Ministerial discretion is abuse of power.

It is government without impartial policies.

Discretionary grants distort the normal economic flow (see housing and other monetary grants).

Discretion in the exercise of justice is, by definition, injustice.

There exists in Australia a section of the population who seems to think that they can solve the world's poverty problem by have the entire Third World come to Australia, and that Australians have no right to deny them entry.

People like Marion Dickie find democracy a real problem to the implementation of their agenda. Both Labor and Liberal parties are committed to high immigration numbers for different reasons, even though they both know that this is unpopular with the electorate. So neither of them can push the immigration/refugee increase position too hard or they know that they will face a One Nation/Tea Party revolt from the electorate.

Their best position is to unite to keep immigration and refugee numbers high, without prompting a flood of illegal immigrants which will incur an electoral backlash. To this end, Labor has endorsed the concept of ministerial discretion, in the granting or rejection of some refugee claims.

This does not suite the Marion Dickie's of Australia at all. As far as they are concerned, anybody who wants to come to Australia should come and nobody should impede them.

They claim that Australia must honour its treaty obligations to the UN, an organisation committed to moving the entire Third World into the First World. My response is to point out that these treaties were signed at a different time for a different reason to those existing today. In any case, the electors did not give direct permission to diplomats to traipse around the world with their "partners" signing away the Australian people's sovereign rights.

If given a choice by our tweedledee/tweedledum political parties, Australians would immediately revoke these treaties, and the refugee advocates know it.

well said LEGO

I must thank the author for bringing it to the attention of the electorate that UN commitments are being used by people to give away sovereign rights of Australians, without their knowledge or permission

the way to solve the author's complaint that we are not living up to our commitments, is to change those commitments, and not bother with them any longer

given a choice, Australians would prefer charity begins at home, how about increasing the pensions of our elderly and pay our soldiers more, and encourage immigration less