Australia's Ebola visa ban condemned

[Chicog]

The reason the the Australian Government has given for not sending Medical assistance, meaning doctors and /nurses on the ground in Africa is because they have no facilities to treat any personnel should they become infected with the virus.

The Australian government is lying (or Abbott has cut even more funding).

http://www.mh.org.au/royal_melbourne_hospital/victorian-infectious-diseases-service-vids/w1/i1001396/

http://www.health.act.gov.au/c/health?a=sp&pid=1316133581&site=52675&servicecategory=26

http://www.austin.org.au/page/685

http://www.rah.sa.gov.au/internal/infect_dis.php

And that's just the first four I found.

The problem is that in coming up with his Christie-like knee jerk reaction to the outbreak, Abbott has not consulted the Australian Medical Association for any expert advice on the matter.

Quite deliberately in my opinion.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Chicog

[David48]

Liberal lunacy will be the end of the West...then again ..that maybe the plan.

Words fail me.

Let the words not fail ye.

Please describe the policies of 'Liberal lunacy' which 'will be the end of the West'.

.

[David48]

The reason the the Australian Government has given for not sending Medical assistance, meaning doctors and /nurses on the ground in Africa is because they have no facilities to treat any personnel should they become infected with the virus.

The Australian government is lying (or Abbott has cut even more funding).

http://www.mh.org.au/royal_melbourne_hospital/victorian-infectious-diseases-service-vids/w1/i1001396/

http://www.health.act.gov.au/c/health?a=sp&pid=1316133581&site=52675&servicecategory=26

http://www.austin.org.au/page/685

http://www.rah.sa.gov.au/internal/infect_dis.php

And that's just the first four I found.

The problem is that in coming up with his Christie-like knee jerk reaction to the outbreak, Abbott has not consulted the Australian Medical Association for any expert advice on the matter.

Chicog ... the key words were ... 'on the ground in Africa'.

No doubt the Government is making merit with the public ... but the opposition is relatively mute.

They have set up the facilities here in Australia in case someone is found to be infected to make the voters feel safe and limited the chances that the infection will reach our shores ... smart politics.

.

[samran]

Liberal lunacy will be the end of the West...then again ..that maybe the plan.

Words fail me.

Vincent, what is your solution then?

[samran]

The reason the the Australian Government has given for not sending Medical assistance, meaning doctors and /nurses on the ground in Africa is because they have no facilities to treat any personnel should they become infected with the virus.

The Australian government is lying (or Abbott has cut even more funding).

http://www.mh.org.au/royal_melbourne_hospital/victorian-infectious-diseases-service-vids/w1/i1001396/

http://www.health.act.gov.au/c/health?a=sp&pid=1316133581&site=52675&servicecategory=26

http://www.austin.org.au/page/685

http://www.rah.sa.gov.au/internal/infect_dis.php

And that's just the first four I found.

The problem is that in coming up with his Christie-like knee jerk reaction to the outbreak, Abbott has not consulted the Australian Medical Association for any expert advice on the matter.

Chicog ... the key words were ... 'on the ground in Africa'.

No doubt the Government is making merit with the public ... but the opposition is relatively mute.

They have set up the facilities here in Australia in case someone is found to be infected to make the voters feel safe and limited the chances that the infection will reach our shores ... smart politics.

.

Smart politics for sure, even smarter spin.

Opposition has plenty to hit to government over the head for. The fuel indexation thing being the latest.

[David48]

^^ Understandable.

Actually I agree with what the Government is doing with the fuel indexation, but disagree who they have reached their outcome.

[samran]

^^ Understandable.Actually I agree with what the Government is doing with the fuel indexation, but disagree who they have reached their outcome.

Yeah, me too.

one of the few budget measures I do support.

[Ulic]

Finally a western country doing the right thing and not bowing to PC pressure.

Well done Australia.

[loongdavid]

The idiotic chants of 'STRAYAAA' ring through this thread....

Smoke and mirrors and the punters cry for more. Imagine if the government actually sent people over to help with the problem instead of putting on ineffectual visa bans?

Ah, but actual foreign aid doesn't go down with the punters, pretending to do something does.

STRAYAAA!!!'

Notwithstanding the ludicrous and extremely juvenile comments from the poster above, the Australian Immigration ministers decision to stop issuing entry visas is very sound and in line with his authority under the Australian Immigration Act 2010. You will most likely find that he has also divested some of that authority to Australian missions overseas thereby allowing for Australian citizens who may have been infected to have their passports recorded and be subject to further checks or quarantine action upon arrival in Australia.

Australia is the fourth largest per capita foreign aid donor in the world and one of the very few whose financial commitment to the UN is always in the black, unlike the US, UK and most of the EU.

[samran]

The idiotic chants of 'STRAYAAA' ring through this thread....

Smoke and mirrors and the punters cry for more. Imagine if the government actually sent people over to help with the problem instead of putting on ineffectual visa bans?

Ah, but actual foreign aid doesn't go down with the punters, pretending to do something does.

STRAYAAA!!!'

Notwithstanding the ludicrous and extremely juvenile comments from the poster above, the Australian Immigration ministers decision to stop issuing entry visas is very sound and in line with his authority under the Australian Immigration Act 2010. You will most likely find that he has also divested some of that authority to Australian missions overseas thereby allowing for Australian citizens who may have been infected to have their passports recorded and be subject to further checks or quarantine action upon arrival in Australia.

Australia is the fourth largest per capita foreign aid donor in the world and one of the very few whose financial commitment to the UN is always in the black, unlike the US, UK and most of the EU.

I don't disagree with anything you write actually. But you miss my point in this being a piece of political spin. It leverages off the need to be seen to be doing something when they to date have refused, and it leverages off the fact that foreign aid is seen by many in the liberal party heartland as a waste of money.

So while you are right that the minister has powers to do what he does (and so he should) It isn't the most effective way Australia can help stop the spread. Sure do the visa ban, but what is required are people on the ground, which you rightly point out only a few countries in the world like Australia have the resources to commit in any meaningful way.

As for the juevenile messaging, really? This is the government which has coined the term 'team Australia'....

Edited October 29, 2014 by samran

[Don Aleman]

Australia is absolutely correct and every other nation's govt. , who give a damn about their citizens should do likewise. even without the threat of Ebola, most of the banned people are highly undesirable anyway.

[samran]

Australia is absolutely correct and every other nation's govt. , who give a damn about their citizens should do likewise. even without the threat of Ebola, most of the banned people are highly undesirable anyway.

Why would they be undesirable? Did you know them personally?

[Tep]

The reason the the Australian Government has given for not sending Medical assistance, meaning doctors and /nurses on the ground in Africa is because they have no facilities to treat any personnel should they become infected with the virus.

Thus far, the USA and the UK which has such facilities have not guaranteed access to those treatment places to Australian representatives.

Again, this reason is well received in Australia. Evidenced by little or no negative press not any raised or continuing questions by the Opposition in Parliament.

Except for the loonie Greenies ...

Add my voice to the ones who object to this decision and I fully agree that it is entirely about spin and political gain.

I have only seen the US news coverage of this but I notice another thread that is based on a US plea to not stop travel to and from these countries as it affects the ability to deal with the health crisis in Africa. Other people have are this point on this thread. I think you are giving a pass to the government on the basis of facilities. What i have seen on the US channels covering this is that managing ebola is not a complicated or technically difficult process. I went to look on the CDC website on this issue http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/treatment/ IV fluids and oxygen and presumably some containment environment. I really don't see that Australian medical technicians would not have the facilities and ability to provide this treatment?

I am not an advocate for absolute free movement in a contagious health crisis. What I do not like is the hysteria surrounding this issue and more particularly, I do not like the opportunism for fake populism by our government. I trust in the view of the medical establishment that indicates the best way to manage this crisis is to deal with it in situ with the support of as many international health care workers as possible or necessary. Taking a position that disincentives those workers from contributing their time and expertise to help this situational is irresponsible.

[David48]

The reason the the Australian Government has given for not sending Medical assistance, meaning doctors and /nurses on the ground in Africa is because they have no facilities to treat any personnel should they become infected with the virus.

Thus far, the USA and the UK which has such facilities have not guaranteed access to those treatment places to Australian representatives.

Again, this reason is well received in Australia. Evidenced by little or no negative press not any raised or continuing questions by the Opposition in Parliament.

Except for the loonie Greenies ...

Add my voice to the ones who object to this decision and I fully agree that it is entirely about spin and political gain.

I have only seen the US news coverage of this but I notice another thread that is based on a US plea to not stop travel to and from these countries as it affects the ability to deal with the health crisis in Africa. Other people have are this point on this thread. I think you are giving a pass to the government on the basis of facilities. What i have seen on the US channels covering this is that managing ebola is not a complicated or technically difficult process. I went to look on the CDC website on this issue http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/treatment/ IV fluids and oxygen and presumably some containment environment. I really don't see that Australian medical technicians would not have the facilities and ability to provide this treatment?

I am not an advocate for absolute free movement in a contagious health crisis. What I do not like is the hysteria surrounding this issue and more particularly, I do not like the opportunism for fake populism by our government. I trust in the view of the medical establishment that indicates the best way to manage this crisis is to deal with it in situ with the support of as many international health care workers as possible or necessary. Taking a position that disincentives those workers from contributing their time and expertise to help this situational is irresponsible.

Tep, the way I read your post above, I think you may have slightly misunderstood what I wrote (though I could be wrong).

The reason the the Australian Government has given for not sending Medical assistance, meaning doctors and /nurses on the ground in Africa is because they have no facilities to treat any Australian personnel should they become infected with the virus.

I've added the word 'Australian' to my original sentence.

Australia have the usual preventative medical equipment, but lack any physical care facilities, nor any access to treatment drugs or vaccines.

[godden]

PC brigade out again looking after the rights of the few against the rights of the many, the pox on them.

[loongdavid]

Add my voice to the ones who object to this decision and I fully agree that it is entirely about spin and political gain.

I have only seen the US news coverage of this but I notice another thread that is based on a US plea to not stop travel to and from these countries as it affects the ability to deal with the health crisis in Africa. Other people have are this point on this thread. I think you are giving a pass to the government on the basis of facilities. What i have seen on the US channels covering this is that managing ebola is not a complicated or technically difficult process. I went to look on the CDC website on this issue http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/treatment/ IV fluids and oxygen and presumably some containment environment. I really don't see that Australian medical technicians would not have the facilities and ability to provide this treatment?

I am not an advocate for absolute free movement in a contagious health crisis. What I do not like is the hysteria surrounding this issue and more particularly, I do not like the opportunism for fake populism by our government. I trust in the view of the medical establishment that indicates the best way to manage this crisis is to deal with it in situ with the support of as many international health care workers as possible or necessary. Taking a position that disincentives those workers from contributing their time and expertise to help this situational is irresponsible.

Notwithstanding the Australian Federal Department of Health and the Department of Foreign Affairs' and Trade have been repeatedly warning of travel to the affected areas since day one of the outbreak, Australia has made the decision that at this time 'in kind' assistance and relief is more appropriate than 'boots on the ground'. Most former colonial powers have an unwritten agreement whereby others seek the advice of the original colonial power before taking any action in their former colony. This is essentially to prevent duplication of relief assets and to use local knowledge to the best advantage. As France was the principal former colonial power in West Africa they will of course be using their knowledge and influence to best advantage. Australia like other donor countries will also be in consultation with the French regarding the best action to take. Contrary to popular belief and irrespective of the political party(s) in government in Australia any decision taken by government will be done in full consultation with, and knowledge by, the Opposition. Humanitarian assistance is universally accepted as being offered by a country, not a political party.

Edited October 30, 2014 by loongdavid

[Si Thea01]

So the Sierra Leone Government is condemning Australia as counterproductive and discriminatory; Criticised by Amnesty International (No reason listed) and the tenth wonder of the world, Ban-Ki moon from the UN has stated that travel restrictions will severely curtail efforts to beat Ebola.

Isn't is nice to know that all these wonders are suggesting that people from Ebola affected countries should be able to travel freely and possibly affect many, many people with this terrible disease. How is it counterproductive and discriminatory to safe guard your country and it's citizens and who is Amnesty International to stick its nose in? Just another organisation who plays with words in its efforts to raise funds from civilians and bludge of world wide governments to survive.

Then we have Ban-Ki moon. What a wonder he is. Travel restrictions will severely curtail efforts to beat Ebola. How in the hell is by preventing people who could possibly be carrying this disease, or have been exposed to it but not yet showing signs from travelling going to curtail efforts to beat the disease.

There has been almost 5,000 deaths with most occurring in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia and despite efforts to curtail this disease, that has no known cure at this time, these countries and other organisations suggest that what Australia has done is totally wrong. Isn't it funny that with the play of words from these people, that what they say is in total contradiction to the front line health workers who insist that efforts to stop the spread of disease in the areas hardest hit by the outbreak will prevent the spread of Ebola to other countries.

What Scott Morrison has done is correct and it is his duty, as the government member responsible for people travelling to Australia, to prevent a very contagious disease being brought to our country and, in doing so, safeguard its citizens. Those who are criticizing are just playing with words and trying to show others of the same ilk how compassionate they are and what a terrible and uncaring country Australia is. If more countries took this action and kept the disease where it originated then the world will be a lot safer until a cure is found. In the meant time countries are contributing funds, allowing volunteers to go and also sending doctors and other health workers to help those who have contracted this disease. What more do these fools want?.

[samran]

The idiotic chants of 'STRAYAAA' ring through this thread....

Smoke and mirrors and the punters cry for more. Imagine if the government actually sent people over to help with the problem instead of putting on ineffectual visa bans?

Ah, but actual foreign aid doesn't go down with the punters, pretending to do something does.

STRAYAAA!!!'

Talking about sensationalism. I don't think much research went into this particular observation. How about some provable statistics to show where STRAYAAA stands in relation to other countries when it comes to foreign aid or doctors on the ground. I think a look at the history might prove educational.

Again, you miss my point about this being a piece of political spin. Clearly a successful one given the type fist pumping reaction that we have gotten here.

But tell me, what is the actual efficacy of this announcement? You ask for numbers, then tell me, what actual real impact will this strategy have in stopping the spread of Ebola at its source? None.

As for Australia's traditional contributions to foreign aid. Yes they have been good. Kudos also to julie bishop who defended the budget with the razor gang.

But it doesn't take away my point does it that this announcement is pure political spin, designed for winning votes and nothing more...

As for research, dont take my word for it, the AMA, usually the liberal party's lapdog has been highly critical of the governments approach

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-25/ama-criticises-australias-ebola-response-as-chaotic/5841878

[Tep]

The reason the the Australian Government has given for not sending Medical assistance, meaning doctors and /nurses on the ground in Africa is because they have no facilities to treat any personnel should they become infected with the virus.

Thus far, the USA and the UK which has such facilities have not guaranteed access to those treatment places to Australian representatives.

Again, this reason is well received in Australia. Evidenced by little or no negative press not any raised or continuing questions by the Opposition in Parliament.

Except for the loonie Greenies ...

Add my voice to the ones who object to this decision and I fully agree that it is entirely about spin and political gain.

I have only seen the US news coverage of this but I notice another thread that is based on a US plea to not stop travel to and from these countries as it affects the ability to deal with the health crisis in Africa. Other people have are this point on this thread. I think you are giving a pass to the government on the basis of facilities. What i have seen on the US channels covering this is that managing ebola is not a complicated or technically difficult process. I went to look on the CDC website on this issue http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/treatment/ IV fluids and oxygen and presumably some containment environment. I really don't see that Australian medical technicians would not have the facilities and ability to provide this treatment?

I am not an advocate for absolute free movement in a contagious health crisis. What I do not like is the hysteria surrounding this issue and more particularly, I do not like the opportunism for fake populism by our government. I trust in the view of the medical establishment that indicates the best way to manage this crisis is to deal with it in situ with the support of as many international health care workers as possible or necessary. Taking a position that disincentives those workers from contributing their time and expertise to help this situational is irresponsible.

Tep, the way I read your post above, I think you may have slightly misunderstood what I wrote (though I could be wrong).

The reason the the Australian Government has given for not sending Medical assistance, meaning doctors and /nurses on the ground in Africa is because they have no facilities to treat any Australian personnel should they become infected with the virus.

I've added the word 'Australian' to my original sentence.

Australia have the usual preventative medical equipment, but lack any physical care facilities, nor any access to treatment drugs or vaccines.

Yes, I wrote my comment on the basis that we were talking about Australians being infected. I did not know the requirements for treating ebola. I had only heard reports and comments from the US TV channels. So I looked it up. To me it seems that the treatment facilities required are quite minimal. I understand there is a vaccine for which production is being ramped up but from what I have been told and have seen in limited research, safety procedures for health care workers and known and quite basic (if not always followed) and treatment for patients involves IV fluids and oxygen. These reports also said that ebola has been treated and managed using these tried and tested methods in Africa for many decades.

Forgive me if I am missing your point but I cannot see how the government can say the facilities are not available when they are so basic and well known. This raises a suspicion that this is an excuse for something else. Even though I know little about the disease itself, I am quite convinced by the argument that these restrictions put off health care workers from volunteering to help manage the crisis. I believe the chances of me getting the virus are increased under such restrictive and retrograde practices as people will always find away around these types of constraints and secretly move around and infect people. Whereas, an aggressive and proactive move to put resources into dealign with the crisis in situ without marginalising or demonising people and causing them to keep things secret and not trust the people who want to help them gives me a far greater chance of not getting the disease.

We went through this all before in the 80's with HIV. We should have learned those lessons about how people behave in health care crises Ithink.

If I have missed your point again, my apologies but I an quite convinced of what strategy would be the most effective.

[Tep]

Notwithstanding the Australian Federal Department of Health and the Department of Foreign Affairs' and Trade have been repeatedly warning of travel to the affected areas since day one of the outbreak, Australia has made the decision that at this time 'in kind' assistance and relief is more appropriate than 'boots on the ground'. Most former colonial powers have an unwritten agreement whereby others seek the advice of the original colonial power before taking any action in their former colony. This is essentially to prevent duplication of relief assets and to use local knowledge to the best advantage. As France was the principal former colonial power in West Africa they will of course be using their knowledge and influence to best advantage. Australia like other donor countries will also be in consultation with the French regarding the best action to take. Contrary to popular belief and irrespective of the political party(s) in government in Australia any decision taken by government will be done in full consultation with, and knowledge by, the Opposition. Humanitarian assistance is universally accepted as being offered by a country, not a political party.

No problem with anything you say regarding resource management and international donor assistance. Well familiar with this stuff. I don't think it pertains to the issue that I raised, which was to comment on the decision to ban visas on the basis of 'lack of facilities'. How the health crisis is managed is a matter for involved, relevant stakeholder agencies. It may turn out they don't want or need any contribution from Australia. My view is that the visa ban is not a result of the deliberative, consultative, strategic decision making to which you refer, but a populist, opportunist piece of political theatre.

[Tep]

So the Sierra Leone Government is condemning Australia as counterproductive and discriminatory; Criticised by Amnesty International (No reason listed) and the tenth wonder of the world, Ban-Ki moon from the UN has stated that travel restrictions will severely curtail efforts to beat Ebola.

Isn't is nice to know that all these wonders are suggesting that people from Ebola affected countries should be able to travel freely and possibly affect many, many people with this terrible disease. How is it counterproductive and discriminatory to safe guard your country and it's citizens and who is Amnesty International to stick its nose in? Just another organisation who plays with words in its efforts to raise funds from civilians and bludge of world wide governments to survive.

Then we have Ban-Ki moon. What a wonder he is. Travel restrictions will severely curtail efforts to beat Ebola. How in the hell is by preventing people who could possibly be carrying this disease, or have been exposed to it but not yet showing signs from travelling going to curtail efforts to beat the disease.

There has been almost 5,000 deaths with most occurring in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia and despite efforts to curtail this disease, that has no known cure at this time, these countries and other organisations suggest that what Australia has done is totally wrong. Isn't it funny that with the play of words from these people, that what they say is in total contradiction to the front line health workers who insist that efforts to stop the spread of disease in the areas hardest hit by the outbreak will prevent the spread of Ebola to other countries.

What Scott Morrison has done is correct and it is his duty, as the government member responsible for people travelling to Australia, to prevent a very contagious disease being brought to our country and, in doing so, safeguard its citizens. Those who are criticizing are just playing with words and trying to show others of the same ilk how compassionate they are and what a terrible and uncaring country Australia is. If more countries took this action and kept the disease where it originated then the world will be a lot safer until a cure is found. In the meant time countries are contributing funds, allowing volunteers to go and also sending doctors and other health workers to help those who have contracted this disease. What more do these fools want?.

I have read all posts in this thread. I cannot see anyone saying that ebola infected people should be allowed indiscriminate travel to Australia. Not one. If there is one that I have missed, then I would oppose such sentiment.

[JDGRUEN]

The reason the the Australian Government has given for not sending Medical assistance, meaning doctors and /nurses on the ground in Africa is because they have no facilities to treat any personnel should they become infected with the virus.

Thus far, the USA and the UK which has such facilities have not guaranteed access to those treatment places to Australian representatives.

Again, this reason is well received in Australia. Evidenced by little or no negative press not any raised or continuing questions by the Opposition in Parliament.

Except for the loonie Greenies ...

Add my voice to the ones who object to this decision and I fully agree that it is entirely about spin and political gain.

I have only seen the US news coverage of this but I notice another thread that is based on a US plea to not stop travel to and from these countries as it affects the ability to deal with the health crisis in Africa. Other people have are this point on this thread. I think you are giving a pass to the government on the basis of facilities. What i have seen on the US channels covering this is that managing ebola is not a complicated or technically difficult process. I went to look on the CDC website on this issue http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/treatment/ IV fluids and oxygen and presumably some containment environment. I really don't see that Australian medical technicians would not have the facilities and ability to provide this treatment?

I am not an advocate for absolute free movement in a contagious health crisis. What I do not like is the hysteria surrounding this issue and more particularly, I do not like the opportunism for fake populism by our government. I trust in the view of the medical establishment that indicates the best way to manage this crisis is to deal with it in situ with the support of as many international health care workers as possible or necessary. Taking a position that disincentives those workers from contributing their time and expertise to help this situational is irresponsible.

Managing the treatment of Ebola in America is technically achievable - but faulty so far and very costly. Mr. Duncan the first Ebola patient in America (from Liberia) - his treatment at the hospital cost $500,000 -- this does not cover the enormous time and money spent by local police, fire/hazmat and EMS personnel which could easily run the same amount in total... Then we have the treatment costs for the two infected nurses running up at last a total of One Million USD, then all the people the 2nd Nurse exposed had to be tracked and interviewed and followed, then the same for Ebola Patient Dr. Spencer about 1/2 to 3/4 million spent for hospitalization and tracking and following the people he recklessly exposed...

When the rest of the world volunteers huge payments to America for handling Ebola -- then maybe they might have a right for input... but right now American tax payers are footing the bill and I am one of them...

Australia is dead on correct for taking their action... A Western Country has a prime obligation - Protect its Citizens -- not the citizens of other countries as a priority... Home Country is priority... not West Africa...

[loongdavid]

When the rest of the world volunteers huge payments to America for handling Ebola -- then maybe they might have a right for input... but right now American tax payers are footing the bill and I am one of them...

Australia is dead on correct for taking their action... A Western Country has a prime obligation - Protect its Citizens -- not the citizens of other countries as a priority... Home Country is priority... not West Africa...

Contrary to popular belief amongst some of the more political posters, the decision by Australia not to have 'boots on the ground' in West Africa was done in consultation with many other countries and agencies. For the Australian Immigration Minister not to have made the decision he did in revoking visas from the affected countries would have opened up, amongst other things, a subsequent litigants bonanza. To some extent the minister was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Injecting a political agenda into this debate is not only false but irrelevant and misleading as well.

[Andrew65]

"discriminatory" - No Sh1t Sherlock!

The Aussies are right on this one, IMHO.

How long and how many Ebola cases before North America & Europe do the same?

[Andrew65]

The idiotic chants of 'STRAYAAA' ring through this thread....

Smoke and mirrors and the punters cry for more. Imagine if the government actually sent people over to help with the problem instead of putting on ineffectual visa bans?

Ah, but actual foreign aid doesn't go down with the punters, pretending to do something does.

STRAYAAA!!!'

Notwithstanding the ludicrous and extremely juvenile comments from the poster above, the Australian Immigration ministers decision to stop issuing entry visas is very sound and in line with his authority under the Australian Immigration Act 2010. You will most likely find that he has also divested some of that authority to Australian missions overseas thereby allowing for Australian citizens who may have been infected to have their passports recorded and be subject to further checks or quarantine action upon arrival in Australia.

Australia is the fourth largest per capita foreign aid donor in the world and one of the very few whose financial commitment to the UN is always in the black, unlike the US, UK and most of the EU.

The UK is a large foreign aid donor also, only problem being that a large percentage of the money probably ends up in: Switzerland, the Cayman Islands etc

[loongdavid]

The UK is a large foreign aid donor also, only problem being that a large percentage of the money probably ends up in: Switzerland, the Cayman Islands etc

Australia made the decision some months ago to no longer give money but all aid should be in the form of kind or material projects. These subsequent aid offers are to be strictly supervised by Australians for their relevance and their ability to meet deadlines and completion. Corruption within aid programs at the recipients end has always been a problem and in some cases endemic.

[Tep]

When the rest of the world volunteers huge payments to America for handling Ebola -- then maybe they might have a right for input... but right now American tax payers are footing the bill and I am one of them...

Australia is dead on correct for taking their action... A Western Country has a prime obligation - Protect its Citizens -- not the citizens of other countries as a priority... Home Country is priority... not West Africa...

Contrary to popular belief amongst some of the more political posters, the decision by Australia not to have 'boots on the ground' in West Africa was done in consultation with many other countries and agencies. For the Australian Immigration Minister not to have made the decision he did in revoking visas from the affected countries would have opened up, amongst other things, a subsequent litigants bonanza. To some extent the minister was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Injecting a political agenda into this debate is not only false but irrelevant and misleading as well.

The 'political' posters (or at least me) are not arguing about boots not he ground, nor about the government's policy on Aid management, nor really anything about the situation in Africa or America. The point is being made in reference to the banning of visas and the opportunistic nature of this decision whose intended outcomes could be achieve by a variety of other means. Injecting a political agenda into a debate on a political decision seems quite apropos to me.

[loongdavid]

The 'political' posters (or at least me) are not arguing about boots not he ground, nor about the government's policy on Aid management, nor really anything about the situation in Africa or America. The point is being made in reference to the banning of visas and the opportunistic nature of this decision whose intended outcomes could be achieve by a variety of other means. Injecting a political agenda into a debate on a political decision seems quite apropos to me.

The decision by the Australian Minister for Immigration to revoke any visa issued in west Africa in order to gain entry to Australia was made in his capacity as a Minister of The Crown and not as a member of any political party. It is a well established DofI / DFAT convention that visa decisions made in the name of Australia are done so 'a political'. The Minister's decision was extremely relevant to a situation that was getting more serious by the day. If visas had not been revoked there would not have been any other method by which foreign travellers having been exposed to possible infection within west Africa could have been refused entry to Australia. It would be the The Minister's opinion and on advice from a variety of government departments that it was far more expedient to deny travellers entry to Australia at their point of embarkation. It should be noted that this decision not only affects other nationals but Australians who may have been in west Africa for whatever purpose.

[samran]

The 'political' posters (or at least me) are not arguing about boots not he ground, nor about the government's policy on Aid management, nor really anything about the situation in Africa or America. The point is being made in reference to the banning of visas and the opportunistic nature of this decision whose intended outcomes could be achieve by a variety of other means. Injecting a political agenda into a debate on a political decision seems quite apropos to me.

The decision by the Australian Minister for Immigration to revoke any visa issued in west Africa in order to gain entry to Australia was made in his capacity as a Minister of The Crown and not as a member of any political party. It is a well established DofI / DFAT convention that visa decisions made in the name of Australia are done so 'a political'. The Minister's decision was extremely relevant to a situation that was getting more serious by the day. If visas had not been revoked there would not have been any other method by which foreign travellers having been exposed to possible infection within west Africa could have been refused entry to Australia. It would be the The Minister's opinion and on advice from a variety of government departments that it was far more expedient to deny travellers entry to Australia at their point of embarkation. It should be noted that this decision not only affects other nationals but Australians who may have been in west Africa for whatever purpose.

How does one restrict the right for an australian citizen to return to Australia?

[ozsamurai]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Actually ... the truth is different then from what is being discussed thus far.

The ban has little to to do with issuing Visas.

It specifically is ...

The Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has announced his department was cancelling temporary visas for people who had planned to visit Australia from the West African nations and said new visa applications would not be processed.

Permanent visa holders yet to arrive in Australia must undergo a 21-day quarantine process before departure.

Scott Morrison told parliament: "The government's systems and processes are working to protect Australians."

Source

Personally, I support this move.

It's smart politics because it's what the majority of Australians want (if the reports are to be believed).

Plus it reduces the risks for all Australians living in Australia.
.

I wonder how many visas need to be canceled. I reckon all of about 5 people.

It's not a bad move in itself, but to my way of thinking it really is all for show. There have been requests from the US and the UK for Australia to provide resource to stop the spread, and this is the best we do?

Must be hard being a Thai-Aussie, you just don't know where to plant your hat do you? You bag Australia in every post and the 'Aussie Way', someone must have really done a number on you mate, wanna talk about it?

Oz