Thank you candide, i had heard this before but was unable to locate the information. It would appear the great upset is that some of the boat people arrive without papers. Now whether this is by circumstance, misfortune or very poor advice i am unsure but to automatically assume that they are intentionally attempting to deceive the authorities for reasons of compromising national security is bias and paranoid. I wonder how these people would feel if they were to be arrested and imprisoned without recourse to appeal on the decision of a bureaucrat because they left their wallet at home and were stopped by the police. sure some might be trying to deceive but for most it would be a mistake and rough justice for such.
I am not against some form of detention for these people on arrival, if nothing else there is the quarantine issue but after three months surely we can make arrangements for them to join the community. Without question we should not compromise the principles of our legal system to quieten a political problem and apease a scare electorate that have been mislead for political gain.
Oh and King Hazza, it is disappointing that some people don't understand what they read and automatically asume worst case. The law changes to do with terrorism since 9/11 have been appallingly unnecessary and a direct erosion of civil rights. They may make paranoid people feel safe but do little except allow holes to exist in our legal framework for the police and security services to abuse peoples civil rights to satisfy their own agenda's. We saw this once already with the case of the indian doctor. As well almost all cases to do with security have been handled within the existing frame work rendering the new laws mostly unnecessary.

Nairbe I'm not playing down anti-terror laws at all; I'm merely pointing out that they are not part in parcel to strict immigration and refugee policy, as some people seem to imply by bringing them up as points to somehow substantiate a case against our refugee policy..

King Hazza,
My initial comment was to high light that we have become happy to use our judicial system as a political tool to apease the paranoid attitudes that are griping our communities. How they have grown to such a point is debatable. I believe them to be a hangover from the Howard government that used the fear tactic to control public opinion, and for this we still suffer. Howard drew very strong connections between the boats and national security which at the time was all based on terrorism, so why the surprise that people make the connection it was well drummed into the community for 10 years. Fear, suspicion and paranoia about boat people was driven to levels of stupidity and xenophobia ran wild. The fact that the fly in's are a much bigger problem and of a much higher security risk seems to evade most peoples conscience minds.
My point is that the abuse and knee jerk reactions that go on in the judiciary from political influence are dangerous and lead to very poor and risky law. This is why we have a high court and an independent judiciary. To think that the government would now try and form some kind of new law to get around a constitutional decision is appalling and lowers the current government to the gutter tactics of the howard years on this subject. Accept what your high court has said, and we need to find some real compassion for desperate people. If our system is good and the current law applied we will weed out the undesirables far easier than you can with fly in's.

except that changing laws to suit modern demands is a perfectly normal function, and the high court simply polices a different legal stance;
Also, John Howard didn't "create" the paranoia- he capitalized on the vote of people who wanted to tighten our stance towards refugees and won the election, while Labor, consistently opposing it during that time and for years after, continued to lose.

The weed-out requirements would indeed be good if they corresponded precisely to what I listed (and that means if a person really IS a refugee, and really IS fleeing a pogrom- but is a complete religious fanatic who is unwilling to embrace secular, gay and differently-religious people, he still gets sent back. And of course, any boat where there is a mutiny automatically gets disqualified.

But ultimately, if people overwhelmingly reject letting refugees in for any reason at all- well, that's where the refugees would have been heading, so forcing the issue would not achieve anything either.
It is after all up to them to be compassionate- not some distant stranger telling THEM they have to be.

This stupidity is a very good reason for us to start electing our judges. We could do with a lot less activism from these lawyers, now judges, protecting their turf.

We get far too much of legal cr4p, & not enough justice from these peanuts.

Was pretending in 2001 that 4 000 islands to our north were not part of Australia for "immigration puroposes" not a case of moving the goal posts? Thank goodness for a unanimous decsion from the High Court that says Australia's boundaries are as they are, not to be mucked around with, and if an asylum seekers crossess the border AND asks for protection from persecution, Australia must protect and assess their claims. Hooray! Now for the biggest elephant in the auditorium: mandatory immigration detention legislated in 1992. WHY? with what justification?

The Burmese Generals said Aung San Suu Kyi was detained for 21 long years - denied her freedom- because she had "committed acts designed to put the country in a perilous state". Any idea why our Government deprives over 400 children seeking asylum alone of their freedom and childhood when they have broken no law and pose no political threat?