Doctor denied visa as son has Down syndrome

Gepubliceerd op 1 november 2008
Het blijft een land wat steeds meer verwondering veroorzaakt. Nu dit weer.
Denk niet in Australie te kunnen gaan wonen wanneer Uw kind gehandicapt is, U obees bent of wel eens hinderlijk voor de krankenkasse kan worden.
Bij wet geregeld zodat gezond verstand geen verlichting kan bieden. Gezond verstand lijkt hier in het verleden ook een selectie criterium te zijn geweest, maar dan vooral het ontbreken ervan.
Het indrukwekkende is dat ze deze wetten durven maken in dit land en dat de civil servants ze ook nog durven uitvoeren ondanks internationale verdragen tegen discriminatie van disability.
Dan natuurlijk de stomheid om een beroep waar zo een tekort aan is zo te behandelen. Een aanrader is ook, aan het eind van dit verhaal, de zaak van dokter Haneef.
Het is wonderbaarlijk.

Ik heb nog gekeken hoe de eisen in Nederland zijn; niet omdat alles daar beter is maar om te vergelijken: voor een vergunning tot permanent verblijf is er een medische eis die luidt dat wanneer bij de verplichte longfoto blijkt dat U TBC heeft dan moet die eerst behandeld worden om alsnog toegelaten te worden. Verder zijn er geen discriminerende eisen op gezondheidsgebied.

Lees en verbaas U:


October 31, 2008 - 11:35AM

Victoria's Wimmera region has launched a campaign to keep its only resident specialist physician after the German doctor was denied permanent residency because his son has Down syndrome.
Rod Case, the editor of the Wimmera Mail-Times, said he had never seen a more passionate reaction than to the plight of Dr Bernhard Moeller, who treats about 100 patients a week at Horsham Hospital. A letter-writing campaign is already in full swing.

Dr Moeller, whose 13-year-old son Lukas has Down syndrome, answered the Australian Government's call for foreign doctors to help ease the chronic doctor shortage in rural areas but, after two years on a temporary visa, the Department of Immigration knocked back his application for permanent residency last week.

An Immigration Department spokesman said Dr Moeller was rejected because a Commonwealth medical officer assessed that his son's medical condition would result in a significant and ongoing cost to Australian taxpayers.

He said the medical officer's decision was legally binding and the department had no choice but to abide.

Dr Moeller is now contemplating moving his family of five back to Germany.

"Nobody told us it could be a problem," Dr Moeller said. "Lukas is discriminated against because of his disability and we thought that it would be different in Australia. We came because we wanted a better education for him.

"It's really unfair, not only to Lukas, but to our family and to the community at Horsham because we've settled in really well and we love it here."

The family will take its case to the Migration Review Tribunal and, if that fails, appeal to Immigration Minister Chris Evans to intervene.

A spokesman for the minister said he could only intervene after the tribunal hearing, but in the meantime the department was reviewing its powers to grant waivers on a strict health requirement for people in the skilled-migrant category seeking permanent residency.

"The minister asked for advice on the issue of waivers some week ago, as he has received several requests for ministerial intervention by people with pre-existing medical conditions in the short time he has been minister."

Dr Moeller said his family was encouraged by a flood of phone calls, emails and people stopping them in the street to offer support.

"The Government and Department of Immigration don't appreciate the work I'm doing here and they don't appreciate that Lukas has worth in this community as well," he said.

Australia’s health requirements are designed to:

• minimise public health and safety risks to the Australian community;



The request to undertake a medical examination will come from DIAC, ministerie van immigratie, and the results are valid for one year. In the case of a visa application being delayed beyond 12 months, the applicant may be required to undergo a further health examination at their own expense.

To satisfy the health requirements under the Skilled Migration programme, a medical examination, chest x-ray and possibly some laboratory or specialist tests are required. If applying for permanent residency a HIV test will also be required.

All applicants for permanent residency, including the main applicant, spouse and any dependants, must be assessed against the health requirement. Even if the applicants spouse and any children are not included in the application they are still required to be assessed. This is not the case for applicants under the Skilled – Independent Regional (Provisional) (subclass 495) visa, where only those family members travelling to Australia need to be assessed.

The decision as to whether or not an applicant meets the health requirement is not made by the examining doctor. The results are sent to DIAC who then consider them and make a recommendation. If DIAC require an applicant to undertake further specific medical tests and/or treatment, they department will advise them in writing.

Children under the age of 11 are not required to undertake chest x-rays. Copies of immunisation records will be required for all children under 16 years.


Australia is particularly vigilant against the spread of tuberculosis and screen all potential migrants and their families for TB. If tuberculosis is detected it will not necessarily lead to application being automatically rejected, but the application process will only proceed after treatment has been undertaken and retesting has shown the applicant to be clear of the disease.


All applicants for permanent residency in Australia aged 15 and over are required to undergo HIV testing. Applicants under 15 must also undergo HIV testing if they have a history of blood transfusions, are being adopted or have other clinical indications.

Applicants for temporary residency are not normally required to undergo HIV testing except if the examining doctor decides it is indicated.

There is nothing in current Australian legislation that automatically excludes HIV infected applicants from being granted a visa under the Skilled Migration route, but DIAC will determine whether the applicant will require the future use of significant medical resources and incur costs on the public health system. If they believe this to be the case then the application will be refused.


If you are pregnant, you are advised not to be x-rayed until after the birth of your baby. DIAC may not be able to finalise your visa application until after the child is born.


Australian health authorities do not consider the risk of hepatitis transmission from migrants to be high but screening for hepatitis B and C is still required in certain cases, such as when an applicant is pregnant or they are a visa applicant intending to work as a doctor, nurse or dentist in Australia. Hepatitis B will be tested for all applicants with tattoos or body piercings.


Being overweight in itself does not necessarily mean you will not meet the health requirement. If you are assessed as being obese, some exploration of related medical conditions (which can exist or be emerging) will be made. These include diabetes, heart disease (including hypertension) and arthritis. Such conditions may mean that you are assessed as not meeting the health requirement.

All applicants for permanent visas including the main applicant, spouse and any dependants must be assessed against the health requirement. If your spouse and dependants are not included in the visa application they must also be assessed against the
health requirement.


Australia’s health requirements are designed to:

• minimise public health and safety risks to the Australian community;



Dit is hetzelfde land waar voor het onderzoek naar vermeende terroristische connecties van een arts 8= acht miljoen dollar werd gespendeerd en een gigantisch aantal beambten aan het werk werd gezet:

Investigation of Haneef case has cost Oz exchequer over eight million dollars
May 26th, 2008:
Investigations into the bungled Mohammed Haneef terrorism-support case has cost the Australian exchequer 8.2 million dollars so far.
According to a report, the hefty bill for the investigation dubbed Operation Rain, which relates to the terrorist bombings and planned attacks in London and Glasgow in July last year, is being justified as an “obligation” to protect Australia from similar attacks.
Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mike Keelty said less than half of the total amount was spent on the Haneef investigation.
“The sum of 3.2 million Australian dollars was spent on the investigation of Dr Haneef and related inquiries.Over five million Australian dollars is attributable to the investigation of other persons of whom I will not be commenting due to operational sensitivities,” Commissioner Keelty told a Senate hearing.
Dr Haneef was charged with supporting terrorism, but the charges were dropped after the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecution (DPP) announced that the evidence against Haneef was unlikely to win a conviction.
Dr Haneef was detained at Brisbane airport in the days after the Glasgow attack. He was kept in detention by immigration officials in July 2007 even after the case against him collapsed, on the orders of former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews.
Following a federal court decision, Dr Haneef was released and returned voluntarily to India. The case is the subject of a review, ordered by the Rudd government, by former NSW Supreme Court judge John Clarke.
At its peak, Operation Rain involved 249 AFP officers, 225 Queensland police, 12 officers from the Attorney-General’s department, 54 WA police, 40 NSW police, six Customs officers, two NT police, one Tasmanian officer, six translators, four other law enforcement agencies and two UK police posted to Australia. (ANI)

Bovendien werden door de Australische overheidsvertegenwoordigers alle regels aan de laars gelapt, niet gehinderd door enig respect voor de werkelijke wetgeving, in het kader van terrorisme bestrijding. De vrijkaart voor een aantal om breinloos te opereren:
Julian Burnside QC

The treatment of Dr Mohamed Haneef is very disturbing.Dr Haneef spent 12 days in custody waiting to be questioned by Police. He was held under provisions which do not appear to contemplate such lengthy detention without charge. When, eventually, the police started questioning Dr Haneef, they apparently found out no more than they already knew: he had given his cousin a pre-paid SIM card which still had some credit. Dr Haneef could no longer use it because he was leaving England. A year later the SIM card was found in a car used by a terrorist.

It is a thin-looking case which will depend on showing that Dr Haneef had reason to think one year ago that the SIM card would be used by a terrorist organisation. Mr Keelty described the case as being "at the margin". Presumably the same thinking persuaded the magistrate that Dr Haneef should be bailed pending trial.

Prolonged detention for questioning is troubling: it is difficult to square with our assumptions about liberty. But things soon got much worse: as soon as Dr Haneef was granted bail, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled his visa.

A visa permits a non-citizen to be in Australia. The power to cancel a visa is a necessary one: but its purpose is to terminate a person's right to be in Australia. When a person's visa is cancelled, they must be deported as soon as reasonably practicable. Pending deportation, they must be held in detention. The power to cancel a visa and place the person in detention is in aid of the power to deport the person.

If the Minister had cancelled the visa with a view to deporting Dr Haneef, no-one could complain too much, putting to one side that it is done on secret evidence which Dr Haneef is not allowed to see. But Minister Andrews has cancelled Dr Haneef's visa and does not intend to deport him in the foreseeable future. On the contrary, Minister Andrews has cancelled the visa to help the Attorney General and the Federal Police: they want to prosecute Dr Haneef but they want him locked up in the meantime. Getting the case to trial is likely to take several years. By canceling Dr Haneef's visa, the Minister has ensured that Dr Haneef will remain in custody pending trial, despite the grant of bail. On the face of it, this is a serious misuse of power for an ulterior purpose and an illegitimate interference with the process of criminal justice.

The misuse of power is a dangerous thing in any event, but in the case of Dr Haneef it gets worse. The Minister has publicly branded Dr Haneef as a person of bad character. That will make a fair trial more difficult to achieve, especially in the prevailing climate. In addition, Dr Haneef will spend the next couple of years in a detention centre. There is no detention centre in Brisbane, so he is to be sent to Villawood in suburban Sydney. Perhaps he will later be sent to Christmas Island. At least they cannot send him to Nauru, unless they amend the Migration Act.

The first an most obvious result of all this is that Dr Haneef will be held in conditions which are much more uncomfortable than in a modern prison. The second is that Dr Haneef will be a very long way away from his Brisbane-based lawyers. As a former barrister, Andrews must know how hard it is to prepare a case if a defendant is held is hundreds or thousands of kilometres away from his defence team. Legal aid is so poorly funded by this government that it is unlikely to pay airfares for his lawyers to travel between Brisbane and Sydney as they go through the thousands of documents said to have been collected in the course of the investigation. The inevitable and foreseeable result is that Dr Haneef's defence has been greatly prejudiced. In such a doubtful case, the government no doubt wants to stack the deck. It is the way they work.

The grim paradox is that Dr Haneef would have been much better off if he had been refused bail. Not many people can say that.

To add to this sorry saga of calculated injustice, Dr Haneef will be liable for the daily cost of his incarceration in Villawood, in circumstances much less congenial than he would have faced, at no cost, in a Brisbane gaol if bail had been refused. If it takes two years for the case to come to trial, Dr Haneef will be liable to the government for approximately $88,000 for his 'accommodation' even if he is acquitted.

Where does the presumption of innocence get a look in?

Nowhere apparently. The Minister has hinted strongly that if Dr Haneef is acquitted he will be removed from Australia anyway. He will not say why, apart from references to bad character. It seems that although a charge is enough to show bad character, an acquittal will not establish good character.

The implications of the Haneef case are very alarming. It is another indication of the things which the Howard Government is prepared to do, especially in an election year. The Immigration Minister is willing to lend himself to the police. The Attorney-General is willing to take advantage of the Minister's impropriety. Dr Haneef's ability to defend himself has been wilfully compromised.

The character of any government can be measured by the way it treats those who are powerless. This government will use every dirty trick to crush Dr Haneef, regardless of his guilt or innocence.

In the war to save democracy we are at risk of throwing away its most important features.