receive such lavish treatments and they won't get the settlement in Australia they paid people-smugglers for."

This is the big fella who told those damn Syrian interlopers that they wouldn't get any largesse from Australia (just in case they wuz thinkin' of asking)

And he's the same guy who questioned the fundamentals of paying for refugee funerals while his mates were busy rorting taxpayer's funds for their "study periods".

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/liberals-split-on-funerals-cost/story-e6frf7l6-1226006545390

Great stuff, Australia

Hi Poirot,

At least, this might be a start:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/australia-to-take-in-500-syrian-refugees/story-fn9hm1gu-1226732292398

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Latest info from the man who lost his pregnant wife and 8 children that sank 50 mtrs of Indonesia.

QUOTE "If we had a [caring] government we wouldn't have done this and tried to leave" Words from an ECONOMIC INVADER.

Indonesia have deported them this is his comment at the airport when he arrived home.

Australia should have the balls to deport the economic invaders like Indonesia.

Thank you, Loudmouth...I stand corrected.

Of course, I was referring to this from Morrison regarding Syrian refugees:

""But no-one should take from that there will be any sympathy for anyone who comes on a boat.

"They will face the same process as everyone else - you're off to Nauru and Manus and you're not coming to Australia."

........

Just on the topic off this thread in highlighting extreme examples as somehow representative of the majority.

Using that measure, should we assume that "all" Coalition MP's are rorters?

Poirot - You forgot to put this QUOTE in

"These are the more extreme examples, but I continued to get the impression that many of these people were not genuine refugees."

Try putting in the quote in its entirety rather than break it up so it suites your bias.

Parrot,

You really are a one trick pony. Travel entitlements are very broad, and just about every Labor MP incl Juliar Burke, etc, have had to repay claims at some point, claiming for weddings, Tour de France attendance etc.

The issue is about the over inflated expectations of the economic refugees that make up many of the illegal immigrants, especially since labor so moronically opened the borders.

That would be an invalid comparison, Poirot...

"Using that measure, should we assume that "all" Coalition MP's are rorters?"

Not one of the detainees received cosmetic surgery or treatment whereas the (not just coalition) MPs did receive their rorts.

would not it be refreshing if once in the life of the Labour diehardts we heard the words 'we got it wrong'. Don't hold your breath. Only when they come out of denial will their be hope for progress.

Poirot,

If Diogenes with his lantern could find one Coalition MP who HASN'T rorted his entitlements, would that make them all squeaky-clean ? I don't think so. By the same measure ......

Back to topic: there are genuine refugees - clearly those from Syria - who should get some sort of priority. And there are economic refugees, such as those poor buggers from Lebanon who perished 50 metres from an Indonesian beach, sort of within Indonesian territory, and some Iranians.

But once genuine refugees get to a first-country of asylum, say Kenya in the case of Somalis, or Jordan in the case of Syrians, they should be assisted to apply in all the proper ways and wait their turn, apart from an intake of exceptionally needy cases, orphans, etc.

Because there are more than forty million people 'waiting their turn' around the world. And that raises the issue of: how many genuine refugees can Australia take each year out of that forty million ? What's our limit ? What's my preferred limit ? What's yours, Poirot ? I'm prepared to up mine to, say, thirty thousand a year (no 'illegals'), if you will up yours, Poirot :) Or at least specify what it might be, that would help the discussion.

Cheers,

Joe

@Suzie,

Really Suzie you have to get over this earworm: <<What do many Australians do?....Blame the poor dead asylum seekers>>

They are nothing short of scammers --(if you are able to) take a step back and look at the facts:
1) Those from the ME fly into Indonesia or Malaysia
2) They discard all their ID --but not their mobile phones
3) They then for appearances sake board a slow boat to the pick-up point (usually) just off the coast of Java.

It is a con!

...............

@Poirot,

<<...highlighting extreme examples as somehow representative of the majority...Using that measure, should we assume that "all" Coalition MP's are rorters?>>

Well if ALL coalition MPs HAD deliberately filled in fraudulent paperwork with the intent to make a claim they would be--would be rorters!


The asylum scammers have to a man/woman set out with the intend to deceived: destroying ID; misleading immigration officialism and conspiring with criminal people smugglers.

....................

@WmTrevor,

<<Not one of the detainees received cosmetic surgery or treatment ...>>

How do you know "not one of the detainees" over the six period has not receive "cosmetic surgery or treatment" --inside info?

WmTrevor,

Thanks you for pointing that out.

...........

SPQR, SM, runner (what's a Labour diehardt?)

I se exactly where you're coming from.

Take Barnaby Joyce, who's waxing lyrical here about good ol' Gina saving the taxpyer's money for paying for him to go "to" the wedding.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-07/pollies-expenses/5002214

"...Barnaby Joyce says Gina Rinehart stopped him from having to claim more for Indian wedding trip"

"If someone else wants to pay half a trip, pay for it privately, which is basically what Gina Rinehart did, then it's actually made it cheaper for the taxpayer," he said."

Well, golllly!

No shame - even when caught out.

At least good old Tones rushed off to pay his dodgy Mirabella wedding expenses back (well, after 7 years) but as soon as the media got hold of it.

Thank you Gina for saving us some money...hyuk,hyuk, hyuk

The fact that he concocted a one day "study period" in Malaysia to cover for his taxpayer-funded expenses to come home, apparently is neither here nor there.

"How do you know "not one of the detainees" over the six period has not receive "cosmetic surgery or treatment" --inside info?"

hyuk, hyuk, hyuk

: )

WTH?

<<SPQR, SM, runner (what's a Labour diehardt?)...Barnaby Joyce...Barnaby Joyce...Gina Rinehart... Gina Rinehart...hyuk,hyuk, hyuk>>

Holy sh#t!
Short circuit? system malfunction? Virus?
Abort!
Abort!
Abort!

Send report to Microsoft?
Absolutely not! N

Poirot - It seems you missed my comment, maybe you had no reply to your deceit.

You pasted from 2 different quotes implying it was from 1, this suited your bias. so here is the 1st quote for you again.

"These are the more extreme examples, but I continued to get the impression that many of these people were not genuine refugees."

You quoted part of the above and tried to link it too the 2nd quote.

Quote "But I soon went from dealing with mostly human misery to human demands." She made the 2nd quote before the first.

So after being with them she realized "that many of these people were not genuine refugees."

Try putting in the quote in its entirety rather than break it up so it suites your bias.

Here's another thought -
now that the current government has
decided to cut our foreign aid (and increase our
military budget). Foreign aid contributes to
foreign countries being stable and well governed
and that in turn means we're less likely to be
adversely affected by their problems - like refugees.
(Our military budget could be decreased).

And as one writer on the web put it:

"Actually - there seems to be quite an irony that a party
that complains about the burden of refugees to our
country increasing the likelihood of an increase in
global numbers of refugees." With a cut in foreign aid.

Don't be silly Foxy, much of the money being spent with the smugglers is syphoned off Oz foreign aid money. A cut in foreign aid will mean less gate crashers arriving in boats.

What the hell did you think they used it for.

Surely - even in the eyes of the diehard Fortress Australian - there should be a big difference between asking for something, and actually getting it?

All these types of cosmetic surgery would require the applicant to be covered by private health insurance. And you can't get that until you have a Medicare number, and have paid your premiums to the insurance company for a full year.

Naturally, the requests were politely refused, as the doctor herself reported.

"She also said she refused the requests. 'We give [the asylum seekers] the health services they need, we do not give them the services they want,' Dr Yoong said."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/10/05/09/45/refugees-asked-for-breast-enlargements-and-botox-doctor-says

But a beat-up is a beat-up, I suppose. Alan Jones wouldn't have an audience if it weren't for a continuous stream of stories like this one. No genuine issue, just a load of hot air.

Pericles - Quote "a beat-up is a beat-up" THAT can be converted to "the truth - is the truth"

Now if you know she was not telling the truth or her words were changed for the story that would be a beat-up.

So what proof do you have this is a beat-up as you state.

To Quote you "No genuine issue, just a load of hot air."

50,000 arriving during Labor it is NOT hot air it equals BILLIONS of taxpayers dollars each year.

In this case I am on side with Shadow Minister, these folk should have been on the first barbed wire boat back to the place they come from.
Far too many want to ignore the fact our over generous welfare system, to new arrivals, is a beacon for the boats.
Shame we do not know Abbott,s policy on this subject, how many came this week, how many went home, how many have we sent home.
Well we do know 3 genuine asylum seekers got sent back to new Guinea.
And it is likely another 3 got thrown over the fence at our Bali Embassy for daring to ask for refuge.

Dear Pericles,

Well said.

I read somewhere that,

"Radio shock jocks like Alan Jones are the media
equivalent of cockroaches. They feed of shyte,
and can withstand a nuclear blast."

How's this for a crazy idea ?

1. Raise the annual intake to 30,000. Strictly of people who have filled out all the right forms, and in the assessment of the relevant bureaucrats, are genuine refugees, not migrants. Syrian or Somali orphans, for example.

2. All those who try to come from Indonesia by boat are taken to Christmas Island, fed and clothed well, rested, allowed to enjoy its tourist sites, and then flown by Garuda back to Indonesia, from where they are given the option of flying back to wherever, all paid for by the Australian government, or staying in Indonesia and enjoying ITS sites.

i.e. if it was made clear that coming to Australia by boat was not an option. So for the most part, paying to get to Indonesia for that purpose would be futile. Stay back in a genuine refugee camp, fill out the right forms and wait your turn, as part of Poirot's annual intake, like those poor buggers in that 400,000-person camp in the north of Kenya.

How quickly would the flow of economic migrants to Indonesia, seeking to come to Australia, dry up ? A month ? Two months ?

Nos many would have to be given the Garuda option ? Ten thousand ? Five thousand ? At a total of ten thousand dollars per head ? A total of fifty to a hundred million dollars, all up ? Cheap at half the price.

Admittedly, SHY would need more hankies, but there would be fewer to cry over, fewer of what Tony Burke, that heartless b@stard, called 'line of sight 'refugees''. And those OUT OF sight refugees might get a better look-in.

Jo

Foxy - It says lots about you for congratulating Pericles for a beat-up post (some of which is just stating the obvious) but you failed to comprehend this from the other article or were blinded by your bias

Quote
"She said she originally got into the field of asylum health because she wanted to treat people.

"I have a lot of empathy for refugees ... when I started, I told myself I was just going to be treating people, I said I was not going to get involved in the politics," she said.

"But I soon went from dealing with mostly human misery to human demands."

OVER TIME she then realized Quote

"These are the more extreme examples, but I continued to get the impression that many of these people were not genuine refugees.

As with your comments regarding foreign aid and this one on refugees,
PLEASE wake up to reality.

Dear Philip S.,

I was merely responding to what Pericles said
in reference to Alan Jones
and my comments stand.

As for your concern about my take on aslum seekers?
Philip, we've been over this ground many times and
as I've stated many times there will always be people
who will try to abuse any system. However as long as
Australia is a signatory to the various Refugee
Conventions and International Agreements - it is
legal for asylum seekers to ask for asylum. In order
for them to be found illegal, they have to be so
assessed. That's the way things stand - unless of
course the government decides to opt out of the
agreements. That is the reality, whether you like it
or not. Carrying on about economic refugees is not going
to solve anything. The government has to make a decision
as to what policies to put in place to deal with this
problem.

Philip S,

"You pasted from 2 different quotes implying it was from 1, this suited your bias. so here is the 1st quote for you again."

Where did I imply that it was from one quote.

I did not imply that her comments were from one quote or sentence.

I posted a link to her interview/article...both of those quotes are included..and yes they both emanate from the same article.

She stated both of those views in the article.

The headline about botox, etc was an extreme example.

That's what she said.

But (surprise, surprise) it's being employed for the purposes of the usual suspects on this thread as representative of the great majority of asylum seekers who arrive by boat.

Pericles,

"But a beat-up is a beat-up, I suppose. Alan Jones wouldn't have an audience if it weren't for a continuous stream of stories like this one. No genuine issue, just a load of hot air."

Well said.

cont'd ...

And as for my concern about the government's cutting
foreign aid and increasing the military budget.
I would prefer to have my taxpayer's money go towards
saving lives (especially those of children) than have
it being invested in machines that kill people.

You're free to have a different opinion, of course.

Very touchy today, aren't we Philip S.

>>THAT can be converted to "the truth - is the truth"... So what proof do you have this is a beat-up as you state.<<

The Australian Press Council condemns "beat-up" articles as follows:

"Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. They should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers either by omission or commission"

My point was that articles such as this don't bother with balance, but instead are designed simply to provide sound-bites for rabid anti-immigration shock-jocks to latch onto, and help them ply their trade of hatred of "otherness".

But you knew that anyway. You just wanted an excuse to foam at the mouth a little more...

>>50,000 arriving during Labor it is NOT hot air it equals BILLIONS of taxpayers dollars each year.<<

I'll guarantee you have absolutely no evidence to back up your "BILLIONS of taxpayers dollars" claim.

But facts shouldn't stand in the way of a good xenophobic rant, should they. It's your right as an Austrayan to chunter on about those evil wogs and chinks and mozzies, isn't it.

Keep up the good work.

Poirot - You wrote
Here's what she said...on the one hand:

"These are the more extreme examples..."

HERE is the whole sentence
"These are the more extreme examples, but I continued to get the impression that many of these people were not genuine refugees."

You further wrote - And on the other:

"But I soon went from dealing with mostly human misery to human demands."

So which is it?

If you read it properly you will understand the 2nd quote came first BUT after time she realized and that is when she said

"These are the more extreme examples, but I continued to get the impression that many of these people were not genuine refugees.

So you statement "So which is it?" was you trying to imply indecision, but in reality it was you trying to use bits and pieces incorrectly.

Please reread it, with the emphasis on "She said she originally got into the field of asylum health because she wanted to treat people."

that goes first then the realization of what was really going on "but I continued to get the impression that many of these people were not genuine refugees.

Philip S,

I quoted correctly.

Anyone could tell from the fact that I posted "These are the more extreme examples..." that it was only a portion of the sentence...the portion that I wished to highlight.

I posted the whole link fairly.

This woman is a medical professional...yes?

Is she qualified to assess people for refugee status on the grounds that she's a medical professional?

Does she have any other qualifications or expertise in the wider assessment of displaced people who seek asylum?

SM made it all up it up, the director of health services has said. You were asked to supply the name of the director of health services who said what you have claimed. Like the rest of the conservative bunch you simply make up lies about asylum seekers, the more outlandish the better you like them. Howard's children over board lies shows how low conservatives will stoop when it comes to denigrating these poor people.
Conservatives have a track record at lying at every opportunity.

Paul,

The article in full:

"ASYLUM-SEEKERS have asked doctors for breast enlargements, IVF treatment and botox, according to the former director of medical health services for Australia's offshore asylum processing network.

Ling Yoong, who helped set up medical services on Nauru and Manus Island and worked on Christmas Island, said the cosmetic operations were requested when asylum-seekers underwent other regular medical checks and necessary treatment.

"We give (the asylum-seekers) the health services they need; we do not give them the services they want," Dr Yoong said in an interview with industry magazine Medical Observer published this week. A medical source familiar with the demands said they had been made in all three offshore locations.

"I was employed to give them the health checks and intervention they needed, but some of the people started demanding things they wanted," the source said. "A woman wanted bigger breasts and said she did not like the ones she had.

"These are the more extreme examples, but I continued to get the impression that many of these people were not genuine refugees.

"If I were a refugee, I would be quietly grateful for arriving somewhere safely, not asking for breast surgery."

Former foreign minister Bob Carr caused outrage among some sections of the community in June when he declared asylum-seekers were increasingly "economic migrants".

[tbc]

[cont.]

Julia Gillard's former communications director John McTernan labelled them "Iranian architects".

The medical source said she believed she was witnessing the initial stages of a growing trade in "medical asylum", where people who were not otherwise persecuted, but who had little or no access to healthcare, were making trips to Australia in the belief they could get any treatment they wanted.

"You have to be logical and rational about this and as much as I supported the genuine refugees, I knew more and more were not," the source said.

She said she originally got into the field of asylum health because she wanted to treat people.

"I have a lot of empathy for refugees ... when I started, I told myself I was just going to be treating people, I said I was not going to get involved in the politics," she said.

"But I soon went from dealing with mostly human misery to human demands."

A source close to the former Labor government was not aware of the specific instances of medical requests but was "not surprised" by them.

The source cautioned against using the requests as a direct link to refugee status.

"Somebody can have a well-founded fear of persecution which would not make them an economic migrant, it would make them an asylum-seeker," the source said.

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said these types of requests were "lavish" ... Those seeking to come illegally by boat won't receive such lavish treatments and they won't get the settlement in Australia they paid people-smugglers for."

An asylum-seeker advocate, who did not wish to be named, conceded there were small numbers of people arriving on boats who were "muddying the waters" for those in genuine fear of their life.

"Obviously somebody asking for a boob job is outrageous but from the deep, deep experience I have in this sector, I'd say it's also an aberration," the advocate said.

"These are not the normal stories of horrific nature we are used to hearing."

[TBC]

[contd.]

Details of the medical requests emerged as Mr Morrison said the government was negotiating a series of understandings with the Indonesian government over asylum-seekers, but wouldn't say whether they included the Coalition's signature policy of turning boats back to Indonesia.

A delegation of Australian officials was in Indonesia working through the issues, and a high-level delegation, including operation commander Mark Binskin, retired major general Jim Molan and AFP Commissioner Tony Negus would visit next week.

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/seeking-asylum-and-breast-job/story-fn9hm1gu-1226733279729#sthash.7PbadRlQ.dpuf

So this is the report:
<< [a doctor has revealed that] Asylum seekers at off-shore detention centres [have] asked doctors for breast enlargements, IVF treatments, Botox and cosmetic dentistry>> but such services were declined [at least under her watch]

And this is the reaction:

From Poirot, gibberish:
"SPQR, SM, runner (what's a Labour diehardt?)...Barnaby Joyce...Barnaby Joyce...Gina Rinehart... Gina Rinehart...hyuk,hyuk, hyuk"

From Lexi, this gem:
"Radio shock jocks like Alan Jones are the media
equivalent of cockroaches. They feed of shyte,
and can withstand a nuclear blast."

From Pericles, leading the cavalry on his favourite hobby horse:
"xenophobic rant… right Austrayan to chunter on about those evil wogs and chinks and mozzies, isn't it"..."it's all a beat"

And last -and least- Paul 1405:
It's "all lies"

@Poirot,
The doctor is a lot better positioned to make an assessment than you and practically all of your sources, and you assure us every week the asylum scammers are all sweet little lambs. I’ll bet if she said they were all 100% genuine you’d be quoting her as an authority.

@Pericles
Looking for backing for Philips costings, start with the expenses involved in building and furnishing detention centres --and rebuilding and resupplying them each time they get trashed/burnt down.

SPQR,

"@Poirot,
The doctor is a lot better positioned to make an assessment than you and practically all of your sources, and you assure us every week the asylum scammers are all sweet little lambs. I’ll bet if she said they were all 100% genuine you’d be quoting her as an authority."

The doctor is perfectly qualified to assess her patients' health.

I'm asking if she is qualified to assess their claims of refugee status.

What expertise or qualifications does she have to assess the antecedents of asylum seekers?

Hi Poirot,

"The doctor is perfectly qualified to assess her patients' health.

"I'm asking if she is qualified to assess their claims of refugee status.

"What expertise or qualifications does she have to assess the antecedents of asylum seekers?"

Not really the point, my friend, [well, that's better than 'sweetie', isn't it ?] - she takes it as understood that they have been assessed as asylum seekers, and probably - at first - she would assume that they are indeed genuine refugees too.

Her point was that they didn't seem to have the sorts of preoccupations that a refugee, terrified of losing their liberty or their lives, or those of their loved ones, might be expected to have. Bigger boobs, she suggests, aren't what one would expect to be high on the list for genuine refugees.

Not that there's anything wrong with bigger boobs, of course.

But cop it and move on, my friend.

Cheers :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Loudmouth,

I asked if this medical professional had any qualifications or expertise to assess the antecedents of asylum seekers.

I also asked if she was qualified to assess their claims of refugee status.

I didn't make an inquiry into this: "... she takes it as understood that they have been assessed as asylum seekers..."

Presenting as a seeker of asylum does not make one a refugee (as you know).

This medical professional is treating those who are seeking asylum.

Is she qualified to assess whether or not they are bonafide refugees - or is she qualified only to deliver medical care?

"Her point was that they didn't seem to have the sorts of preoccupations that a refugee, terrified of losing their liberty or their lives, or those of their loved ones, might be expected to have. Bigger boobs, she suggests, aren't what one would expect to be high on the list for genuine refugees."

She stated the request for "Bigger Boobs", etc was an extreme example.

Don't tell me to "cop it and move on" - I'll stick around questioning as long as it suits me.....friend.

Hi friend Poirot,

Whatever, the doctor seemed to assume that the patients she was dealing with had been properly processed and, as far as she was concerned, they were bone fide refugees.

And wanted orthodontal work, and botox, and boob jobs, which struck her as somewhat out of character for genuine refugees.

Yes, she was perhaps acting on common stereotypes, that refugees are people who are in fear of their lives and those of their loved ones. And perhaps not so much for their teeth or wrinkles or boobs.

And perhaps fair enough. But can you really imagine any of those 400,000 genuine refugees in that ghastly camp in northern Kenya worrying about their teeth, first off ? or their fecking wrinkles ? or their much-spoken-of boobs ?

Refugees fleeing Nazi death-camps in Europe may have had other things on their minds besides their orthodontics. Get real, my friend.

Cheers :)

Joe

Oh come on Joe, do you honestly think many of the asylum seekers asked for cosmetic surgery?
I think we can safely assume that NO previous asylum seeker or refugee has ever been given FREE cosmetic surgery in Australia?

So why would many of them ask for it now?
Asking doesn't cost anything.

I still can't see how asylum seekers would risk their lives, or their families lives, by travelling to Australia on such deadly boats unless they were in desperate situations.

Whether or not the asylum seekers were so called 'economic refugees' or not, the fact remains that the immigration officials deemed the vast majority of them as genuine refugees.

Not to worry though guys.
Abbott will soon decimate the terrible people smuggler trade ( and the Indonesian fishing trade) by buying thousands of their fishing vessels , and all our troubles will be over...

Paul,

Making things up is the purview of the greens. I posted the link which gave the name of the health director a Dr Ling Yoong. Please read further than the first post before saying things that make you look like an idiot.

Parrot, SOL etc,

I have not claimed that everyone is jumping on a boat for a free cosmetic holiday, just that Labor's record of granting permanent residence to about 99% of illegal immigrants with welfare, housing, education, and free pass for relatives, is extremely attractive, and tens of thousands of cashed up economic refugees were flocking here.

It has been left to the coalition to fix up the myriad of Labor messes including this one. This starts with doing exactly what was promised.

Suseonline, "I still can't see how asylum seekers would risk their lives, or their families lives, by travelling to Australia on such deadly boats unless they were in desperate situations"

This from an experienced ex-Minister for Immigration, who happens to be a woman as well, so she should be a credible source for you or anyone,

<Media-Savvy Asylum Seekers Play Hardball
October 7, 2013
Having a sad story does not entitle entry to Australia.
...
The people who travel through or past two, three or four other countries in order to get to the country of their preference are certainly not those most in need.

From the initial media coverage, one could be forgiven for thinking Australia was somehow to blame.

If anyone doubts that these people know full well what they are doing, all they need do is watch the TV clip of the man who claimed they had rung the Australian embassy but help had not arrived. To travel with mobiles on international roam, with the numbers in hand either of the Australian embassy or onshore colleagues ready and willing to contact it, is not the modus operandi of uninformed people who are duped by people smugglers. No, this is the work of people who are playing hardball with the Australian government and using the media to do so.

Their modus operandi is to get as many sad stories associated with asylum seekers into the Australian media as possible. They want to press our sympathy button until we can't stand it any more. That they have a sad story does not entitle them to come to Australia. There are even sadder stories in camps in Africa and northern Thailand, but those poor people don't have a media-savvy people-smuggling ring happy to engage the Australian media on their behalf.
..
The people who travel through or past two, three or four other countries in order to get to the country of their preference are certainly not those most in need.
..>
http://tinyurl.com/asylum-hardball

Once he buys all the thousands of fishing boats in Indonesia (lol!) all these problems will stop won't they?
Suseonline,
If you haven't got the mentality to understand the situation then can you at least accept to refrain from making stupid comments like this when we advise you to ?
Abbott did not say he'll buy all indonesian fishing boats. He offered those who have been approached to take illegals to Australia to get money for their boats in return for not taking asylum seekers here. We're talking dozens of boats not thousands. Most nalayan go about their daily business instead of bringing people here.

Suseonline take heart mate, you can laugh at being told your intellect needs attention from a bloke without one.

Question: Is the words of this Dr true or fabricated? Did any of these refugees actually ask for the cosmetic surgery or was it a fabrication

That's probably a bit of overreach, Joe...

"Whatever, the doctor seemed to assume that the patients she was dealing with had been properly processed and, as far as she was concerned, they were bone fide refugees."

Her title, 'Medical Director of Asylum Seeker Health Services at Nauru, Manus and Christmas Islands' more reasonably suggests that as far as she was concerned they were asylum seekers.

I can understand why Dr Yoong left Nauru after five weeks having had one day off,

"We located our clinic, which was an old recreation centre. There was nothing in the clinic — it was just an empty space.

Over the week, partitions were erected and we identified what needed to go where. There was no workable flush toilet and we initially tried to hold our bladders instead of going to the ADF pit latrine. After a few days we got used to the pit latrine, even on a hot day.

The first group of asylum seekers arrived five days after us — Tamils from Sri Lanka. They were no problem and they came up to Medical often for a chat and to help us unpack supplies. By then, they had flush toilets although we did not."

As for the question of the breasts being thrown around by commenters, all we have is the ascription in the Australian article, "the source [who may or may not have been Dr Yoong] said. "A woman wanted bigger breasts and said she did not like the ones she had."

So instead of 'boob jobs' isn't 'boobs job' more likely correct when referring to 'a woman'?

"That's probably a bit of overreach, Joe...

"Whatever, the doctor seemed to assume that the patients she was dealing with had been properly processed and, as far as she was concerned, they were bone fide refugees.""

Actually, WmTrevor, it's a lot of an overreach.

Loudmouth is off beam here.

The asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus haven't been assessed as genuine refugees.

That's why these centres are referred to as processing centres - as in "offshore processing".

That is, asylum seekers are being assessed to ascertain whether or not they are to be accorded refugee status.

My question did not pertain to whether this doctor does or does not consider them refugees.

I asked whether she was qualified to assess the antecedents of the asylum seekers of whom she was charged with their medical care.

I assume she was employed as a medical professional - and not as a person qualified to assess asylum seekers' claims.

Nope, still not convinced that people will risk their children's lives at sea in order to get to Australia unless they are desperate situations.

Individual, how do you know there are only 'dozens' of fishing boats prepared to take asylum seekers to Australia from Indonesis? You don't.

How many fishing boat owners will happily line up to have Abbott buy their boat for inflated prices? Pick me!
Even if they weren't considering transporting asylum seekers they may well say they would.

What a stupid policy.

Pericles - Quote "I'll guarantee you have absolutely no evidence to back up your "BILLIONS of taxpayers dollars" claim."

You have really outdone yourself with that comment because you know it is true.

Just check budget paper and ministerial briefings etc

The asylum budget of almost $2.9 billion next financial year 2013

The Red Cross has been paid $603 million for 26 months' work helping asylum seekers in the Australian community.

Almost $75 million has been given to the Salvation Army for welfare and support services in Nauru and Manus Island and $8 million has gone to Save the Children.

government revealed on a contracts website on June 27 2013 that managing Australia's detention centres will now cost almost $2.5 billion, almost $1 billion more than expected last year.

April 21, 2013 Serco holds $1.8 billion in contracts to run Australia's detention centres.
A long list of companies including charter airlines, hire firms and blue-chip transport companies entered into, or held, contracts with the department last year. Across all its operations, the department had contracts worth more than $8 billion last year.

These figure excludes a range of other costs related to arrivals of boat people, regional cooperation costs, plus costs incurred by other agencies and departments such as Customs or the Defence Force.

Poirot - You also show your ignorance "Is she qualified to assess people for refugee status on the grounds that she's a medical professional?"

She is in a position to talk to them the longer you talk to them the truth about there situation comes out.
The longer you have someone as a friend the more they will reveal about them self.

Philips,
I admire your perseverance but no amount of reasoning is ever going to move Piorot. As I mentioned above, if the good doctor(or anyone else) had said "yes they are 100% genuine" Poirot and a few others would be citing her as an authority (and Lexi would be linking us to it, quick smart!).

Her pussyfooting around "whether [the doctor] was qualified to assess the antecedents of the asylum seekers" is prevarication --or in other words total and utter BS. What antecedents? No papers, no witnesses, just a well rehearsed generic story. Bob Carr saw through it and they didn't want to listen to him either.

Face it, Poirot will never change, she was born with her feet set in concrete

Dear SPQR,

Bob Carr as news reports testified at the time -
did not "see through it all" he merely used
statements that he thought would give his Party a
political advantage to help win the election at
that time. And according to given statistics by
government departments - what Carr was spruiking
was simply not accurate. News coverage told us the
same thing as well. The stats contradicted his
statements. You can Google this information for yourself
as it is available on the web.

Certainly, there are people who will and do abuse the
system, however they are not the majority as some people
want to claim.

As for accusations of one's feet being "set in concrete,"
I guess that insult can apply to quite a few on this
forum, especially those who are set in their own beliefs
and choose to ignore the facts when presented.
I guess that's life. Also, as we've argued in the past -
it also depends on where one gets one facts from - some
sources are more accurate and objective than others as
we know. Still the ABS and Immigration Department facts
are as reliable as we can get.

Regarding medical conditions in these processing centres
on the islands - there was a very good program some time ago
that showed an interview with an older Scottish male medical practitioner.
I believe it was on Christmas Island - who was very adamant
and upset at the lack of property care and the medical
shortages that existed. Medical supplies were greatly lacking,
and as he stated, if someone got sick, they were in trouble.

This somehow contradicts the picture that's currently being
presented - which should make all of us question whether this
is indeed a beat up.

Well, quite, SPQR.

>>Just check budget paper and ministerial briefings etc<<

Don't forget, your statement was "it equals BILLIONS of taxpayers dollars each year".

What you have pointed out is only one part of the equation.

Let's work through it a bit, shall we, rather than pretend that the screaming headlines tell the whole story.

>>Across all its operations, the department had contracts worth more than $8 billion last year.<<

Fair point. But where does that money go, exactly?

Into the economy, that's where. It provides employment for thousands. Those thousands pay tax, and cycle their money through other parts of the economy - food, housing, manufacturing etc. - that ultimately feeds our country's growth and development. The net impact on the taxpayer needs also to take into account how much you would pay in welfare to those who would otherwise be unemployed, in the absence of those contracts.

You are also ignoring those who are already, or will become, profitably employed taxpayers themselves.

Try to think of the money as an investment in our country's future. It helps.

Foxy,

<<Bob Carr as news reports testified at the time-
did not "see through it all" he merely used
statements that he thought would give his Party a
political advantage to help win the election at
that time>>
But why would saying what he did give him political advantage?
Because, he was confirming --'fessing up to --what the majority of well informed sources had been saying for a very loooooooog time.
The system was being abused in a big way.

PS: The sources you rely on don't count as "news" sources.
Your sources don't actually gather news, they edit & rewrite it to suite their narrow agenda.

<<And according to given statistics by
government departments - what Carr was spruiking
was simply not accurate.>>
How so?
You're surely not alluding to the 97% approval levels after Oz taxpayer funded appeals -surely not?
That was exactly what Carr was criticizing/debunking --a case of willy-nilly rubber stamping anyone who told a good story.Why, that approach even rubber stamped many who had been rejected by the UN in Indonesia --if the UN in Indonesia doesn't pass you, never-mind, hop a boat to OZ and resit an easier test! --LOL


<<Certainly, there are people who will and do abuse the
system, however they are not the majority as some people
want to claim.>>
Everyone--EVERYONE- of the middle easterners coming to us via boat have set out with the intention of abusing the system:
1)They flew into either Malaysia or Indonesia
2)They lied to immigration officials (in either Indo or Malay) about their intentions
3) They ditched their papers but significantly not their mobile phones
4) They conspired with criminal people smugglers.

<<Regarding medical conditions in these processing centres...>>
Red herring alert!
Whoa-up, the issue here is NOT about conditions in the centres.
That was introduced by WmTrevor in his ploy to side track things!

Nice to chat with you.

Cheers!

Woohooo Pericles

I think Philips actually made the statements you're attributing to me( though in truth I do agree with much of it)!
But it's only proper that I should let him have first crack at a response.

Cheers!

Apologies for the misattribution, SPQR.

>>Woohooo Pericles I think Philips actually made the statements you're attributing to me( though in truth I do agree with much of it)!
But it's only proper that I should let him have first crack at a response.<<

In my defence, it was an easy mistake to make.

But please, don't wait - have a crack.

Dear SPQR,

If you're really interested in the facts about Bob Carr's
statements and the reasons behind those statements you
should as I suggested to you earlier Google the information
on the web. It was fully covered by sources such as
The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Australian, The ABC,
to name just a few. As for accurate stats on refugees -
try the ABC and DIAC sources.

Also the Tony Jones interview with Bob Carr on Lateline
will help clarify for you what political advantage Bob
Carr was trying to pursue.

I'm pleased that you'fe finally enjoying "chatting" with
me. It seems that we are making some progress.
Yay!

Suseonline, "Nope, still not convinced that people will risk their children's lives at sea in order to get to Australia unless they are desperate situations."

That is all you have to say? You have nothing to counter what the ex-Minister for Immigration has said and what the ex-Foreign Minister from the other side has been saying as well?

They agree despite coming from different sides, but you still choke on it, maintaining that both are wrong.

In China parents break the limbs of children to set them up as beggars to earn money. Fifty percent of Afghan girls are married by the age of ten (so too for indigenous girls thanks to the extreme multiculturalism ideology of Australian 'Progressives').

Of course they are people who can easily put the life of a child on the line for gain and some do it out of political idealism.

But you cannot see that you yourself put more childrens' lives at risk through your support for people smugglers. Or if you can you are prepared to turn a blind eye to it to suit your idealism or even to win a point (as 'Progressives' do when disregarding the rights of indigenous minors to support traditional cultural imperatives).

To those doubting the authenticity of the report, perhaps you would care to read the interview in the Medical observer which if anything takes a pro refugee stance:

http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/news/nauru-gp-from-botox-and-ivf-requests-to-voluntary-starvation?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=enews+02-10+new+format&utm_content=enews+02-10+new+format+CID_104799cbf037cbeecc9834368b475340&utm_source=Email+marketing+software&utm_term=Nauru+GP+from+Botox+and+IVF+requests+to+voluntary+starvation

"BREAST augmentation and IVF are not the medical procedures likely to be top of mind for doctors treating asylum seekers arriving on Australian shores in leaky boats.

However, these – and others including Botox, cosmetic dentistry and kidney transplant - are among the requests fielded by Dr Ling Yoong, a GP who has directed health services for asylum seekers at Christmas Island, Nauru and Manus Island.

Many asylum seekers have fled their homeland to escape persecution, Dr Yoong said.

“I believe, for the true refugees, we as Australians must provide protection for them as well as comfort them for their trauma,” she said.

But she knows after years of experience that non-genuine applicants are prepared to starve themselves, lie about their history and fake illness.

“We give [the asylum seekers] the health services they need, we do not give them the services they want,” Dr Yoong said.

Dealing with genuine mental illness is one thing, being forced to play mind games is something else entirely, and emotionally draining, she said.

After 26 years as a GP in Mount Druitt, Sydney, Dr Yoong took up a job in 2007 with International SOS in Beijing, followed by stints in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. She was then asked to run services at Australia’s offshore detention centres."

I know you left whingers would love to claim that this is fake, but it is from a reputable person in a reputable magazine. The reality is that the good will of Australians is being abused by economic refugees and human traffickers.

Dear SM,

Thank You for confirming the points people have
been trying to make in this discussion.
Yes, there are those who will and do try to abuse
the system (no one is denying that) however as you
have now confirmed with Dr Yoong's statement - there are
many refugees who are indeed escaping from persecution.

SM,

I don't believe this story is a fake.

Nor do I believe that this doctor's experience or opinion is representative of the circumstances and behaviour of the majority of asylum seekers.

However, I do believe it's a beat-up.

That you lot here are employing it to tar and brush all asylum seekers is par for the course around here.

Perhaps you can shed light on this doctor's qualifications and expertise in assessing and passing judgement on the veracity of claims of asylum seekers.

Does her area of expertise and experience in assessing asylum claims extend beyond her medical qualifications?

Pericles - I am convinced now that you really do know I am right but just want to play silly little childish games, Find The Facts.

April 21, 2013 Serco holds $1.8 billion in contracts to run Australia's detention centres.
A long list of companies including charter airlines, hire firms and blue-chip transport companies entered into, or held, contracts with the department last year. Across all its operations, the department had contracts worth more than $8 billion last year.

Read what I wrote it says what a lot was for add to that the charities, the doctors, catering, food supplies, smokes, internet, computers, phones, accommodation for staff working on the Islands etc. ALL of this waste could have been spent on infrastructure in Australia for Australians

In future I am not going to waste my time answering your idiotic questions, when you have valid ones no problem.

Poirot - The point you believe it is a beat-up is only YOUR opinion and does not change the FACT that it is TRUE.
Please accept you are wrong in this instance.

Also it appears you were unable to read or comprehend my comment to you before. So here it is again.
You also show your ignorance "Is she qualified to assess people for refugee status on the grounds that she's a medical professional?"

She is in a position to talk to them the longer you talk to them the truth about there situation comes out.
The longer you have someone as a friend the more they will reveal about them self.

Poirot and Foxy,

If you actually read the article, you would not need to ask these questions. The doctor in question is not involved in assessing asylum claims, nor should she be.

What is clear from this story and many other stories of "refugees" is that while many are genuine, also many are not, and the method of entry, the destruction of documents, standardized fabricated stories, etc indicates that few would meet the measure of need to granted asylum through legitimate channels.

Hi Pericles,

Thanks for the invite--I note the Philips beat me to it--but I'd already scribbled a few notes so here goes:

I think the point Philips was making was that the raw cost to OZ was billions of (budgetary) dollars. A point you parried and poo-pooed at the time.However, I gather that since you have now discovered your error you're doing your level best to redeem something of your case by represent it in net terms, à la, pumping billions into the support of the illegal immigration industry serves to stimulate the economy.

This is rather like the "argument" pushed by Alan Austin that it didn't matter if the the school halls built under the GFC stimulus was shoddy, the payment thereof served to stimulate the economy.Now I am no economist (as you well know, and which I suspect is why you are taking this approach!) but it seems to me --in a common sense sort of way-- that providing funding for 1000 research scientists must in the long run be better for the economy/society than funding 1000 immigration lawyers --but you might see things differently!

And I would suggest that even getting close to measuring the real cost/benefits of such would require nothing less than a Tianhe-2 supercomputer (and mine is offline at the moment), not the back of the envelope stuff you're fond of.

And not only are we in a poor position to measure the net LONG TERM costs/benefits. I'd suggest we can't even begin to imagine them.
I note that a number of recent (unpopular with lefties) studies are showing societies that take in large numbers of ethnically diverse migrants incur costs through becoming less cohesive and trustful (what dollar value do you give this?) and I imagine there are almost certain to be others...

SM,

".....The doctor in question is not involved in assessing asylum claims, nor should she be."

Not involved, not qualified, no expertise in assessing asylum claims.

Therefore, the article is a compilation of the doctor's observations (a few extreme examples) and her opinion.

Thanks, SM

Dear SM,

Try this on for some food for thought:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-tosolve-the-boat-problem-without-cruelty-20130722-2qeof.html

P,

What sanctimonious twaddle! Who do you know with a Phd in asylum seeker assessment or even a basic BA?

The doctor is a smart highly qualified individual who has spent a number of years working for international SOS in crisis areas, and combined with a sound medical assessment of medical condition incl trauma is almost certainly far more capable of determining the credibility of the asylum seekers claims than a bureaucrat with a clip board and a tick list of questions that the "asylum seekers" have long rehearsed.

Foxy,

Your link to the "solution" as espoused by Paul Komesaroff and Suresh Sundram which simply involves world peace, reconciliation and a group hug, while a worthwhile ambition is in the left wing tradition supremely useless.

You may well have convinced yourself of this, Philip S, but you'd be wrong.

>>Pericles - I am convinced now that you really do know I am right but just want to play silly little childish games<<

And wrong not for the first time, I suspect.

But you obviously either i) did not bother to read what I wrote, or ii) haven't the faintest idea how an economy functions. Possibly both, of course. Simply reiterating what you wrote before, as you did, could fit either scenario.

And thanks for underlining the point, SPQR.

>>I think the point Philips was making was that the raw cost to OZ was billions of (budgetary) dollars<<

Exactly. My point was that the billions of dollars quoted was not the cost to the taxpayer, in that it doesn't represent the net impact. Neither you nor I nor he is in a position to assess that. But what we both know is that simply bandying large numbers about is merely pot-stirring, which is why I issued the challenge.

Significantly, all Philip S has done is go back and repeat the big number, ignoring everything else.

But hey, it's what he does. Marks for consistency, if not for accuracy.

only 'dozens' of fishing boats prepared to take asylum seekers to Australia
Suseonline,
I don't know how many there are. I have been on a beach in Indonesia & spoke with a malayan (fisherman) who told me he is doing three trips a year with no more than 3 passengers. He actually told me he couldn't be bothered taking people here if only he could ends meet. I had the distinct impression that he would have been quite happy to receive $5000, and not have to do a trip. Now that would be finitely cheaper an option than processing just one immigrant.
The problem is not the fishermen. The problem is the agenda to invade Australia before those who support this intake grow a brain.

Pericles - Oh how wrong you are, I did not want to get into an economics debate with you simply because there is 2 factor you simply do not want to accept.

If we did not have these ECONOMIC INVADERS coming this country would be far better of.

There is very little net gain to the economy the wealth goes mostly to a very few individuals the bosses of serco etc.
Also it is unproductive as the more we pander to them the more will come.

Dear SM,

How disappointing that you didn't even consider
at least some aspects of the
solution that was being suggested in the link
that I cited. Instead of the huge costs involved
in what we currently have.
You merely brushed it aside as
a "goup hug," whereas it was far more than that
but then of course you support a Party that has
now made cuts to foreign-aid while increasing
its military budget so of course you wouldn't
see the value of striving towards bettering the
situations of those in their own countries to
stop them from getting on boats in the first place.

Ah well, At least I did try.

SM,

I wasn't asking for formal qualifications (as you, no doubt, are well aware) I was enquiring as to this doctor's expertise in assessing asylum claims.

She is employed as a medical professional, not as an assessor.

Or should we just let all the doctors tell us who is and who isn't a bonafide refugee, on the grounds of their requests and responses during the health check-up?

Poirot, "Or should we just let all the doctors tell us who is and who isn't a bonafide refugee, on the grounds of their requests and responses during the health check-up?"

Interesting then that you didn't challenge Foxy's post and link where two doctors (two would be doubly worse than one in your book) propose an international 'solution' to the economic invasion.

Rudd's idealism has cost Australia very dearly according to Foxy's link:

"The financial cost of maintaining the extensive naval and air operations and a national and international detention system is more than $8 billion a year - more than that of the national disability insurance scheme and the national broadband network combined."

As someone who is gravely concerned about politicians' travel perks (on one side at least), you should be even more angry, livid in fact, about Rudd's $8 billion dollar a year waste (and counting as others try to correct his mistake). That is a record as far as mistakes go!

Any wonder the electorate recently put the rubbish out in Canberra.

Dear OTB,

May I politely suggest that you go back and re-read
the link I gave earlier.

Neither side of politics comes out of dealing with this
emotive problem of asylum seekers rather well.

And as stated, "neither side discusses the moral cost
of maintaining a network of prisons" that house men,
women, and children indefinitely, let alone the costs
to the people themselves. Some of the harshest policies
and most expensive came from the Howard government's
term in office. Plus the current government when in
Opposition had an unshakeable determination to return
all boats to their origins. So, as the article ppoints
out, "The two major parties were competing with each other
for the cruelest, harshest policies."

Then, go back and again read
the qualifications of the two distinguished writers,
their qualifications, and experiences, and perhaps then
you shall grasp as to why they are indeed qualified to
write and speak about human rights issues and why Poirot
did not object.

PhillipS, SM and OTB carry on about a doctor's ability to decide who is or who isn't a 'genuine' asylum seeker.

May I politely suggest that you guys are even less qualified than the doctor to decide these issues either.

Do you honestly believe that the Immigration officials, who definitely ARE qualified to make these decisions, can so blatantly and easily have the wool pulled over their eyes by what you all consider are economic refugees?

Do you not think they have heard and seen it all before?

They already KNOW all the tricks and schemes tried out before by illegal immigrants and are trained to root them out.

However, it seems the vast majority of these boat people have been accepted as refugees.
So, everyone else is wrong except you 'special' guys with obvious 'special' knowledge of all the asylum seekers' situations?

ROFL...

Foxy, Suse, Pericles, WmTrevor,

You might be interested in this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/08/lampedusa-refugees-italy-australia

(The rest of you can shuffle off and continue your miserable hard-hearted muttering under your breath about cosmetic Asylum:)

"On Friday, as Italy declared a day of mourning for the souls lost at sea and local fishermen threw wreaths into the waters, it struck me how much Australia’s heart seems to have hardened to the plight of those less fortunate. The event reminded me with clarity of the Italian crewmen’s compassion: one sat and sang songs in the baking heat of the front deck, amidst the stench and the sadness, to try and keep the men’s spirits up on the long, slow limp back to port. Another told me that his work gave his life meaning, adding proudly that his vessel alone had saved the lives of 2,000 people over the past three years.

I remember too my mortification when I described the Lampedusa arrivals facility as a detention centre –the director corrected me with palpable annoyance: “These poor desperate people come to us, to Europe to find a new life and to find succor. This is a centro d’accoglimento (a welcome centre)”. Concrete, armed guards and locked gates seemed less than welcoming but when we visited a few days later: the arrivals were rested, in clean clothes, smiling through their anxiety. More importantly, the Italian government and its agencies allowed us in, to report and photograph with openness and transparency."

Insightful article on Italy's experience - worth a read.

Foxy,

I re-read your link as you directed and as I expected, the copy and paste I did to quote was exactly correct. Here it is again,

<Rudd's idealism has cost Australia very dearly according to Foxy's link:

"The financial cost of maintaining the extensive naval and air operations and a national and international detention system is more than $8 billion a year - more than that of the national disability insurance scheme and the national broadband network combined.">

You should also be aware that your sidekicks Poirot and Suseonline hotly dispute that doctors such as the two whose opinions you favour have any credibility at all on matters outside the confines of their medical specialty.

So you really need to take your complaint to your worst critics who are Poirot and Suseonline. They say your sources are *bleep*.

Suseonline, "May I politely suggest that you guys are even less qualified than the doctor to decide these issues either"

May I politely suggest in return that you are even less qualified and less informed than ex-Foreign Minister Bob Carr and the seasoned ex-Minister for Immigration quoted earlier. Your arguments in return to them? None, Nil, Nada, you just disagreed that is all.

http://tinyurl.com/asylum-hardball
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 8 October 2013 6:05:42 AM

Suseonline HAS spoken is enough, apparently.

No more than you have spoken enough, dear Onthebeach.

I did not suggest I knew more than the ministers you mentioned, but I think the Immigration officers would be more practiced at working out who is or isn't lying about refugees than those politicians, wouldn't you agree?

In any case, my opinion is my opinion, whether you like it or not.
Thus IS an opinion forum after all...

Immigration policy is subject to the ideology and idealism of the government of the day.

That and the political convenience of the previous Labor/Greens government of having none or very few rejected, to 'prove' the government's policy was correct. Of course the hugely growing burden of the cost of economic migrants and their violence both in and out of detention centres blew the lid off it all.

You know that. I know that. The whole of Australia know that. It is one of the main reasons why the exasperated public put the rubbish out in Canberra last election.

Now the pivotal role of supporters inside Australia has come under attention and rightly so because the industry has cost $8 billion annually (according to Foxy's sources), which is the cost of the national disability scheme and the NBN. There are many urgers and professional advocates who have pocketed large sums of the $8billion annually it cost the taxpayers, and for what return?

This clever video had it right all along,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0MHRSFz6FM

GOTYA!

Here's a real gotya moment.

For much of the thread Poirot has been feigning objectivity:
-[the doctor is] “ employed as a medical professional, not as an assessor”
- and about 100 other lines of yada yada yada

But, as soon as she spies a comment that might be spuikable she grabs it without regard--see here:
<<the director corrected me with palpable annoyance: “These poor desperate people come to us, to Europe to find a new life and to find succor. This is a centro d’accoglimento (a welcome centre)”>>

Woo-up a minute!

Apart from the scurrilousness of trying to equate what happened 400+ KMS from OZ, with what happen just off the Italian coast –consider this:

1) Is this "director" a qualified psychologist? how could he have properly assessed the motives and emotions of the asylum “seekers”?
2) How does he proport to speak for the whole of Italy –or even the Italian govt?

Does Poirot challenge his competence? –does she care? –NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST !

WHAT HYPOCRISY - but, in view of the frequency with which she employs it perhaps we should spell it HY-PROIROT-SY.

Poirot,

You dug a big hole for yourself. Doctors deal with patients face to face all the time with regards health and other issues, and are probably more qualified than anyone else to judge whether a person is lying or not. She has not quantified nor identified those illegals she says are non genuine, but it is clear that she knows that many are blatantly lying about their situation, and that their expectations are less about freedom from persecution, and more about a lifestyle they aspire to.

This is a person that has genuine sympathy for refugees and has sacrificed much to help them. Her disgust at the dishonesty of the economic refugees is far more believable than the left whingers claims that all these cashed up illegals who have destroyed their documents and have almost identical stories are genuinely fleeing persecution.

SPQR,

If I wasn't so polite, I'd call you a prat : )

That is the director's opinion.

The article in question here was the doctor's opinion.

Neither of them are assessors.

and so what?

The amazing thing here is that you lot appear to believe that humans don't at times make mass migrations. You appear to think that displacement on this level, for whatever reason - is something unusual. Ever studied even a tad of history?

You never disappoint, do you.

The main point of posting that article was to highlight Australia's insularity....the fact that the refugees are dehumanised and referred to as "the boats".

Of course, I would never expect you to "get it"...that's why I advised the rest of you to talk amongst yerselves.

Thanks, SM,

Well...I think you should write to the government pronto to inform them that they're wasting their time "processing" asylum seekers.

You should inform them that all they have to do is give them a fundamental health check upon arrival - and then ask the doctor (and maybe the nurses) if the person in question is a "refugee" or not.

Perhaps it can be simplified, and after the health check the doc can just tick a box - yay or nay.

Problem solved!

Quit while you're behind, Poirot.

Cheers :)

Joe

Poirot,

Sometimes I wonder whether you have any grey matter between your ears. I clearly stated above:

"The doctor in question is not involved in assessing asylum claims, nor should she be."

This would be clear conflict of interest and breach of patient confidentiality.

Is there anything else illegal or unethical you would care to suggest.

Dear OTB,

Neither major party has anything to be proud of
regarding asylum seekers. The two major parties
have been competing with each other for the
cruelest, harshest policies on asylum seekers -
both parties spent fortunes and neither side
was willing to discuss the moral cost (as well as
the financial cost) of maintaining a network
of prisons. Your continuation of bringing up the
costs only on one side of politics - doesn't present
the full picture. What do you think the current costs
will be - with the navy involved. - And as the problems
continue, the costs will also.

As for your reference to "putting the rubbish out of
Canberra?"

There are many people who would question
that statement of yours . People with disabilities and their
families and carers, victims of child sexual abuse,
seniors needing health care, families with children to
educate, and the list goes on.

The current government is finding out that it's one thing
to be in Opposition and telling people that the Government
doesn't work, but quite another to be in Government and
have to actually try to solve the problems that won't go
away. Suddenly the rhetoric gets toned down, as we're
witnessing.

Time will tell what sort of legacy this government this
Government will leave behind -
and whether someone will also make the statement
about them that the "rubbish has now gone from Canberra."

I hope not.

SM,

""The doctor in question is not involved in assessing asylum claims, nor should she be."

"Doctors deal with patients face to face all the time with regards health and other issues, and are probably more qualified than anyone else to judge whether a person is lying or not. She has not quantified nor identified those illegals she says are non genuine, but it is clear that she knows that many are blatantly lying about their situation, and that their expectations are less about freedom from persecution, and more about a lifestyle they aspire to......Her disgust at the dishonesty of the economic refugees is far more believable than the left whingers claims that all these cashed up illegals who have destroyed their documents and have almost identical stories are genuinely fleeing persecution."

make up your mind.

You are using this woman's opinions to bolster the case that asylum seekers are overwhelmingly dishonest - cashed-up illegals who pull the wool over assessor's eyes.

Then up the top you state (I repeat) "The doctor in question is not involved in assessing asylum claims, nor should she be."

According to you and others here, her "opinion" is all the proof you need to push your line.

Give them nothing except the very basics of life. No cigarettes, no cosmetics, no grog, no designer clothes, no TV, no phones, no internet access. Nothing except basic medical and food. Nothing more

Chris,

In your list of things "not" to give them you left out "compassion".

Oh.... right...ignore that last sentence.

You fellas have got that one covered.

Poirot,

Obviously you don't have the IQ to process the logic. So I will use small words:

1) The doctor is in a particular position to have detailed knowledge of the asylum claimants and the genuineness of their claims far beyond most of the people actually doing the assessments.

2) Due to doctor patient confidentiality requirements, being involved in the assessment of the individuals' would be a clear breach of ethics. (which makes your suggestion idiotic)

3) A general statement by the doctor, without mentioning individuals, with respect to the genuineness of claims does not breach any code of ethics.

4) Having sacrificed much to assist people in need, the Dr cannot be accused of bias against the asylum seekers.

Taking points 1,2,3, and 4. above, the Dr's opinion carries significant weight, certainly more than any activist, and is as much as she can say without breaching confidentiality. You certainly are not in any position to dismiss her opinion.

Also don't put words in my mouth. I am claiming that many "asylum seekers are dishonest rat bags, not the overwhelming majority.

SM, you said "small words" ! Some of the words you used had four and even more syllables: 'confidentiality' for instance. How do you expect a up-herself half-wit like Poirot to understand those ?!

Speaking to small children, I know, is difficult, but we have to keep trying :)

To get back to underlying topic: boat-people/illegal 'refugees':

* there are more than forty million refugees and displaced people across the world.

* Australia could increase its intake to, say 25,000 or 30,000. But they still would have to be properly processed.

So what to do with people who try to jump the the queue ? And if some people, like the wife of a friend of mine, have been waiting sixteen years, there's a queue.

As 'line of sight' entrants, children in the Greens Party would say 'take them all'. And, if that was government practice, what impact would that have on the flow of such 'refugees' into Indonesia - would it

(a) stem the flow, or

(b) increase the flow ? or

(c) have no impact at all ?

For the sake of children like Poirot, I should spell it out: (b) is the right answer.

Alternatively, if we take only those 25,000-30,000 per year waiting in desert sh!t-holes year after year after applying properly, with barely a pot to p!ss in, let alone twenty thousand dollars; and fly everybody else back, what might be the impact on the flow of such people to Indonesia: would it (a), (b) or (c) ?

Even Poirot could surely guess the right answer.

Or do we take only those we see in boats ? Not the poor buggers out in the deserts ? Hard-hearted indeed.

Joe

Foxi,
Why would I want to have compassion for someone whos declared aim, straight out of the Koran, is to kill off the 'infidel' Me?

SM,

"....I am claiming that many "asylum seekers are dishonest rat bags, not the overwhelming majority."

So the overhwhelming majority of asylum seekers "aren't" dishonest ratbags?

In your opinion?

Okay.

P,

Yes, just a simple majority of asylum seekers are dishonest ratbags.

SM,

Okay, semantics it is.

Let's get this straight so I can enhance your intellectual reputation.

You say.

"....I am claiming that many "asylum seekers are dishonest rat bags, not the overwhelming majority."

and you say:

"Yes, just a simple majority of asylum seekers are dishonest ratbags."

So, it's both,

".....not the overwhelming majority."

and

"....just a simple majority."

Who are dishonest ratbags.

So "many" morphs into "majority" when it suits your argument?

Okay

(Lol!)

Poirot & SM,
If they are not dishonest ratbags when they arrive they some will be.

Parrot,

You were the one playing silly word games, and drawing stupid implications from what I said, so don't get huffy when I call you out.

The initial assessments of these asylum seekers rejects the applications of at least 30% as bogus, recently this figure appears to be much higher. Only appeals to the high courts which essentially won't send even a clear economic refugee back raises this to 99% acceptance.

With thousands of "refugees" flying in to Indonesia to then get on a boat, the % of rat bags could be anywhere from 30% to 70% and whether one of these ratbags get residence depends less on reality and more on how thoroughly the ratbag has destroyed his real history, and how well he has fabricated his new one.

SM (Minister for roolly clever namies),

Okay.

: )

"After reading about the latest terrible asylum seeker drownings off the coast of Italy, I was embarrassed to think of many Australians attitudes to boat people here."

Really ? the people who drowned there were described as 'migrants'

in Australia, our media pulls our heartstrings by describing them ALL as 'refugees' or 'asylum seekers'

we'd have a much more rational debate here if we recognised the difference between genuine asylum seekers and those scamming the system by paying people smugglers to get them to our land of generous welfare payments (and consequent dependancy

If you are in Sydney....
Mary Meets Mohammad’ was filmed for almost two years in Tasmania, following a story around the Pontville detention centre. It has just been selected as a 2013 finalist for the Walkley Documentary Award and has been screening in cinemas and more than 100 locations around Australia. It is coming to Sydney's Chauvel cinema and will premiere at 6.30pm Mon Nov 4th with a filmmaker Q & A.
A very good film, worth watching.