Abstract
DEAR SIR
An important main theme of Samu-ell's essay on College policy and politics 1 has been drowned out in the defensive criticism that the essay has generated.
The primary role of a psychiatrist is within a therapeutic interaction with a particular patient. Sometimes there is a call on psychiatrists or their repre-sentatives (the College) to give advice to other parties, for example Govern-ment or the Courts. It might also be sometimes appropriate for psychia-trists to take an activist role, given a sufficiently dire circumstance.
All of these modes of operation have a similar requirement. First, it is to deter-mine ‘what the problem is’, including its delimitation, and in broad scope. Second, a strategy for dealing with the problem can then be devised, bearing in mind the consequences of any par-ticular action or failure to act.
In press releases regarding the detention of asylum seekers, the College has strongly argued one aspect of the complex problem, that is, the harmful psy-chological consequences of detention. However, the scope of the immigration and detention issue is a lot broader than this issue alone. Any Government policy formulated, for better or worse, needed to deal with competing issues, needs and principles.
The recent context is also funda-mentally important; that of a rising number of refugees or travellers heading for these shores, often being exploited and put at considerable danger to their lives by people profiting from this human traffic. The boats had very often been cynically reprovisioned and pushed on from some of our northern neighbours, countries that were a safe place of asylum where the travellers could have stopped. Not many years ago it would have seemed a paranoid fantasy that a worldwide network of terrorist organizations would seek to infiltrate the country, work in ‘sleeper cells’, and come into action from time to time to damage the host country and its people. Detainees at the Port Hedland detention centre have freely admitted to me, during psychiatric interview, past member-ship of Islamist organizations that are now banned.
Government policy regarding asylum seekers needs to consider these issues and the safety and well-being of its citizens, along with the human rights of the asylum seekers. There also needs to be work on the broader political and global solutions to some of the reasons why these people are displaced.
Our College's public procurements on this issue give the impression that we have not considered these other ramifications and their effects on the existing populace of Australia. We do have broad responsibilities to speak out against human rights abuses, but we have prior and primary responsi-bilities towards our own community.
In failing to express an understanding of competing issues, we risk losing credibility with Government and people in general. The lack of balance in our public statements gives the impression that we lack balance.
There is a serious risk that psychia-trists and the College will be sidelined and ignored by Government and others in the future when our tem-pered advice might be most pertinent.