It’s 2016 and people still get excited over breastfeeding. Men, women and babies. While hungry infants are excited for all the right reasons, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, adult men and women are still getting their metaphorical knickers in a twist over whether or not a woman should use her mammaries for feeding a baby, and even more relevantly, whether she should do so in public.

It is astounding and disappointing that this conversation is even happening. It is disturbing that people still shame women for being responsible; that is, providing her child with nutritional goodness when the baby actually needs it, not half an hour later when the mother can find a suitably clean and sanitary toilet to cower in with her breast barely exposed, if at all.

Recently, a photo posted on the CFA (Country Fire Authority) Facebook page of a breastfeeding volunteer firefighter caused a huge stir, with the typical media reaction. A Spanish politician caused an outcry after breastfeeding her baby in parliament. A café in Queensland allegedly ‘unfairly’ copped a social media grilling after ‘the woman who was breastfeeding was not courteous enough to minimize her exposure.’ These aren’t isolated incidences. In January 2015, a restaurant owner, in denying his staff asked a breastfeeding customer to leave, said that if a woman was breastfeeding ‘we would find a quiet corner for them so it doesn’t bother anyone else.’

Seriously?

Why is it that women who breastfeed their babies in public, or share photos of breastfeeding on social media, are practically accused of committing an act of gross indecency? Why are they being publicly sidelined for the sensitivities of other people who are offended by a perfectly natural thing?

Why, in 2016, do people still have an issue with breasts?

Of course, the loudest detractors insist they are not anti-public-breastfeeding or indeed, not anti-breastfeeding at all. Apparently they just don’t like women exposing themselves or being exhibitionists.

It appears that the condemnation is not for feeding a child with a breast (because that would be so politically incorrect), the condemnation is for doing it in such a way as to publicly draw attention to the fact the mother is breastfeeding.

But it doesn’t seem to matter if there is flesh showing or not, there are still cries from men and women alike, for the mother to cover up, be ‘decent’, stop exposing herself and have some modesty.

The reality is, the vast majority of women do not breastfeed their babies in public because they want to display their breasts to the world. They do not do so to elicit a sexual response from men salivating over the mere thought of a soft, pliable, fleshy boob. Women do not eagerly request someone photograph them breastfeeding because they are desperate to share an image of their breast flesh with every man, woman and child for their own personal gratification.

The vast majority of women do not breastfeed their babies in public because they want to announce to the world that they are YAY! BREASTFEEDING. They are not making a public statement. They are not doing it to rub it in the faces of women who cannot breastfeed. They are not making a self-righteous point about how ‘breast is best’ and therefore how much more responsible and caring they are as mothers than parents who bottle feed. They are not attempting to elicit a negative response so they can storm back to their social media accounts and cry ‘discrimination’ (by the way, it is perfectly legal in Australia to breastfeed in public.)

Astoundingly, the vast majority of women who breastfeed their baby anywhere, do so because their baby is hungry or needs comforting.

That is it.

Yet non-private breastfeeding still brings out a swarm of whingers, whiners and holier-than-thou critics, who seem to find the sight of a nursing mother more offensive than leaving a child to scream and starve.

The condescending, patronising and downright rude comments from men and women alike implies that feeding a child in a completely natural and normal way is morally repugnant and akin to engaging in a public display of pornography.

It is astonishing that in 2016, a woman providing an infant with a healthy meal still causes such a stir.

The main reason, it seems, is society’s perception of ‘decency’, and the inability of some people to see breasts as anything other than sexual things.

The whole concept of ‘exhibitionism’: extravagant behaviour that is intended to attract attention to oneself, seems to have been taken off the stage and applied to mothers who are doing what mothers do; feed their babies.

Yes, breasts may be considered sexual organs. However, it is ridiculous that in 2016, displaying breast flesh, or even alluding to the fact a woman has breasts, is still only acceptable if it can be sexualised in some form. It is even more disturbing that people cannot differentiate between breasts as functional baby-feeders, and something to attract a mate.

People barely bat an eyelid at breasts in a bikini. Breasts cupped in a well-fitting, supportive and shaped bra nestled beneath a smart, yet low cut blouse. Pictures of breasts in silky, sleek lingerie plastered along shopping centre walls. These are all okay.

But breasts in the mouth of a hungry child? Outrageous.

“I breastfed all my children,” tap the self-righteous women, the introduction to prove they are not, per se, anti-breastfeeding, “but I did it discretely, with my baby’s head covered in a crocheted quilt, hiding behind a wall of pot-plants. I didn’t exhibit myself and flaunt my naked nipples to other women’s husbands in a desperate attempt to show them my swollen, milk-filled mammaries and entice them away from their wives. I had self-respect back in my day.”

“I too breastfed my child,” chips in another pious anti-exhibitionist. “But I don’t want my children to see that. I don’t want my husband to see that. It’s just not necessary to flaunt them and flop them around.”

“I just don’t feel comfortable staring at breasts”, sniffs another.

These sanctimonious critics might as well say, “OMG! She’s deliberately exposing herself for the sexual gratification of me/my husband/that man over there who will work himself into a masturbatory frenzy over her exposed flesh! And not only that, she is making all women look like shameless whores because she has her BREASTS out!”

What gives any man or woman the right to tell another woman how and where she should and should not feed her child?

Breastfeeding in itself, is not ‘making a statement’. A photo of a breastfeeding mother should attract no more attention than a family Santa photo.

Breastfeeding in public is not exhibitionism. It is not a public display of vaginal knitting – and even the vaginal knitting exhibition in question was not for external validation.

It is ridiculous that mothers who breastfeed are still expected to stay at home, cover up, or sit in a corner so as to not offend people with their breasts. Mothers are volunteer firefighters, politicians, professionals, community members, and, unbelievably to some, completely normal people. The Department of Health recommends babies are exclusively breastfed until 6 months of age and continued up to 12 months or longer if the mother and baby wish. Yet in Australia, by the time a baby is four months old, less than 40% of women still breastfeed and by 6 months, less than 15% of babies have breast milk. Many women struggle with breastfeeding, and it is disgusting that mothers are subject to negative community attitudes instead of support in the first year of their baby’s life.

It is long past the time for people to stop being offended by breastfeeding, and it is time for people to stop manufacturing offence on behalf of others. Almost every single Australian child, teenager, and adult man and woman has seen a breast at some point in their lives – their own mother’s, their own, their wife or girlfriend’s. If a person has ever gone to a sunny beach or swimming pool, they have seen as much breast flesh, if not more, than that which is displayed when breastfeeding. And if a mother flashes a little bit more? Why does it matter?

If the smugly righteous prudes cannot handle the sight of a suckling child, or the overly-sexed perverts feel they cannot control their sexual urges if they catch sight of breast flesh pressed against the cheek of a hungry baby, the issue is with them, not the mother. The solution for the offended is incredibly simple – just don’t look.

In an appalling case of pre-emptive bastardry, Centrelink customer service employees have been sprung telling at least one new mother that she should not apply for Paid Parental Leave (PPL) because it is ‘double dipping’. The new mother, who does not want to be named, approached Centrelink on two separate occasions in late 2015, with queries about PPL. The conversations, with two separate Centrelink officers – in person and on the phone, left the new mother in tears, not least because she was essentially accused of trying to rort the system when she was enquiring about her perfectly legal entitlements.

“When I rang them they tried convincing me not to apply. That it wasn’t all that much money and I got maternity leave so I shouldn’t be applying anyway.”

The Health and Human Services website clearly states that “the current Paid Parental Leave scheme has not changed. It will continue to be available to eligible customers.”

Why then did Centrelink officers give this new mother such grossly inaccurate information about her eligibility for the scheme? Are the staff so untrained, unskilled or incompetent they do not know the facts about PPL? Or, have officers have been told to go ahead with enacting the Abbott/Turnbull Government’s planned cuts, despite the changes still facing resistance in the Senate, and even then, not planned to come into effect until 1 July 2016?

The new mother initially approached Centrelink in person at the Hobart shopfront, and explained her situation. She asked the officer:

“… could [partner] take Dad and Partner pay at one stage and then later the PPL… I was told that was double dipping and I shouldn’t be trying to get maternity leave and PPL since it’s one or the other.”

Why is a Centrelink officer deliberately attempting to mislead the new mother? Since when has it been appropriate for an employee of the Commonwealth to infuse political propaganda with providing advice on lawful entitlements?

The Centrelink website clearly states under the information for Dad and Partner Pay: “If eligible, your family can receive Parental Leave Pay or the Newborn Upfront Payment and Newborn Supplement for the same child for whom you receive Dad and Partner Pay … As an individual, you may be able to receive both Dad and Partner Pay and Parental Leave Pay, but not at the same time.”

Additionally, the Centrelink website, and legislation provides for the first primary care-giver to later transfer PPL to the other parent, provided that other parent also meets the eligibility criteria. The criteria are as follows:

• be the primary carer of a newborn or recently adopted child
• meet the Paid Parental Leave work test
• meet the Paid Parental Leave income test
• be on leave or not working from the time you become your child’s primary carer until the end of your Paid Parental Leave period.

Paid Parental Leave does not just apply to mothers, it applies to parents. The test is not the gender of the applicant, but the nature of the care-giving responsibilities.

“Being told I was double dipping really made me mad. They just don’t understand the concept of men taking parental leave. It is PARENTAL, not MOTHERS. [Partner] needs a bond with [baby] just as much as I do.”

Both the new mother and her partner met all eligibility requirements in this case, yet again, just days after the birth of her first child in November 2015, the new mother, who had commenced her maternity leave early due to medical complications, called Centrelink, who tried to convince her the newborn supplement was the most appropriate payment, repeatedly trying to dissuade her from applying for PPL.

“It was a few days after [baby] was born and I cried. I cried at everything for a while. She really, really tried to convince me that the new born supplement payment was what I should get. The different is very big. If it were the same dollar amount I wouldn’t mind, but there is a huge difference. She put through the claim I needed in the end. Just took ages.”

Given that two separate Centrelink officers in two separate locations and at different times provided almost identical and misleading advice, it can only be assumed that staff have been told to dissuade eligible families from accessing PPL.

“She really did not like the idea that [partner] was getting the PPL… ‘It is meant for the mother to spend time away from work with their child, you are getting maternity leave so you really should just apply for newborn supplement, it isn’t intended so that you get both’… ‘it isn’t all that much anyway, only about $600 a week, that’s not much’…”

The PPL scheme introduced by the Labor Government on 1 January 2011 was designed to work with employer paid schemes to enable the primary care-giver to take as close to 6 months off work as possible. The scheme envisaged the mother in particular, would receive her usual maternity leave entitlements as well as the 18 weeks Federal PPL paid at the minimum wage. The PPL was always intended to supplement employer paid schemes and could be transferred to the other partner if required.

However it seems that Turnbull doesn’t want to wait until his unpopular changes are forced through the Senate, if they go through at all. Turnbull is determined to leave the lowest paid workers up to $10,000 worse off immediately, without any legislative change at all.

How many other women have been told they are not eligible for PPL? How many other families have been left worse off because of incorrect and misleading advice from Centrelink officers? How many new mother and new fathers have been lied to by the Government?

In this case, the new mother persisted and eventually put in her claim.

“What I don’t understand is why they are saying this when the policy isn’t even passed? It was an idea at one stage; that PM is gone. So why are they still saying this? And why are they having an opinion on it?”

That is a very good question. Why do Centrelink officers have an opinion on Government policy? Their role is to provide advice to people based on the current law and eligibility criteria, not to spruik a policy that will leave up to 80,000 families worse off.

It is also completely unacceptable for a government employee to call a mother who has just given birth a ‘double dipper’, and infer she is rorting the system when she is enquiring about a lawful entitlement. It is unacceptable that the officer should have such poor knowledge of the current law that they tell a new mother her partner is not entitled to his lawful entitlement either.

There is simply no excuse at all for Centrelink officers to be telling parents they cannot apply for PPL when they absolutely can. It is a disgrace. Luckily, in this case, the new mother knew enough about her rights to challenge the advice. How many other parents have not, and ended up missing out on vital financial support in the first crucial months of their new baby’s life?

A Current Affair is seeking community feedback on a proposal to force women on welfare to be on contraceptives. This ludicrous idea is apparently the brainchild of former Labor MP Gary Johns as a way to end intergenerational welfare. This isn’t a new policy of Johns. He has raised it before, saying in 2014 that ‘it is better to avoid having children until such time as parents can afford them’. According to Johns, rather than providing better education for young people, access to free (voluntary) contraceptives and family planning facilities, ‘women on welfare’ should be ‘inserted with long-acting reversible contraception – a tiny rod inserted under the woman’s bicep.’

Apart from the obvious reasons why the policy is absurd, it is a clear violation of a woman’s right to personal autonomy and to control her own body. The very suggestion that a woman on welfare should be forced to undergo a medical procedure or be left (along with her children) to starve or fend for herself is so abhorrent, it should not be necessary to provide a genuine argument against it.

Any government who took this idea seriously would guarantee a fierce backlash from the voting public (unless they are ACA audience members who, judging by the ‘feedback comments’ are wholly supportive of vulnerable and disadvantaged women being forcibly interfered with by medical professionals), and international condemnation.

Johns proposal, while obviously insane, is also unworkable. If his intent is to stop ‘intergenerational welfare’ and prevent women from having babies while receiving tax dollars, he does not go nearly far enough to ensure that no child is born without the full protection of parental financial support.

If anything, Johns proposal only goes halfway to ‘solving the problem’.

Why? Because it only applies to half of the population.

Johns is either not serious about ending intergenerational welfare (as laughable as his policy suggestion is) or he has a weird obsession about women and their reproductive capability.

It takes two to tango. A man and woman, or more accurately, a sperm and an ovum.

If Johns’ policy is to be effective, it must be applied in every situation which might result in a woman having a child while receiving welfare benefits. There must be a contingency in place for ‘accidents’; something forced contraceptives are obviously intended to address. There must be consequences for every person involved in causing the pregnancy of a woman dependent on the State.

It must apply to the whole population.

It must account for women who fall pregnant, only to lose their jobs through redundancy or discrimination. It must account for those who separate after having children, only to reproduce again – especially men who may impregnate multiple women, leaving them to fend for themselves.

It is only once every conceivable contingency is considered and every risk mitigated that babies will be born in Johns’ idea of appropriate circumstances, to parents who can afford them.

A simple, equitable policy might look like this:

1 Compulsory Contraception

1.1. Once a male or female becomes of an age that he or she is capable of causing a pregnancy or becoming pregnant, he or she shall have medically implanted a reversible contraceptive.

1.2. For the purposes of clause 1.1., a medical practitioner is required to confirm a male or female’s reproductive capability and at that time, clause 1.1. applies.

1.3. Where a male or female first satisfies clause 2.1. but subsequently does not, he or she shall have medically implanted a reversible contraceptive.

2 Termination of Contraception

2.1. The contraceptive shall remain in place until such time as the following conditions apply:

2.1.1. The male or female has demonstrated responsibility in line with community expectations, including but not limited to:

        a. is employed and has held that employment position for a minimum of 24 months.

        b. Has an individual annual salary of not less than $60,000.00 per annum, to be indexed in line with CPI.

        c. Has been in a committed relationship with their partner for a minimum of five years as evidenced by meeting strict criteria for financial, social, domestic and interdependent factors.

2.1.2. The male or female meets strict character requirements as determined by the responsible Minister from time to time and at the Minister’s discretion.

But what happens if a person does not yet meet all the criteria and the contraceptive fails?

3 Failure of Contraceptive

3.1. If a person to which cause 1.1. applies causes to become pregnant or becomes pregnant where clause 2.1. is not satisfied, the following applies:

3.1.1. Where the pregnancy is confirmed by a medical practitioner, the pregnancy will be terminated.

3.1.2. Where the pregnancy is not confirmed by a medical practitioner, the male and female responsible for the pregnancy will become ineligible for any welfare payments upon the birth of the child and both male and female will undergo irreversible sterilization.

3.1.3. For the purposes of clause 3.1., where clause 2.1. is satisfied at the time the pregnancy is confirmed by a medical practitioner, but then ceases to be satisfied, the pregnancy will be terminated.

3.1.4. Specifically, clause 3.1.3. applies where a male or female becomes unemployed during the time of pregnancy, or where the relationship ends. Clause 3.1.3. does not apply where the male or female’s salary is below the annual salary prescribed in clause 2.1.1.b. due to unpaid parental leave, provided that leave does not exceed 12 weeks.

But what if a relationship ends or a person becomes unemployed after they already have children? Another provision is required.

4 Future Dependency on Welfare.

4.1. Where a male or female has satisfied clause 2.1. and goes on to reproduce but subsequently does not satisfy clause 2.1., clause 1.3 applies.

4.2. Where a male or female becomes dependent on welfare for any reason and already has a maximum number of two children, he or she will be undergo irreversible sterilization.

No doubt Johns and the ACA audience will warmly applaud these policy suggestions; they are not the slightest bit ridiculous or in violation of any personal rights or civil liberties. And surely, if applied consistently across the population will ensure that no vulnerable or disadvantaged person ever becomes a parent while on welfare.

But is the policy workable? Does it account for human nature? Does it go far enough to protect the State from having to support young families?

Perhaps a better policy would be this:

1 Compulsory sterilization.

1.1. All males are to medically undergo a vasectomy procedure on maturity of their reproductive organs.

1.2. Once a male demonstrates he can financially support a child and is capable of being a good parent as defined by the Minister at his sole discretion, the male may seek approval to reverse the procedure.

While possibly harsh, and a little unfair, given it only applies to half the population, this probably will provide the most surety that unwanted pregnancies will not occur and single mothers won’t become a burden on society. It certainly provides more surety than a contraceptive implant for women. It also has the added advantage of ensuring men cannot unwittingly impregnate multiple women while merrily fornicating and sowing their wild oats, thus causing immeasurable cost to the State.

What say the public?

An open letter to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, said to be written and signed by the 600 men incarcerated on Manus Island, was released today, 30 November 2015. The letter is short. It acknowledges the hopeless situation of the men detained indefinitely by the Government. It acknowledges the necessity of the men’s detention to the Coalition’s cruel ‘stop the boats’ policy. It also asserts that the boats have stopped and therefore the men are no longer of use to the Australian Government. The men claim their job is done, and trapped on the island prison, without any possible end to their torture, they have presented Turnbull and Dutton with three possible solutions to end the inhumanity, the obscene waste of public money, and the ruination of Australia’s international reputation.

The men have requested to die.

“This is not a joke or a satire” the men say.

The options provided by the men appear harsh, but in the minds of the prisoners, incarcerated on the whim of the Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull Governments, the options are a better alternative to dying gradually on Manus Island and where “every single day” they are “literarly (sic) tortured and traumatized.”

The letter is not framed by the men as yet another plea for help, or a request for fairness, a safe-haven or safety – the men have acknowledged that their requests to be freed continue to go unanswered. The letter is a statement of truth, of fact, of recognition of the abhorrent situation the men who have fled persecution, war and genocide now face at the hands of successive Australian Governments, and funded by the taxpayer.

So what are Turnbull and Dutton waiting for?

It is clear the current situation is unsustainable. Offshore detention currently costs over $1 billion a year, more than five times the United Nations refugee agency’s entire budget for South East Asia.

The indefinite detention of asylum seekers and refugees on Manus Island, Nauru and Christmas Island has been repeatedly criticised. The United Nations has found that the offshore detention regime and the conditions that people seeking asylum and refugees are held in, amount to torture. In the past week, the United Nations chief, Ban Ki-moon personally asked Turnbull to review the boat turn back policy and raised concerns again about the conditions in offshore detention centres. The UN’s Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Francois Crepeau, cancelled his Australian visit because the Government refused to guarantee that professionals and staff would not be prosecuted and face 2 years in prison, under the secrecy provisions of the Border Force Act, for simply speaking with him.

Asylum seekers and refugees have been murdered, pushed to suicide, and died from medical neglect while being held indefinitely under cruel, inhumane and torturous conditions as a deterrent to people smugglers.

The Turnbull Government claims the boats have stopped. If this is so, then the men on Manus Island are correct to say they are no longer needed – unless Turnbull and Dutton intend on holding them hostage forever just in case the slightest show of humanity leads to resurgence in on-water arrivals. However, the boats have not stopped departing Indonesia, they have simply been prevented from landing. It is clear therefore, that despite the harsh conditions the men on Manus Island (and men, women and children on Nauru and Christmas Island) are held in, that people will continue to seek asylum in Australia – as is their right under the Refugee Convention signed and ratified by Australia.

Still, Turnbull and Dutton are unphased by international obligations and humanitarian responsibility. Repeated and relentless criticism has simply hardened their resolve to further punish those detained in the island prison hellholes.

So what exactly are Turnbull and Dutton waiting for?

Are they intending to hold each and every man, woman and child in detention until they die? Are they hoping another riot will break out and a few more innocent men will be murdered? Are they hoping that a few more men will be taken out by preventable and treatable infections and illness? Are they hoping that if they treat the men cruelly enough, more will commit suicide, thus saving the Government money and negating the need to process any claims? Do they hope a couple of pregnant women will die in childbirth, or at the very least, their babies die, thus saving the Government the issue of what to do with their prisoners?

According to Dutton, it would be irresponsible to take steps that might see a resurgence in people arriving in Australian waters. In October, in response to the Royal Children’s Hospital refusing to discharge a mother and child to detention, he said, “The Defence and Border Force staff on our vessels who were pulling dead kids out of the water don’t want the boats to restart.”

Is this the worst case scenario for Dutton?

If so, what are Turnbull and Dutton waiting for?

If the refugees and asylum seekers are not going to be freed, if the men, women and children held indefinitely in detention are doomed to stay there, until they are murdered, pushed to suicide, or die prematurely through medical neglect, why not opt for a kinder option?

The men on Manus Island propose the following:

1. A navy ship that can put us all on board and dump us all in the ocean. (HMAS is always available)
2. A gas chamber (DECMIL will do it with a new contract)
3. Injection of a poison. (IHMS will help for this)

The response, if any is given at all, is predicable. “Dumping at sea? A gas chamber? Injection of poison? But that is unconscionable. First world, democratic nations don’t commit atrocities against innocent people. That would be akin to genocide, a war crime, an abhorrent act of terror. Australia will not be blackmailed by these people. We stand by our commitment to keep our borders safe and to stop the boats.”

More likely, there will be no comment at all, and Turnbull and Dutton, supported by Shorten, will leave the men, women and children to suffer indefinitely. The Government will ignore the men’s pleas and continue to support a slow, painful death for those housed in Australia’s concentration camps. There will be no festive cheer or hope for the future. Merry Christmas from Australia.

What a tragic state of affairs and how shameful for Australia as a nation.

The full transcribed text of the letter is below:

30/11/15

Hello Dear Mr Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Dutton.

As the refugees and asylum seekers trapped in Manus Island detention we wold like to request you something different this time.

As previously we wrote and asked for help and there was no respond to our request to be freed out of detention we realized that there are no differences between us and rubbish but a bunch of slaves that helped to stop the boats by living in hellish condition. The only difference is that we are very costly for the Australian tax payers and the Politicians as our job to “stop the boats” is done.

We would like to give you some recommendations to stop the waste of this huge amount of money ruining Australian’s reputation and to keep the Australian boarders safe forever.

1. A navy ship that can put us all on board and dump us all in the ocean. (HMAS is always available)
   2. A gas chamber (DECMIL will do it with a new contract)
   3. Injection of a poison. (IHMS will help for this)

This is not a joke or a satire and please take it serious.

We are dying in Manus gradually, every single day we are literarly tortured and traumatized and there is no safe country to offer us protection as DIBP says.

Best regards

Merry Christmas in advance
Manus refugees and asylum seekers.

Tony Abbott has made many terrible decisions during his tenure as Prime Minister. Broken promises, backflips, outright lies, and a fierce defence of travel rorters shows a typical pattern of behaviour. However the decision to threaten doctors with jail for speaking out about asylum seeker matters is perhaps the worst of all. The public anger over the Government’s enactment of the Border Force Act 2015 continues unabated and will certainly play a part in Abbott’s ultimate demise.

The campaign against the Act started with an open letter signed by more than 40 doctors on 1 July 2015, the day the Act came into force. The national unease, led by people intimately entrusted with the health, education and care of vulnerable people, has not been quelled by Abbott and Dutton’s attempts to clarify the scope of the Act.

Section 42 provides for up to 2 years jail for ‘entrusted people’ who record or disclose ‘protected information’. Both major parties are keen to reassure that the whistleblower legislation protects those wishing to make a public disclosure. This was conditionally confirmed by an ABC Fact Check. However the complex interrelation and application of the Border Force Act and whistleblower laws indicates that professionals are far from protected. It demonstrates why there should be serious concerns about section 42.

When all is taken into consideration, there is absolutely no certainty that professionals who speak out about the health and welfare of asylum seekers will be protected under any  Australian law.

But there is certainty that if professionals speak out, they risk 2 years imprisonment for unlawful disclosure. No amount of clarification of the legislation or explanation of the provisions removes this fact.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 protects conduct that contravenes a commonwealth, state or territory law, is corrupt, unreasonably endangers health and safety or involves the abuse of a person’s position. Internal disclosure must be made first. Public disclosure may only be made if the ‘whistleblower believes on reasonable grounds that the internal response to their disclosure has been inadequate’.

There is a considerable burden on the whistleblower to prove that the conduct comes within the protections of the legislation, and to demonstrate the reasonableness of their belief in the inadequacy of the Government’s response. Additionally, the person must also comply with requirements that on balance the external disclosure is not ‘contrary to the public interest’. They must only disclose information that is ‘reasonably necessary to identify one or more instances of disclosable conduct’.

The effect is that even if disclosure is ultimately defensible, professionals may be seriously deterred from publicly disclosing information due to the threat of jail.

Disclosure comes at a high risk to doctors, nurses, counsellors and other professionals who wish to speak out about conditions in asylum seeker detention centres. The combined legislative provisions are so complex that it would be difficult for a person to know if they were breaching section 42 by speaking with the media.

The practical considerations of when to make a public disclosure are immense. At what point does an untreated, yet treatable medical condition, become an unreasonable danger to health or safety? How long should those who make internal reports to the Government wait before deciding that the response is ‘inadequate’? At what point should the information be made public?

Is two weeks after making an internal report a reasonable amount of time to wait?

Two weeks was too late for a man identified as Mohammad Nasim Najafi, who died from a suspected heart attack after allegedly being refused access to a doctor.

Three weeks?

Three weeks was too late for Hamid Kehazaei who died from a treatable foot infection.

How many months should a health worker wait before publicly disclosing the length of time it takes for medical tests or medicine to arrive?

A child on Nauru suffering from a deadly bacterial infection was reportedly forced to wait three months before medical tests were ordered – and a further three weeks for medication to arrive. At what point in time would a health worker defensibly alert the public to this failure?

How many asylum seekers need to be murdered before the Government acts on the reports of inhumane conditions on Manus Island?

Or will the Government continue to defend the guards and operators of the detention centres, even if they allegedly commit drug and alcohol-fuelled rape?

The Government has known about the awful conditions of the detention centres for at least several years. It is fully aware of concerns about the welfare and safety of asylum seekers. And it has done almost nothing about it.

The Government has been provided independent reports of rape, sexual assault and child abuse in off-shore detention, yet it still thinks Nauru is a suitable place to detain young children – including baby Asha, transferred at just five months old.

Rather than act on the Human Rights Commission ‘Forgotten Children’ report, Abbott and his Ministers launched a personal attack on Professor Gillian Triggs.

Given the Government’s track record on stalling the implementation of recommendations from independent reports, there should be no legislative impediment to workers speaking out. The Government has demonstrated, irrefutably, that the health and welfare of asylum seekers is so low on its list of priorities as to be non-existent.

Abbott has not satisfactorily explained the need for such draconian provisions. Australia is not at war. The arguments for operational secrecy are absurd given there are no such restrictions on information in Indonesia, where many of the people smuggling boats depart. If anything, the Government might encourage the public disclosure of the abhorrent and unforgiveable treatment of vulnerable people if it truly believed that harsh treatment actually deterred.

There is clearly one purpose for section 42 of the Border Force Act.

It is an attempt to prevent the public having access to information about the Government’s repugnant treatment of people in its care.

And why?

Abbott knows there is significant public interest in Australia’s handling of asylum seekers. He knows great power lies with information becoming publicly available via the media. And there are those within Government who would be well aware of how Abbott’s actions are impacting on Australia’s international reputation.

Does Abbott fear that the popularity of his boat turn back policy will be overshadowed by the electorates’ disgust at the Government’s full endorsement and support of cruel and inhumane treatment and abuse of those people arbitrarily detained simply for seeking asylum and safety in Australia?

Fortunately the doctors, nurses and other professionals will not be silenced. And prominent human rights lawyers, including Julian Burnside, have promised to defend any health workers charged.

The Abbott Government clearly cannot be trusted to adequately deal with the objectionable conditions in detention centres. It cannot be trusted to adequately address the health and safety needs of the people in its care. It has deliberately and wilfully refused to act on reports of sexual assault and abuse. The lack of action is unconscionable and cruel. The United Nations has stated that Australia’s asylum seeker policies amount to torture.

And yet it is doctors, nurses, counsellors and other professionals who are being threatened with jail.