You told us earlier you would post lies because you felt Labor...

  1. 46,202 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 3
    You told us earlier you would post lies because you felt Labor has previously told lies.

    You continue the lies.

    The spam threads targeting the Prime Minister in waiting are a stretch for sure.

    The legislation being considered for introduction relates to serious medical conditions
    that cannot be properly treated offshore and it is only to provide the right to transfer
    them here for treatment based on justifiable medical advice. Presumably after treatment they would be
    returned into offshore detention pending relocation to another country if deemed genuine
    refugees or ultimately returned to their country of origin.

    Under what is proposed by the cross bench the Minister for Home Affairs can still refuse transfers
    on security grounds.

    Now that is the truth of the situation but I realise you are not interested in the truth.

    By the way you don’t appear to be expressing any concern over the fact that the Minister is
    already quietly transferring some on Nauru to Australia! In fact by the next sitting of parliament
    Dutton will likely have transferred all remaining children on Nauru to Australia. Your concern is
    restricted to distorting what may happen under a Labor govt. That tosses your credibility into the dustbin.

    The extract from the article below covers the scope of the proposed policy and the concerns of
    both sides of the debate. Its is nothing like the bull you put up in thread after thread.

    THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

    "Let's turn to the bill, which refers to a person in Nauru or Manus as a "transitory person".
    Under section 198E of the proposed, if two or more "treating doctors" for a transitory person notify the Home Affairs secretary that the person needs medical or psychiatric assessment and, in their opinion, is not receiving appropriate care, the Home Affairs Minister must approve or refuse transfer to Australia within 24 hours.

    They may be refused transfer if the minister either reasonably believes it not necessary or if the minister believes bringing them to Australia would be "prejudicial to security" within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, including because the person is subject to an adverse security assessment under the ASIO Act.

    The Government argues that this significantly narrows the existing unfettered ministerial discretion, precluding him or her from even making assessment of the person's character when deciding whether to allow a transfer on medical or psychiatric grounds.

    Labor says the discretion remains appropriately broad.
    A "treating doctor" is defined under the bill as someone registered or licensed to provide medical or psychiatric services in a regional processing country or Australia.
    Although that's potentially 70,000-plus Australian doctors alone, they must have assessed the transitory person in person or "remotely" — explaining why the Government asserts that this allows doctors to make assessment by Skype.
    But that's not quite the full story. The bill goes further.
    Medical needs versus national security

    Under section 198F, if the minister does refuse a transfer on the basis he or she deems it unnecessary, the decision is referred to an independent panel which, within 24 hours, must conduct a further clinical assessment of the person and then inform the minister.

    The proposed Independent Health Advice Panel would be a high-powered bunch, comprising the chief medical officer of Home Affairs, the surgeon-general of the Australian Border Force, the Commonwealth's chief medical officer plus no fewer than six other health professionals, including nominations from the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

    A medical opinion from such an eminent panel would, you'd think, carry significance, but even at this stage the minister would be able to defy the advice, but not on medical grounds.
    The minister would be given another 24 hours to reconsider the matter and either accept the panel's recommendation or again refuse the transfer to the Australian mainland, if the minister reasonably believes that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security, as defined under the ASIO Act.

    It all sounds a bit circular, but the process foreshadowed by the bill effectively stops the minister being the final arbiter of whether evacuation to the mainland is reasonable on medical or psychiatric grounds.
    However, the bill does not stop the minister refusing transfer on security grounds, even if the majority of the expert panel agrees with the two treating doctors that evacuation is necessary.
    Which means the definition of "security" becomes central."

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12...acuation-nauru-manus-island-analysis/10605212
    Last edited by eagle888: 11/12/18
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.