Fantasy perhaps, but also possible.
Ponder,
It's been done by boats in bad weather when Australian Navy & Customs ships stay in town because it's too rough.
I recall a tour guide telling me that they saw a large Indonesian looking vessel sailing into the Gulf in bad weather & a couple of days later there was no sign of it anywhere.
Another one went all the way though the GBR down to Cairns & another lot was camped on Raine Island for two weeks before anyone knew.
I have personally watched a dinghy from PNG going within 150 metres of a Customs vessel unimpeded & the occupants going ashore at an australian island.
Perhaps the Customs boats are so sophisticated that they don't need crew outside the cabins to observe what's going on around them.

James
" @JKJ You have posed the same question as to the legal basis for Bruce's argument before and it has been answered before."

I find that disingenuous. It was only answered in the sense that we established that the assertion was definitely 100% wrong, and that you had no basis whatsoever in domestic and international law for your assertion that Australia is acting unlawfully. All you did was assert it, when challenged post links, and when the links were followed up it turned out they do *NOT* establish what you are contending for.

I repeat, it is not true that the Australian government is acting unlawfully. If you say it's true, prove it. Don't just by repeat the same mere assertions and opinions. Actually cite the section of statute or the Convention, or case law.

I say you can't do it but if you can, go ahead?

To Brucey and to ALL –

Answer the below multiple choice questions.

1.Which class of white Anglo Australians (poorer or richer) would have had the power to wield and orchestrate to create Australia’s huge immigration program and multi-cultural policies over 60 years or so?

a.poorer class (so-called ‘red necks’) ; b. wealthier classes (includes right and left rulership elite and underlings)

ans. (b)

2.What suburbs and areas predominantly did the newcomers settle in?

a.working class/poor white Anglo areas; b. wealthier class suburbs/areas

ans. (a)

3.Which group/class of Anglo Australians have lived with and endured through all the extreme, myriad of tough pressures and problems that would be expected to arise for host and newcomer alike in any such massive reshaping of a nation?

a.working class/poor white Anglo; b. wealthier classes

ans. (a)

4.Which group of poor or richer class of Anglos is most likely to now possess the most experience and knowledge/education on the intricacies of this entire phenomenon [the answer does not require that the group/people with such knowledge actually also possess the ability to then properly articulate those issues – that is a separate issue]?

a.working class/poor white Anglo; b. wealthier class

ans. (a)

..........................................

On that note:

. . . how can the wealthier class of white Anglos which themselves had the sole control and whom deliberately decided to not place the newcomers near them but rather on top of the poorer classes in outer suburbia without asking them or consulting them, make ANY judgements or claims of any semblance of superior knowledge/understanding on the issues (as they always do) by dismissing outright every single claim and comment and plea from the actual white Anglo Australians [poorer classes] who have and do reside with and endure through the complex changes and tensions and who actually have as their neighbours and street members people from all over the world and every culture?

What authority do these non-experienced and uninformed class/people rely upon?

. . . continued . . .

This authority must NOT simply be 'we travel more' or 'we are more educated' [in what? a single specialisation if even THAT], or . . .

. . . the most common and popular excuse (never proven) . . . NOT simply to deliberately doctor the image of the poorer class by hand-picking the worst apparent examples (e.g. comments like "go home nips" etc.)

in attempt to degrade the entire image and mind worthiness of that class. Notice how the left NEVER delves a bit deeper into the issue and attempts to find out what is behind such silly and seemingly ridiculous outbursts (likely to be just poorly articulated opinions) which in ANY society is common amongst the poorest groups.

One of the best and most obvious examples I can think of here is with the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The news often shows images of apparently civilized Jewsish citizens contrasted with crazed, maddened, angry, violent and often extremely intolerant of other people and religions etc. which the Palestian often expresses.

The worst is little kids throwing rocks at tanks and also clips from Palestinian TV which show quite often and openly views of severe racists and hatred to Jews and even Christians world-wide, even some time little kids are asked on TV kids shows about Jews and commonly use violent, bigoted and even genocidal language.

However do these same Leftists treat this underdog the same as they treat their own domestic and racial member - the poorer whites?

NO WAY.

In fact, the Leftist go to all levels to make those extremely hateful and racist muslims of Palestine seem to be really the peace-loving group and they contrast this with the Jews as the evil aggresors.

I wonder what led the Leftists to be so different in treatment here, Palestinians who seem superficially racist and violent and uninformed and in utter fear of nothing; and the Anglo Aussies of poorer classes who they claim through manipulating the media and opinion in pop culture, that the poor Anglos are similarly racist and violent and uninformed.

JKJ: (1) Australia is a signatory to the Convention on the rights of Refugees.
(2) Because that Convention was a limited in its scope it was the subject of a Protocol in January 1967 which Australia later acceded to.
(3) The convention and Protocol impose obligations on signatories (i.e Australia) to abide by its provisions.
(4) That Australia is in breach of those obligations is not a matter for serious debate other than those (such as yourself apparently) who resolutely refuse to accept that fact.
(5) You can find the relevant provisions and discussion thereon in any of the standard international law textbooks, especially those dealing with human rights.
(6) Use the index to track discussion on any number of cases involving Australia.
(7) One case of interest (in part because it predates the horrors of the current regime in Canberra) is Bakhtiyari v Australia. It started in the Family Court in mid 2003 and went all the way to the High Court.
(8) The courts deal with refugee cases every day. In Sydney I understand that it is the largest single area of work for the Federal Circuit Court.
(9) Just a limited number of examples of actions contrary to international law include the turning back of boats on the high seas; the unlimited detention of children; the arbitrary exclusion of refugees from having their cases determined; the use of camps on Manus and Nauru without observing the required procedures; and many many others.
I have been involved in this area of law for more than 30 years and do not appreciate your cheap shots; nor your manifest misreporting of my earlier responses when this topic has come up on OLO.

What would be 'unsustainable' would be to open the flood-gates.

What is unsustainable is any endeavour to absorb all of the world's millions of refugees and displaced persons into the 'developed world'.
Just doesn't compute.

What is also unsustainable is anything which promotes world population growth; relocate some people, ok, but there needs also to be a mass education campaign (and local development) to 'contain' population explosion and to gear endeavours towards better quality of life.

What should compute is a concerted international effort to resolve the underlying causes of displaced persons.
Unless that can be done, all the 'Conventions' in the world are mere hot air, wish-lists, and self-delusion (or feel-good self-flattery).

What is unconscionable is keeping asylum-seekers in 'limbo' for protracted periods (and probably also mandating their 'placement' in PNG - a fate I would wish on no-one).
Refugee processing should be swift, on- or off-shore, with those 'approved' quickly placed into 'appropriate' community on bridging visas, and those not approved relocated immediately to the overseas refugee camp to which they should have gone in the first place - to share in the same conditions as their fellows, and the same international efforts to resolve their 'plight'.

Perhaps it's time for re-introduction of 'cooperative' limited colonialisation in some of the world's trouble-spots?
After all, most previous colonies seem to have fared reasonably well, and surely experience and capacity would enable developed governments to do an even better job a second time around.