What About The Children?

[the_great_she_elephant]

I am amazed and disgusted that in all the indignation over what Gillian Triggs should or shouldn't have done or who said or didn't say what to her, not ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN  except, finally, Malcolm Turnbull, has commented in any way on the contents of her report..

She found that  over a 15-month period from January 2013 to March 2014, spanning both the Labor and Coalition governments  there were 233 recorded assaults involving children and 33 incidents of reported sexual assault. 

If these findings are true - and as far as I know nobody has so far disputed them -   then what is going to be done about it? Who had the duty of care? who is going to be held responsible. What measures are going to be put in place to stop this abuse happening in future?

Both Gillian Triggs and George Brandis are astute and comparitively wealthy adults able to instruct top  legal practitioners to protect their reputaions - but who is going to protect the safety of these children? How many more children have been abused since March 2014? Is a child perhaps being abused in a detention centre  even while you are reading this post? 

Surely to goodness after all that was learned from the Children In Care Royal Commission this report cannot simply be put in a "don't want to know" basket while both sides of Pariament try to gain political mileage out the motives of the Human Rghts Commissioner or the behaviour of the Attourney General.

At some point -though probably not in the lifetime of this government  or even  the one that follows it - there will inevitably be a Royal Commission into the treatment of children in detention centre. what do you imagine its findings are likely to be?

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

He should have just binned the report and got on with life.

It's not like he is going to do anything about it.

Glee,

I am still waiting for an answer

---

Sorry Vic - I must have missed something - an answer to what?

[vicr3000]

---

gleee58 wrote:

---

punch*drunk wrote:

Imagine the trauma the poor little mites went through while their parents dragged them across the seas on a leaky boat past many other safe havens. Personally I think that in itself constitutes child abuse and yet nobody seem to be up in arms about that. By all means take the children from camps and place them in foster care here, but dont return them to their parents until they have proved suitability.

Any Australian parent that willingly risked the lives of their children would probably have them removed from their care until they could prove themselves.

---

Would you stop at the first refugee camp you came across knowing that you would be staying there forever, that those who hunt you could find you there, that your kids would get no education, that there is no hope of finding work or a home, the your grandkids would be born there if not by marriage by rape?

Not me. I'd take my chances on the boat because that sounds worse than death.

---

POLKS

So in other words, you would Country Shop ?

Thanks for confirming what they are doing.

As we have said all along.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Oops just seen your question - I've been out and haven't read back through the thread properly.

Give me time to read your sugestion and I'll get back to you.

[gleee58]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@punch*drunk wrote:

Imagine the trauma the poor little mites went through while their parents dragged them across the seas on a leaky boat past many other safe havens. Personally I think that in itself constitutes child abuse and yet nobody seem to be up in arms about that. By all means take the children from camps and place them in foster care here, but dont return them to their parents until they have proved suitability.

Any Australian parent that willingly risked the lives of their children would probably have them removed from their care until they could prove themselves.

---

Would you stop at the first refugee camp you came across knowing that you would be staying there forever, that those who hunt you could find you there, that your kids would get no education, that there is no hope of finding work or a home, the your grandkids would be born there if not by marriage by rape?

Not me. I'd take my chances on the boat because that sounds worse than death.

---

POLKS

So in other words, you would Country Shop ?

Thanks for confirming what they are doing.

As we have said all along.

---

No, that's life saving.

[polksaladallie]

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Stop talking in past tense.  There have been for decades tens of thousands of illegal immigrants.  There are now, and there always will be.  Most flew here, some with children.  Many are in detention.

---

provide the statistics please.

who are the majority in immigration

detention centres?  by who i mean

the arrival type. 

---

I will humour you and be your secretary because you might be unable to google.

The figure of illegal immigrants hovers around 50,000 each year.  Many of these people are hiding.  And as I have shown, they flew here.

In detention December 2014

Maritime arrivals    2121

Other                    636

http://www.immi.gov.au/About/Documents/detention/immigration-detention-statistics-dec2014.pdf

[vicr3000]

No, that is Country Shopping, pure and simple.

The International convention is you seek refugee status in the first safe country, not think Oh, NZ and Australia have much better schools, welfare etc, we'll go there.

Sri Lanka - India as an example. But no, they had to leave India and get on a boat to Aus.

Country Shopping.

Apply through normal channels if you want to emigrate to Aus,
that's why they have the system set up.

[polksaladallie]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@punch*drunk wrote:

Imagine the trauma the poor little mites went through while their parents dragged them across the seas on a leaky boat past many other safe havens. Personally I think that in itself constitutes child abuse and yet nobody seem to be up in arms about that. By all means take the children from camps and place them in foster care here, but dont return them to their parents until they have proved suitability.

Any Australian parent that willingly risked the lives of their children would probably have them removed from their care until they could prove themselves.

---

Would you stop at the first refugee camp you came across knowing that you would be staying there forever, that those who hunt you could find you there, that your kids would get no education, that there is no hope of finding work or a home, the your grandkids would be born there if not by marriage by rape?

Not me. I'd take my chances on the boat because that sounds worse than death.

---

POLKS

So in other words, you would Country Shop ?

Thanks for confirming what they are doing.

As we have said all along.

---

Why are you addressing me?

[***super_nova***]

---

@punch*drunk wrote:

Any Australian parent that willingly risked the lives of their children would probably have them removed from their care until they could prove themselves.

---

Are you saying that any Australian parent, who for instance decides to make run for it, when faced with approaching bushfire and thus places their kids in danger should have them taken away?

Obviously, the situation refugees are escaping is worse than the risk of the journey. 

[the_great_she_elephant]

Solution ? TO CONSIDER

Now, I reckon that the Gov't MIGHT consider letting them out, children and families, IF they had an iron clad guarantee

that IF the AS were told, no, after investigation, they would NOT be granted refugee status, Visa's and they had to leave,

it wouldn't end up with a whole load of court cases by Burnside and others saying "Oh, but they have already put down

roots in the Community" etc etc etc.

Because of the previous issues with extraditing people once released and the lenghty legal fights that went on,

I think that has hardened the Gov't into doing it again, the end result being, more people stay in the camps.

Just a thought, would be interested to hear what others think.

Certainly they need to be released from detention. If releasing them into the larger community is a problem,maybe some kind of half way house would be a good move - some  kind of group housing scheme, maybe along the lines of a dedicated appartment bloc,k where families could live together but  still come under Government supervision.

Don't take this as my definitive answer, though - it is something I would need to give it a lot more thought to, before committing myself..

[Anonymous]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Do most asylum seekers arrive by boat?

Until recently, the vast majority of asylum seekers applying for protection in Australia arrived originally by air with a valid visa and then applied for asylum at a later date while living in the community. Historically, boat arrivals only made up a small proportion of asylum applicants—estimates vary, but it is likely that between 96 and 99 per cent of asylum applicants arrived by air.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-...

---

you don't seem to understand that 

this is about the length of time people

are locked up in detention centres - in particular -

children.

the reason for that is - they arrive here without

documents.