The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions

[azureline**]

This is disgraceful and I can only hope the people who are in charge fix this asap.

An asylum seeker who was moved off Nauru to give birth is being locked up for 18 hours a day in a detention centre in Brisbane while her week-old baby remains in hospital with respiratory problems.

The case of Latifa, a 31-year-old woman of the persecuted Rohingya people of Myanmar, has shocked churches and refugee advocates.

She was separated from her baby on Sunday, four days after a caesarean delivery, and has since been allowed to visit him only between 10am and 4pm in Brisbane's Mater Hospital. The boy, named Farus, has respiratory problems and needs round-the-clock medical care.

Latifa is confined to the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation, 20 minutes away, where her husband and two children, four and seven, are being held.

Advertisement

Latifa's husband, Niza, is not allowed to visit the child at all, according to people in daily contact with the family.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seeker-mother-kept-from-newborn-baby-in...

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@am*3 wrote:

This confirms what az posted earlier, when somone asked if this baby born in Australia would automatically  become an Australian citizen.

Children born in Australia to parents who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents, automatically acquire Australian citizenship on their 10th birthday if they have lived most of their life in Australia.

---

Cool! I asked that, thank you!

[cherry*135]

I put '      ' around the word orphan's, iza, as they weren't really orphans. Still they were migrants, not refugees or aslyum seekers. and with no stretch of the imagination is their story relevant to the opening post.

That happened a very long time ago, and has not been repeated.. can't see it being repeated again either in Australia.

[cherry*135]

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

It appears to me, from that news article I posted earlier, it was the Immigration Dept (or what ever that branch dealing with detainee'sis called) that placed the time limits on the visiting hours, not the hospital.

On Sky News, Dr Hewson accused Mr Morrison of arrogance, saying his treatment of the woman was ridiculous.

"It's inhumanity in the extreme in my view, I mean a mother in these circumstances is normally given 24-hour access to a child in intensive care," Dr Hewson said.

"I mean for heaven's sake, you know Morrison can go make all the short-term points he likes out there but this is something I think that sends absolutely the wrong message."

The baby was discharged from hospital yesterday.

A spokesman for Mr Morrison yesterday said doctors at the hospital had advised that it is common for mothers not to stay overnight because of bed restrictions.

But in a statement to ABC's AM program, the Mater Hospital suggested the mother should have been allowed to visit her child whenever she wanted.

The hospital says it encourages new mothers to be involved in the baby's care wherever possible to help establish a strong bond, and does not place restrictions on visiting hours.

"Once a mum is clinically well enough to go home, she is discharged from hospital, but is encouraged to be involved in her baby's care wherever possible to help establish and strengthen her bond with her baby," the statement said.

"Mater places no restrictions on women and they can visit their baby anytime where possible."

---

---

That means the investigation will be focused on who (some oone in the Immigration Dept?) made those restrictions and why, and were they necessary.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

Before anyone leaps on me, I don't know what security requirements immigration would have regarding escorting a client from a secure (I am calling it secure because everything posted has stated that the asylum seekers are locked up) unit to a hospital for visitation.

Comparing it with the processes I know from experience, (sending prisoners to hospital for medical treatment, sending boarding students to hospital and caring for mental health patients in a general setting) the cost of any staff required comes from the referring agency, in this case immigration (or whichever government agency is managing this affair) . If that is the case, there is no reason for Mater to object to any visitation which fits into their policies. However, if it became the responsibility of Mater to provide whatever security and escorts necessary for this family to visit their infant, the cost and the problem of finding extra staff coming from Mater's budget, it would be interesting to see what the situation would then be.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@am*3 wrote:

The other asylum seeker thread ( incl mention of English 'orphans'.)

http://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Community-Spirit/Let-s-reverse-the-debate-shall-we/m-p/818897#U81889...9

My point about motel accom is: The immmigration policy the family in this story is under, is the current LNP policy. Not one from 2010, nor even Aug this year.

Putting boat people up in motels, is no longer the current policy under the LNP Govt is it?

---

additionally, consideration has not been given to what processes those AS's have already gone through prior to their placement there, what resources they actually have access to and in what quantity and the fact that none of them have given birth in Brisbane requiring impromptu and unprecedented regular transport and security.

[azureline**]

why would it become the Mater's problem? they are not responsible for people being locked up in detention centres.

I replied to your earlier post EM.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@am*3 wrote:

the churches and charities spend 6 months with refugees..... not asylum seekers.

They wouldn't spend 6 months settling in an asylum seeker (who hadn't been granted refugee status)  now would they?

I know the topic is asylum seekers..

---

LOL, I wasn't implying you were off topic, moreso pointing out that those resources were not extended to asylum seekers, and so not really an indication of how we handle and treat those who seek asylum in Australia.

I believe it was polksa who made the comparison between the two countries, however her comparison is flawed as evidenced by that article.

(BTW, where do NZ put their asylum seekers?, the newly arrived ones, not those who have gone through substantive processing? From memory that article did not say they were indiscriminately released into mainstream society)

[*elizabeths-mum*]

Thank you, azure.

I'm not saying that it should be Mater's responsibility, but that if it were with the cost coming from their own budget, it would be interesting to see how closely they follow their policies that mothers (and whoever else) can visit when they chose.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@am*3 wrote:

It appears to me, from that news article I posted earlier, it was the Immigration Dept (or what ever that branch dealing with detainee'sis called) that placed the time limits on the visiting hours, not the hospital.

---

That was my understanding, and undoubtedly it was because they were aware of the resources and staffing available to them, the established procedures thay had to follow, the rules and protocols already in place and acknowledgement that they can not wave a magic wand and change laws and policies, already in place at the flick of the wrist, and not because of some nefarious power trip and lack of empathy that caused them to deny a family an ideal situation.

The hospital are exactly that, administrators and providors of health, they have no authority to circumvent or interfere in legal situations surrounding AS's or knowledge of exactly what and why those laws and procedures are in place.

[cherry*135]

I see that differently, the hospital concerned states they would never stop a mother from visiting the baby (that doesn't mean they have to offer her a bed, but she would have the freedom to come and go anytime from say 8am to 11 pm and sit by the babies cot, hold him/feed him if appropriate when he was awake).

I think the immigration official(s)came up with that time frame for their own reasons, nothing to do with hospital regulations.

It actually helps nurses if mothers of babies/toddlers are there most of the time caring for them, as it frees up the nurses to look after those that don't have parents there all the time.