Hasbeen, you might like to read the decision. It is far from stupid, and by no means activist. It is a straightforward (and minimal) application of Part 3 of the Constitution.

In terms of what the Constitution might be changed to say, are you wanting to deny to asylum seekers the procedures of natural justice in the assessment of their cases?

Ffred, our own laws state it is illegal to enter our country unpermitted regardless of reason.
And you keep confusing an immigration case with a civil justice case- most countries around the world- and most definitely those that exercise rule of law, may allow barring a foreigner from entry on grounds of either them being a risk or a likelyhood to follow or incite radical doctrine or action, without the need for a legal charge to be made (eg Geert Wilders in the UK)- normally in that case we immediately send them back to wherever they came from.

Also Ozbib, what exactly is "natural justice" when justice is relative to the country's contemporary viewpoints and laws?

King Hazza, I regret the delay in replying. A Senate Committee inquiry into journalist shield laws has been announced, with a very short time frame, and that delayed me.

You ask ‘what exactly is "natural justice" when justice is relative to the country's contemporary viewpoints and laws?’

The principles of natural justice are principles of procedural fairness. They are part of the law of the common law countries. They are not the whole of legal justice, which in turn is not the whole of justice. (There can be unjust laws, for example.)

‘Put simply, natural justice involves decision-makers informing people of the case against them or their interests, giving them a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule), not having a personal interest in the outcome (the rule against ‘bias’), and acting only on of logically probative evidence (the ‘no evidence’ rule). ‘

You can read more in a useful account given by the NSW Ombudsman, at http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/factsheets/FS_PublicSector_14_Natural_Justice.pdf, from which the above formulation is taken.

The third of these is the most obvious—that a person should not be the judge in his/her own case. It would be hard to argue against this general principle.

The High Court in effect relies on the first two. The two asylum seekers were not told that the reviewer was relying on information about Sri Lanka supplied by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. So they had no opportunity to either prove that the Department is wrong, or to prove that their own circumstances make a relevant difference. The case will have to go back for a fresh review.

I promised in my earlier post to confine myself to the High Court Judgement, so I won’t take up your offer to debate the objectivity and universality of judgements about justice—this time. I note merely that it makes good sense, it is not gobbledegook, to criticise the laws of one’s own country or those of another one as unjust.

A fair case ozbib- the question is treaty or no, should nations have the liberty to bar non-citizens from their country (in a general case) based on precautionary suspicion alone? (eg barring of hate preachers normally, or barring of Geert Wilders in the UK)?

KH,

At present, the Minister for Immigration can deny or cancel a visa on character grounds (Section 501, I think, of the Immigration Act). I have argued that it should be repealed.

A recent case of misuse was part of the Haneef affair.

There are two questions I'd want to address: should there be the power to ban, and how should that power be used.

I'm opposed to banning people on the basis of their opinions, just as I am opposed to preventing people from expressing them unless the expression causes or advocates harm.
The way to deal with bad speech is good speech. That is how holocaust deniers should be dealt with, unless they go on to advocate violence, of course.

My only knowledge of Geert Wilders is what has been in the press and what a quick google brings up. I'm assuming he hasn't argued for banning Islam or denying Moslems citizenship. On that assumption, if he were a refugee--genuinely at risk of being murdered for example--we probably should admit him. He'd be subject to our hate speech laws, like any other resident. If he applied to emigrate on other grounds and met our criteria, he could take his place in what is a genuine queue.

On banning people suspected of terrorism:

I'm unhappy about the criterion for sending asylum seekers back being suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is better; except that the legal definition of what is unreasonable appears to be very narrow.

I favour keeping asylum seekers detained for a period of time while checks are made; and if there are reasonable suspicions of terrorism, of keeping them detained while efforts are made to resolve those suspicions. There needs to be a better check on ASIO to ensure their suspicions are reasonable. To the extent that is consistent with security, asylum seekers should be presented with the evidence against them. And someone other than ASIO should make the decisions about consistency with security. It should get harder to keep people detained as time goes on--there needs to be pressure on ASIO to resolve cases.

Quite some fair points ozbib, though I still disagree.