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*]

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
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.

---

I spoke to a prison officer of a NSW women's prison yesterday, and it is not only the cost involved, but also the availability of the resources and staff. In NSW, at least, they do not even have enough staff to facilitate all their needs when they need them and it is a huge juggling act to distribute the resources.

and it is not a case of not wanting more staff and being prepared to pay them, there is money in the budget for more, but in the absence of forcing someone into a job they don't want, there are not enough people to fill the positions for which there is approved funding.

and as I said earlier, it is also not just about the protection of us from "them", but also their own security which must be taken into consideration as well.

Now, that was from a NSW person, but I should imagine that Qld has the same problems, not just for their prisoners, but all those requiring security transport and acommodation.

[azureline**]

and just like the Mater having to pay for it, that scenario is also irrelevant!

The mother was transported to the hospital at 10am and taken back at 4pm. It isn't any different to being there 24/7 for 8 days.

Was an escort/ guard provided for the first 4 days? If yes, the same thing could have been done for the next 4 days.

[***super_nova***]

---

@lind9650 wrote:

No, I was not born here. I came from a war torn country 55 years ago. Waited my turn to come here legally and had to live in Bonnegilla pennyless until I found a job and made enough money to rent a house for my family.

---

Bonnegilla was not anything like Nauru or Manus, it was not a prison; people were able to go to the town to work and shop.  How long did you wait to come here legally?  Bet it was not 10 years, and even if it was, your life was not threatened; the war that tore Europe apart ended 68 years ago.  Unless you are talking  about the Hungarian Uprising of 1956, but that would also mean that you most likely waited in Vienna to get accepted  to come here.  Bit different to sitting in Jakarta or Malaysia without any any hope.  All what these people want is a chance to have a life; job to make enough money to rent a house for their family.  Funny that you of all people cannot comprehend that.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

The hypothetical Mater having to pay for it scenario is irrelevant to the actuality as they will never have to pay for it. Mater is perfectly free to make statements that underline that it isn't their policy stopping the mother being with her baby's while the cost of such visits isn't coming from their budget.

That is exactly the situation where escorts are needed, crikey.

[***super_nova***]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

No we are talking about people who enter Australia with all sorts of hopes and aspirations and under all kinds of situations and go through all sorts of hardships to eventually settle here to make a better life for themselves.

We're crying about a mother deprived of her child in entering this country illegally when so many english children were illegally deprived of their mothers in coming here.

---

That was some 50+ years ago & would have been the UK authorities that declared these kids to be orphans, but yes you are right, Australia has a long history of mismanaging such things.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@am*3 wrote:

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.

---

I'm agreeing with you. undoubtedly the hospital wouldn't stop a mother from visiting their baby, and I did say earlier that I believed a lot of that was to do with staffing costs as well as concern for "bonding" etc.

But I think if they had to provide the relevant security and supervision to someone, and pay for that and actually find the relevant staff to do that, they may adopt a slightly different perspective in some circumstances. As it is, it is neither their cost or responsibility for securing a person or to protect them and the wider community.

However, it is the Immigration Department who does have to not only foot the biil, bear the responsibility for protection, security and safety, but also to actually find the staff to fulfill those roles at short notice.

[izabsmiling]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

No we are talking about people who enter Australia with all sorts of hopes and aspirations and under all kinds of situations and go through all sorts of hardships to eventually settle here to make a better life for themselves.

We're crying about a mother deprived of her child in entering this country illegally when so many english children were illegally deprived of their mothers in coming here.

---

That was some 50+ years ago & would have been the UK authorities that declared these kids to be orphans, but yes you are right, Australia has a long history of mismanaging such things.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The Government in both the UK and Australia were involved .

Little bristish children  taken from their parents,imported like cattle...Money was a key factor in the UK

and in Australia the main aim was to help build numbers of what they considered 'right' kind of stock in fear of being overtaken by an Asian/other population.

It was covered up in the UK and has only come out in recent years thanks to the hard work and dedication of one special lady,her family and those involved with her trust.

Racism and money caused the parents and the children involved

and now  the following generations too a lot of pain and suffering.

[cherry*135]

---

@my*mum wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

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.

---

I'm agreeing with you. undoubtedly the hospital wouldn't stop a mother from visiting their baby, and I did say earlier that I believed a lot of that was to do with staffing costs as well as concern for "bonding" etc.

But I think if they had to provide the relevant security and supervision to someone, and pay for that and actually find the relevant staff to do that, they may adopt a slightly different perspective in some circumstances. As it is, it is neither their cost or responsibility for securing a person or to protect them and the wider community.

However, it is the Immigration Department who does have to not only foot the biil, bear the responsibility for protection, security and safety, but also to actually find the staff to fulfill those roles at short notice.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, it will be interesting what their investigation reveals,, whether it will be a bit of a whitewash,  be blah blah and nothing specific mentioned or what.

[izabsmiling]

I see it differently Am3.

This is very relevant to the topic :

"Today, this Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, takes responsibility and apologises for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering," she said.

"We acknowledge the profound effects of these policies and practices on fathers and we recognise the hurt these actions caused to brothers and sisters, grandparents, partners and extended family members.

"We deplore the shameful practices that denied you, the mothers, your fundamental rights and responsibilities to love and care for your children.

"You were not legally or socially acknowledged as their mothers and you yourselves were deprived of care and support.

Today, this Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, takes responsibility and apologises for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering.

Julia Gillard

"We say sorry to you, the mothers, who were denied knowledge of your rights, which meant you could not provide informed consent.

"You were given false assurances. You were forced to endure the coercion and brutality of practices that were unethical, dishonest and in many cases illegal."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-21/gillard-delivers-apology-to-victims-of-forced-adoption/4585972

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@azureline** wrote:

and just like the Mater having to pay for it, that scenario is also irrelevant!

The mother was transported to the hospital at 10am and taken back at 4pm. It isn't any different to being there 24/7 for 8 days.

Was an escort/ guard provided for the first 4 days? If yes, the same thing could have been done for the next 4 days.

---

yes, it was. however, the first days the mother was an inpatient, so the dynamics of daily transfers to and from were not a consideration, and nor would she have been given the same level of security status for days one and two because of the operation and the drugs/medication.(she would have been deemed a low security and flight risk once she was prepared for the operation and until at least day 2)

she did not require an escort for all 4 days whilst she was an inpatient, just once on the way there and another on the way back. The transportation requires more than one staff member popping someone in their car and giving them a lift to the front door of the hospital.

So it is very different to being there permanently for 4 continuous days versus 4 days of daily visits, each time requiring a minimum of four people and two vehicles for transportation and relevant security checks both before entering and leaving the hospital, but also back into the DC. There is also the involvement of the police when transporting prisoners (this includes detainees)

obvioulsy the same thing couldn't be done for the four days once she was released from hospital, as the additional staff and security requirements and additional risks were dramatically increased.