How much do you bet before I show you?

Come on Jayb, it's got to be enough to hurt for your impudence.

Since, according to you, there is no chance that you will lose the bet, how about you hand over the title deeds to your home to an agreed referee, and we'll get you to do a declaration of trust in my favour if I end up demonstrating that the Convention definition of refugee is incorporated into Australian statute law?

On the other hand, you could stop being so BONE LAZY, and just google the terms I cut and pasted from its source in Australian law.

Hush, I'm going through the Migration Act line by line.

So far I have found nothing like, "Australian Law incorporates the UNCHR C & P, fully, as part of "The Migration Act."" Which is what you are espousing.

I'm still on Part 1.

LOL, keep going.

Just think, though. If you're right, why are the federal courts, including the High Court, entertaining applications by asylum-seekers? Tampa? Malaysia solution? Chan's case? Plaintiff S157? Bodrudazza's case?

Here's a few samples:

Plaintiff M61
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2010/41.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(%222010%20HCA%2041%22)

S157's case:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2003/2.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Plaintiff%20S157/2002

Aala's case:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2000/57.html

Bhardwaj's case:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(bhardwaj%20)

First Case

Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia
Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia
Plaintiffs detained under s 189(3) of Migration Act – Each claimed Australia owed him protection obligations under Refugees Convention as amended by Refugees Protocol. Each plaintiff precluded from making valid visa application unless Minister decided in public interest to allow: s 46A of Migration Act .

Fair enough. That is correct so far.
Reviewers reasons
1. First, early in his statement of reasons, the reviewer said that:
"While this merits review is not bound by Australian law and is of a non-statutory nature, it is appropriate to have regard to Australian legislation and relevant case law as an aid to the interpretation of the Refugees Convention."

The RSA & the IMR are only investigative. They put forward their recommendations for notice to the Minister. That's all. They are not a Law.

plaintiff's adviser described the plaintiff's claims as having two bases. First, the adviser submitted that the plaintiff feared that, if he was returned to his country of nationality (Sri Lanka), he would suffer persecution or substantial discrimination amounting to a gross violation of human rights (or both) at the hands of Sri Lankan authorities or "pro-government paramilitary groups". (Brother a TT)

No mention of the UNCHR C & P being an integral part of the Migrations Act.

So if a person goes back as a failed Refugee & his Village gets up him & laughs at him & that considered "substantial discrimination" because he wouldn't be sending money back to the Village. Woopie Do.

"While this merits review is not bound by Australian law and is of a non-statutory nature..."

I think you'll find the Court held that was an error of law.