The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Labor is all at sea on asylum seeker policy > Comments

Labor is all at sea on asylum seeker policy : Comments

By Dilan Thampapillai, published 16/9/2011

Slogans are not policy: Leadership required to address Australia’s regional refugee obligations.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
I'm very glad you spelled out that what the High Court actually did was notify the government that the current Migration Act legislation does not support its policies.

I'm sick of reading the claptrap about how the Court undermined executive powers, missed opportunities, engaged in activism and all the rest of the hysterical twaddle. All the Court did was to make it clear that a majority of 6-1 concluded that the legislation and the government's policy do not currently correspond, thereby giving the government the opportunity to make amendments to the Act.

Just the law doing its job, I would have thought.

How Gillard, a lawyer, failed to grasp that fundamental point, is beyond me. Personal petulance rules, I guess.
Posted by briar rose, Friday, 16 September 2011 8:03:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My reading of the decision of the court was that a major reason for knocking back the scheme was that the Malaysian government isn't a signatory to some international agreement concerning refugees. It would therefore seem that any changes to Australian legislation would do virtually nothing to change that, and a futher challenge which will inevitably come from the previous protagonists, will have the same result.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 16 September 2011 10:27:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I though it was to do with the Immigration Minister's discretionary powers to determine if another country has the conditions in place that satisfy our requirements for the safety of asylum seekers. As it stands, the court can and has overruled the minister's declaration that Malaysia is suitable, not because they disapprove of the Malaysia solution, that's not their job, but because of the way in which the relevant clause was worded by the Howard government.

The proposed amendment would give the minister sole power to send asylum seekers to any country he determines suitable, it will be non country specific and presumably tightened up to prevent any of the legal challenges to the minister's decisions that are possible at the moment.
Posted by briar rose, Friday, 16 September 2011 10:52:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A ripper article. Though revisiting this issue, this article raises some points worthy of further consideration.

An initial point: In order to have a free hand, it appears Oz would have to withdraw from the Refugee Convention as well as amending our Immigration Act - both of which hamstring our options. Is the Refugee Convention outdated - given the massive escalation in the world refugee crisis? I think so, irrespective of whether you are pro- and anti- resettlement. Is this truly a crisis issue, and an opportunity demanding supportive attention by the U.N., the IMF and the World Bank? Absolutely! The alternative? Vortex!

From the article:
"Spending many years as a recognised refugee before being resettled is obviously terrible. There is a strong argument that for every asylum seeker that we accept another refugee must wait in limbo in a third country before, if ever, being resettled.", ".. how can we blame people for trying to circumvent a failing system?"

All too true, but:

"Nor is there a sound reason to ask them to accept a life that we ourselves would not accept."

This latter I refute. We are all aware that many millions of people are currently living a life we in Oz would certainly reject - in India, Tibet, Burma, Bangladesh, etc, etc, and even others in the middle east, the Balkans, South America - and on the list goes. Furthermore we are all aware that our Western lifestyle is not sustainable, even with millions continuing to live in deplorable poverty and hardship. So, can we offer our lifestyle to all? Impossible!

A clue from the article:
"Perhaps most crucially, people are fleeing because the people that they are fleeing from do not see any consequences for their actions.In that regard, a regional framework on war crimes might be just as useful as a regional framework for dealing with asylum seekers."

What should the international community do? Act, and act hard - to reel in the perpetrators, to reel in Western decadence, to obviate poverty, and to make equity and sustainability the supreme world mandate and compulsion.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 16 September 2011 3:05:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Malaysian "agreement" contained a clause stating that it was not legally binding, therefore there were in fact no "real" protections of Human Rights or otherwise.

..

No, that carrot headed scrubber was just trying it on, as often politicians do, in the murky grey area of untested and undefined laws, where policy reigns at the expense of justice.

..

JuLiar GeeLar should have been cited for making comments not consistent with "Good Guvernance" as the current envoy to the Church of the Rock Spider was post Wik and Mabo.

..

It is fine to criticise if there is a basis to do so as far as I am concerned, but GeeLar was just talking sh!t in a vein attempt to garner populist support.
..

If there was a reasonable basis for criticism, say as when *GreenBrowny* criticised the twits in the immigration department recently then that is fine by me, criticise away

(as in that particular instance there is no reasonable basis to think that on balance if we processed Asylum Seeker's on shore that it would lead to a situation like the recent riots South of Scotland.)
Posted by DreamOn, Sunday, 18 September 2011 5:44:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Dilan. The Labour governments irrational, confused scrambling to divert asylum seekers on boats (few though they are) anywhere but Australia and at any price and by any means is reprehensible. Using a pretext of blocking the people smuggling 'model' (whatever that is, Gillard) or 'stop the boats' (Abbot)its open season with for human rights abuse, the law and and one of its key principles - natural justice.
Posted by jenni, Monday, 19 September 2011 6:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that you are a lecturer in law I would have thought that writing a critique is the very easy bit. So, how about you spell out how the law should be applied? Mindful, of course, of the political realities.

Incidentally, you do not show clearly in your article that the High Court of Australia had a choice: it could have allowed the executive to make a subjective assessment of the facts on the ground in Malaysia as opposed to its choice which involves the Court making an objective assessment of those conditions. In other words who should have the power to determine the suitability of a destination for asylum seekers,the government of the day or the High Court of Australia?
Posted by Seneca, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 12:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You could write that article yourself Seneca.
Posted by David Jennings, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 2:09:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by Seneca, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 12:26:28 PM

" ... "

What part about the "agreement" being NOT LEGALLY BINDING don't you understand *Seneca?*

Thus, your comments are without reasonable basis as it is irrelevant as to what the conditions on the ground are.

..

Additionally, in recognition of this, *Geelar et al* are trying to get new legislation up which specifically states and makes ammendment to the existing legislation such as to not require such agreements to be legally binding.

Get it?!

..

Incidentally, I have a good friend from Malaysia, both ex military and ex UN and he demonstrates a shockingly sneering, snarling, and unashamed attitude to Human Rights (except his perhaps)

..

I would also cite the case of the abused Princess, recently rescued from the pig monkey monarchy of Malaysia by Bazza Obama et al.

It appears from subsequent reports that the Malaysians are not of the view that they have done anything wrong, but the N.American regime accepted her Asylum application and sent her home to Indonesia.

..

Of course, Indonesian workers allegedly have their Human Rights abused on a daily basis by the Malaysians, as well as others, and tensions in recent times have on more than one occasion escalated to near open warfare.

It is a shame that international opinions are largely hidden from the Australian populace by the media, otherwise you would be more cogniscant of the depth of the Malaysians depravity.
Posted by DreamOn, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:40:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy