This is how crimes go unreported
Under the Act, it is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, for any person working directly or indirectly for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to reveal to the media or any other person or organisation (the only exceptions being the Immigration Department and other Commonwealth agencies, police, coroners) anything that happens in detention centres like Nauru and Manus Island.
The Border Force Act goes much further than any other Commonwealth, state or territory legislation in seeking to reduce scrutiny of government actions in a detention setting. This legislation is antithetical to a society that professes to be a liberal democracy where independent scrutiny of, and protection for those who lift the veil on human rights abuses ought be the norm.
As you say in your post reporting can be done to all the appropriate authorities for them to investigate .
You cannot allow civil servants to report to the media allegations that breach privacy and are untested.
My comments from above.
" Obviously they would only resort to the media if their reports to the relevant authorities were ignored or dismissed. "
Doctors and nurses have a duty of care to patients. This law overrides that duty. There are also mandatory reporting laws in Australia regarding abuse that apply to doctors, nurses, social workers and police. The only place allowed in this law is to immigration which has a policy of not revealing information because it prefers to tell us nothing. Remember Morrison claiming a refugee was killed while rioting outside the detention centre only to backtrack days later ? It was inside and it was the guards who initiated the attack with weapons. Those murders are still free. To use the ploy used by the govt for meta data if have nothing to hide whats the concern ?
That is not their decision .
In Australia if you see a crime ypu report it to the police the police investigate and if they feel they have enough evidence they present it to the crown prospector who decides whether to prosecute or not .
If they do you have the right to defend yourself .
As happenpened to Bill Shorten . An alleged Rape case was repoted to the police after eight months of investigation by the police Shorten was arrested and questioned . The police thought they had enough evidence . The crown prosecutor disagreed and the allegations were dismissed.
These are the checks and balances we have . We do not have trial by media ...If they do make unfounded allegations they are sued ..
This thread is about the law in reporting to the media etc and relates to the immigration department.
Now if you wish to deviate by all means do so by opening another thread. If you want to bring in side issues like Shorten then same advice is given. Now maybe you want to have a political stripe bias or just divert the topic, who knows ? Well Abbott has had a few legal charges including indecent assault but maybe there is something more relevant to this thread other than useless info on dropped charges regarding current leaders.
" Tony Abbott insisted on providing a character reference for a Catholic priest later struck off the clergy list by the Vatican following a child abuse case, the former priest says.
John Gerard Nestor, who attended Sydney's St Patrick's Seminary with Mr Abbott in the 1980s, was a priest in the Wollongong diocese in NSW when he was charged with the indecent assault of a 15-year-old altar boy in 1991.
Mr Abbott, who in 1997 was a parliamentary secretary in the Howard government, later provided a character reference in court for then Father Nestor, describing him as "a beacon of humanity". "
A beacon of humanity who was later
But the Catholic church never allowed him to return to ministry and about five years ago he was struck off the clergy list, or "laicised", by the Vatican after lengthy inquiries.
Making a comment on a topic just to throw dirt opens up the way for dirt to be thrown in the opposite direction and with more potency. Neither achieves much and neither has anything to do with the topic.
To repeat the thread relates to laws designed to cover up abuses in detention centres with a two year jail term. A law that flies in the face of mandatory reprting laws in Australia.
If you cannot stay on or relevant to the topic why comment at all ?
My post was entirely on topic . In explaining to you why we have the process we do .. It was succesful in Shortens alleged rape case in protecting someone against unproven allegations..
your intial post called for the right for civil servants to go directly to the press with unproven allegations ..
your own post is entirely off topic ...
If you mean it was successful in Abbott defending an indecent assault charge how is it on topic ? The law under question is about a jail term for bringing to attention crimes against Australian law that have been ignored or dismissed by authorities. The Abbott case/cases were allowed to proceed under normal circumstances without the implication of two years jail hanging over the disclosure of details by a govt department.
Obviously you have no concept of on or off topic. I repeat if you have nothing to offer start a thread of your own regarding whatever you please. Better still explain why you did not go ahead with your decision to leave the forum. Your conviction and stand lasted one,two days ? Hardly a recommendaton on your principles or word in regard to the forum IMO. Madam Melba had a great voice and her returns were welcomed. What have you got to offer ?
The case comes as doctors at the Australian Medical Association national conference in Brisbane this weekend vowed to ramp up a campaign against new federal laws that prevent them from blowing the whistle on failures in detention centre health care.
Australian Medical Association president Brian Owler, said this was the first time doctors had been threatened with jail time for revealing inadequate conditions for their patients in immigration centres.
"Clearly if doctors are moved to speak out about issues then they should be able to do so," he said. "That's one of the responsibilities that most doctors feel they have.
"This puts most doctors in these circumstances in a very difficult situation if they have to face two years' imprisonment for speaking out, or be quiet and let people suffer. That's not appropriate."
It should be all made public and nothing shold be hidden
Doctors have no more rights than any other individual whatever they feel they have ..
In England children have been removed from their homes and put into foster himes because their parents smoked , what next children removed from their parents because of aledged unhealthy diets...
I. Last week in Hull a two-year-old boy was taken away from his parents after a health visitor expressed concerns about the ‘smoky house’ in which he was growing up. The judge who considered the case ruled that, ‘Adoption really is the only option now available to (the little boy), in my view. Nothing else will do.’ There was consolation, though, as the judge said, ‘I want him to know that in my judgment his parents loved him very much and tried very hard, but they were simply not able to meet his needs.’ Doubtless that will comfort him one day when he reads through the court judgment in his foster home.
Now that obesity is the new smoking, can we look forward to fat parents having their children taken away as well? After all, if the parents failed to follow NHS guidance on diet and exercise then it’s not just that they are making their own flawed choices and decisions — they are a drain on the public finances.
Spectator
Governments seem intent on legislating to ensure that their corruption and mismanagement cannot be reported. This is why we must all stand up for the likes of Wikileaks and Assange. They may not be correct in everything they do, but the world NEEDS them.
KFC is quite right our roads have never been safer mainly due to the rise in technology in vehicles .
Bike riders choosing to ride in high traffic areas is stupid,,
Moderator,
Can you please explain how the above sequence of comments could have occurred? Kfchugo made a comment on 4th June. Pete responded off topic on 4th June. Geomac's avatar with no comment follows on 4th June (which in itself is rather strange). Then Pete's comment follows on 15th May?????
This appears to be more evidence of game playing and post manipulation which is very unsettling on this forum.
Sure I posted on the wrong topic . Then Geomac posted a previouse post of mine . No manipulation .
Thanks Pete. That explains it.
This government really is the limit. It is absolutely outrageous for a government to be attempting to criminalise ethical professional behaviour. To think that it is the very same government that not so long ago was loudly championing freedom of speech.
Why doesn't it just go the whole hog and create a ministry of truth, then anyone critical of the government on any grounds whatsoever could be thrown into jail?
Geoff Gordon Cronulla
SMH letters
Luckily Australia has laws to protect the individual against accusations without evidence...Bill shorten benefitted from these laws against accusations of rape , for instance.
Yesterday I received a fine for littering for supposedly throwing a cigarette butt out of the car window . Under new whistleblowers laws. I will be taking this to court . I don't even smoke...and secondly I don't know who was driving my car six weeks ago...,
the fine is 345.00
Pay up Pete....think of all the times you were guilty. I am only thinking of you having a clear conscience.
People have the habit of accusing without proof, if they hold a grudge, envious or just plain angry at something of the accused.
The Abbott govt appears to back laws when it suits but ignore them when it does not. It is beyong belief that they would have a law that prosecutes a doctor or nurse for making public crimes against people under their care. The irony is that the same govt would decry the same medical people if they did not disclose those crimes at a public hospital or govt department such as foster care.
One thing I think we can safely assume and that is that the inquiry into sexual and physical abuse by the clergy would never have been instigated by Abbott.
An employee such as a doctor or nurse sees a crime be it murder or child abuse and faces two years jail if they disclose it to the media ? Obviously they would only resort to the media if their reports to the relevant authorities were ignored or dismissed. Thats the point of whistleblowers to expose what is being covered up. Hard to believe both major parties voted for this with the revelations about child abuse going on at the moment. The cover up and denial of wrong doing happened because the authorities in charge did not want anything revealed. Is this 2015 or 1984 ?