Thanks for the article, Bruce. A genuinely independent panel of experts might have shown its independence by crafting a series of policy alternatives, not just one big package. As you acknowledge, though, it is worth actively reprising what the other experts we're saying at the time (those who were not invited, as you say, precisely because they had a genuine expertise in the field). For example, The Conversation ran a series of very thorough policy analyses while the Houston panel was beavering away. None of that work was reflected in the final report.

I’m with Bruce Haigh on most things and admire his record and writings. But this piece has veered too far off the road.
Even if we accept his assessments of the experts’ credentials, their integrity remains intact. Having limited experience doesn’t mean flawed findings. Appointing a committee of partisans would have made their advice, however reasonable, impossible to sell.
Did Angus Houston actually say ‘all” Sri Lankan asylum seekers were economic refugees? If so that’s as silly as claiming all are genuine, but I can’t find the reference.
What’s happening is a major tragedy and the behaviour of politicians in the region who have failed to find a practical and moral solution deserves unqualified condemnation. Pushing them to action requires refugee advocates to offer realistic, well-reasoned alternatives acceptable to voters in Australia and Indonesia, where asylum seekers seem to be ignored (even when in distress) or exploited.
The issue seldom discussed is this: There are millions of refugees – how many can Australia accept without creating social chaos, and how should they get here? The boats have to be stopped for humanitarian reasons and that requires a bi-partisan policy.
Apart from supporting processing in Indonesia, Mr Haigh’s damnation of people like Mr Morrison (whose policies are seriously flawed) moves us no closer to that ideal

This is one area where old Winston Churchill would have given good advice.

He knew damn well that the best way to stop an invasion force was to sink them, before they reached your shore.

I suppose his ploy of bombing the invasion boats, before they were even loaded & ready for departure is not reasonably available to us, however why on earth have we invested in a navy, if it is not to be used to defend our shores, by sinking invaders?

Why is Has been allowed to condone and demand the mass murder of innocent people?

It might come as a rude shock to cowards like has been but we don't own the oceans and we have zero right to dictate who sails on them.

As for the three old white men?

Houston was chief of airforce and wouldn't know a refugee if he fell over one, he has zero credentials in this area.

Michael Le'Strange is a Howard stooge and has zero credentials on this.

Paris Aristotle pretends to care but actually makes his living off the misery of torture victims, he has no legal back ground at all.

It was interesting reading the submissions where not one actual refugee legal expert suggested Nauru or Manus or turn arounds or more prisons or this new form of torture Gillard thinks is rational - the non-existent no advantage test.

No legal person suggested cutting off the whole country to refugees because that is illegal and ridiculous.

They are not an invading force and has been is a racist criminal disgrace.

A good informative article with good analysis.

Duncan
People keep discussing refugee policy as if the government is free to make policy unrestricted by the Refugee Convention. It isn’t, because the courts will not permit them to, because the Convention has been incorporated into Australian law, and the courts won’t permit Australian government officers to breach the law.

"The issue seldom discussed is this: There are millions of refugees – how many can Australia accept without creating social chaos, and how should they get here? The boats have to be stopped for humanitarian reasons and that requires a bi-partisan policy. "

The issue discussed even less is: to what extent is the Convention causing these problems, including the deaths by sea, and how could refugee policy be made better and more humanitarian by withdrawing from the UN Convention?

Australia, by signing the Convention, undertakes to accept *as many refugees as satisfy the definition*, without any regard whatsoever to the internal consequences, or how they should get here. The fact is that, without withdrawing from the Convention, it’s irrelevant how many refugees Australians think Australia can accept!

The definition of refugee is in very wide terms, made wider by the backing of UN declarations of wide scope, and expansive judicial interpretations of human rights. The result of this wide definition of refugee, and the sorry state of this world, is that there are more people in the world who satisfy the definition of refugee each year, than the population of Australia.

However Australia, by signing the Convention, doesn't undertake to accept just any refugees. It undertakes only to accept those who apply in Australia: onshore. People applying onshore get a huge advantage – by law they must be accepted if they satisfy the definition of refugee - which the courts will enforce upon government officers - while people who apply offshore can be rejected even if they do satisfy the definition.

That's the underlying legal reason why they're coming in boats.

(cont.)

(The underlying legal reason why they landed in Geraldton is because the chicanery of both parties has excised Christmas Island from Australia’s migration zone. If they land “onshore” (in the migration zone) they get processed onshore; if they land "offshore" (including Christmas Island), they get processed in Manus Island or Nauru.)

That's why the distinction between offshore and onshore refugees is so important.

But the point is this. It’s easy to stop the boats. Just withdraw from the Convention. Then the whole onshore/offshore dynamic would be gone. There would be no legal double standard by which onshore applicants have a special advantage. Australia could stop the boats while still satisfying its obligations under international law:- obligations which exist *only* because Australia is a signatory. The Courts would not interfere. The reason they keep interfering is to stop unlawful executive action. It’s because politicians of both parties, and Immigration officers acting under political influence, keep trying to breach the Convention, which has been incorporated into domestic law, thus rubbishing the rule of law.

Abrogating the Convention would in no way restrict Australia’s humanitarian ability or capacity to accept refugees. On the contrary, it would enable Australia to take as many refugees, from whatever sources, on whatever conditions it wants. It could stop the boats, and even if it couldn’t, it wouldn’t make any difference. They could be sent back or rejected or accepted on any terms. The money now going into detention centres, and flying refugees and lawyers around the country could go into better purposes, like not being looted from taxpayers in the first place. It would enable more deserving cases to have priority, instead of giving priority to the seaworthy!

Short of abrogating the Convention, a good idea was also floated by Clive Palmer. These asylum-seekers are paying ten and fifteen thousand for a boat fare. But a plane fare only costs $1000. Why not let them fly in at their own cost, pay the costs of their own stay and processing, grant a visa to those who qualify, and fly back those who don’t? FIFO!