Any idea what the legal basis for such a challenge might be, Steven?

Australia already has a foreign aid and a refugee commitment which appears to have been honoured for the most part. Doubling our intake of refugees would have little impact on the global figure but the question arises, at what cost? Are the 23 million Australians living here able to absorb more and if so who can make a realistic assessment of what that capacity is either economically or socially.

Imagining myself in the soul destroying position of being displaced from the place and lifestyle of my birth I would hope that my dreams of a new life were not to end with the drowning of myself and family because I chose the course of desperation. In that position I would prefer that such an option did not exist.

This option must be eliminated for the sake of those asylum seekers tempted to take the risk and also to stop the cynical and cruel exploitation of these desperate people by the profiteering perpetrators of illegal people smuggling.

The first priority for Australia as the destination country is to stop the loss of life through people smuggling. Then the issue of humanitarian aid to asylum seekers and indeed global poverty must be addressed.

Perhaps we could start by persuading the arms manufacturers of the world to stop their war games and divert their resources towards saving humanity and the planet. Think what the cost of destroying 500 thousand Iraq'is, a trillion dollars, might have done had it been spent on actually helping them. But of course as one high level American diplomat stated "were not here to help these people". Whoops! democratisation.

Come to think of it may be the diplomats job is to stir the pot, sell the arms and collect the profit, then sit back and watch while the countries concerned tear themselves to pieces and create the refugee problem which Australia and other recipient countries have to deal with. But that couldn't possibly be right "could it"?
Den 71

Anti,

A little info here.

http://theconversation.com/rudds-png-plan-unlikely-to-comply-with-international-law-16250

Hi Poirot

The PNG plan may, or may not, comply with so-called "International Law."

The Australian courts, however, have to consider Australian law and there it's a toss-up.

However if Parliament were to pass a "send them to PNG" bill the courts would have to enforce it regardless of international law or treaty obligations. If they didn't they would unleash a constitutional conflict that would dwarf the dismissal.

Since the Malaysia decision the government amended the immigration act to give the minister greater discretion. It depends on how the courts would interpret that.

stevenlmeyer,

I believe that essentially, as with everything ultimately, the rsponsibility for anything such as overcrowing if refugees bluff us and turn up anyway, or if PNG votes or has a referendum to stop the whole thing in future, or if PNG natives become angry and bitter because Australia is instead of helping them, a neighbour who fought in World wars with our side and more, proving this "gated community" for middle-class migrants from Middle East and Asia who want to live in a more stable prosperous political and economic environment.

Yet I think that like poorer Australians whi sometime voice frustrations with unfair preferential treatment given to Aboriginals and to some migrants and refugees when they are as poor and as needy but miss out, many naitve PNGs will react in this way and both develop anger at Aus for prefential treament of these strangers who are clearly not poor people from overseas, poor as PNG, and eventually violence towatds the centres may force Aus to pull the whole thing.

So yes, Rudd knows this cannot and will not ultimately work and anyone with sense knows that responsibility always falls to the West. So I believe this is a Left ploy to have what they see as a "Tampa moment" meaning they think that they will trick all those stupid bogans who merely vote for whoever hits the wog more.

Whether or not for whatever reason Rudd and the left believe they can trick over right votes, how is that either considered real and why would it be funny to think you can trick people for some gain?

Moral bankruptcy? Yes, extremely, and the PNG action is assuming they can also trick the stupid PNG idiot into accepting this deal. But Rudd and his supporters are the fools. Anyone who lives in a western nation, whether poor rich edcuated or not, would surely realize who must ultimately take responsibility if anything goes wrong and PNG wants out

So, I think that both sides of Politics are class bigots who beleive the poorer classes are tricked easily.

If this is so the case, how did one these so-called stupid wog-hate voting idiots end up developing the thrid biggest PARTY in parliament and recieved 1 million primary votes in late 90s, simpyl after giving a speech? Remember Pauline Hanson?

Just because she couldn't properly articulate her position does not mean that if the media had enaged her and supporters on the issues honestly and fairly a clearer picture of the intention of such persons would be learned by the leftist.

For instance, just because some Palestinians blow up Jews and have an extreme racist hatred towards Jews and wish to kill them, the average leftist does not simply dismiss them as an idiot.

Why in non-white cases does a leftist avoid assumtpions and looks deeper, often even going way overboard and almost suporting their "Nazi-like" culture?