The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Winning the debate on asylum seekers > Comments

Winning the debate on asylum seekers : Comments

By Kellie Tranter, published 18/6/2014

Would any Australian seriously contest the closure of offshore detention centres if the money this saved was immediately redirected and equally distributed among pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged and to improve education and health?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
One question postulated:

"Would any Australian seriously contest the closure of offshore detention centres if the money this saved was immediately redirected and equally distributed among pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged and to improve education and health?"

Given that the cost of border protection increased 4 fold after the closure of the off shore detention centres, a more relevant question would be:

Would any Australian seriously contest the closure of offshore detention centres if the money this cost was immediately taken equally distributed from pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged, education and health?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 7:55:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 'nice people' killed over a thousand asylum-seekers with their revolting display of moral superiority through the time of the Labor Government.

THey don't care, and pretend the deaths were not their fault. Its far more important that they show their superior morals, like showing off a shiny BMW or prestigious high-paid job at the ABC.
Posted by ChrisPer, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 8:20:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Would any Australian seriously contest the closure of offshore detention centres if the money this saved was immediately redirected and equally distributed among pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged and to improve education and health?"

But Kellie, can't you see, those who support it are using exactly your methodology: "The government has a right to order everyone around, the government presumptively represents the greater good, the use of force and intimidation is always justified - so long as the government does it."?

You can't have it both ways. If it's a misuse of government to spend zillions of confiscated dollars on offshore detention centres, then by what rational criterion do you know it's not a misuse of government to spend zillions of confiscated dollars on handouts to pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged and to improve education and health? All we have to do is employ your own answer to disprove you. Go ahead.

The way for you to win the debate on asylum-seekers is for everyone who claims to care about the refugees, to call for a policy that *they and they alone* will fund all the costs.

Would any Australian seriously contest such a policy, except those trying to force others to pay for their fake moral superiority?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 9:00:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>"Would any Australian seriously contest the closure of offshore detention centres if the money this saved was immediately redirected and equally distributed among pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged and to improve education and health?"

Would any Australian (other than the Loony Left) ADVOCATE FOR the closure of detention centres if they realised what the inevitable consequences would be:

- return to uncontrolled border, resulting in exponential increase in numbers of illegal immigrants

- huge welfare costs

- diversion of welfare from those who need it to supporting illegal immigrants, law and order and trying to prevent them causing harm in Australia

- inevitable increase in terrorism in Australia.

For Heavens sake, when will the Left get a clue?
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 9:12:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KT: It's racism as a strategy.
It's not Racism. It's Religionism. Something completely different & from what's happening in the ME completely justifyable.
KT: minorities are threatening us.
Yes they are. But, are they good minorities, or just over sensitive gullible lost souls with some sort of mental issues. People who cry at the drop of a hat over anything.
KT: (The Government) maintain popular perception that their policy is working.
Their Policies are working, that's why you have written this piece .
KT: But people are always interested in what they perceive to be a threat to their own interests.
Of course, what do you expect?
KT: Perhaps that's why by and large there has been silence from the public about the colossal expenditure on offshore detention centres but public outrage about comparatively minor proposed cuts to welfare which involve direct personal consequences.
No there hasn't. The Issue has been raised often. That's why the Boats were stopped. The expenditure on Detention Centres was getting out of hand.
KT: Would any Australian seriously contest the closure of offshore detention centres if the money this saved was immediately redirected and equally distributed among pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged and to improve education and health?
Of course not & that money would seriously help Australia's bottom line.
Cont.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 9:19:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont.
KT: but they also need to perpetuate the fear by saying that the threat is always going to be there and you need them to contain it.
While there are problems in the ME over their Religious differences the Government is correct. Australia doesn't need to import their problems
KT: the government is creating a perception that they are the ones to effectively deal with a problem which plays on that fear. The fear is neutralised as long as the government maintains its stance. All cleverly portrayed as a service to society.
I have no problem with that. The Government IS effectively dealing with the Boat problem & keeping Religious fanatics out of Australia. It really doesn't matter how you analyse it the Islamic Religion is a threat to all Western peoples & Society. The problem isn't one of Race It's one of Religion.
KT: This month a Lowy Institute poll confirmed that more than 70% of Australians support the Abbott Government's Sovereign Border Policy.
Does that tell you something. Other polls have the percentage as high as 95%.
KT: 60% of voters say asylum seekers should be processed off shore.
I take it that that was another poll. Does that tell you something. Other poll have the percentage as high as 95%.
KT: Nearly half the population identify Asylum Seekers coming to Australia as a critical threat.
Does that tell you something. Other Polls have the percentage as high as around 80% or higher.
I seriously doubt that you will read any responses to your article or respond to any posts. Just another Do-gooder with a mental problem but no resolution to the problem other than let everybody with a sob story in to Australia.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 9:20:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, excuse me, Kellie, but raising the pension age to 70 and introducing 6-month waiting periods for unemployment benefits for people under 30 are not 'comparatively minor proposed cuts to welfare'.

Most Australians understand that these are cuts that go too far. They lay the dangerous groundwork to create within Australia the same conditions of widespread hopelessness, despair and destitution that many asylum seekers and refuges are actually fleeing from in their own countries. The world's most war-torn, unstable countries are the ones with the most unequal distribution of wealth. They are countries that treat the poor and vulnerable with utter contempt, while the rich get fat on corruption.

Instead of pouring disdain on the public outcry against the Cruelition government's proposed cuts to welfare, you should be proud that there are still so many compassionate Australians who actually do care and want to fight them.

I suppose your heart is in the right place, Kellie, but your arguments can be spectacularly naïve at times.
Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 9:54:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Kellie, always had a bit of a problem with arithmetic have you love?

Not unusual with the legal fraternity, except when counting their loot. I don't suppose the loss of boat people as a source of revenue for human rights lawyers wouldn't have any effect on your mates not wanting to see the flow stopped.

If you ever find your calculator just try adding the costs of maintaining the boat people now in Oz after rather doubtful approval of them as refugees, & then compare that to the costs of keeping a few of them in off shore centres, if that is not too difficult for a human rights activists.

You would find the on going cost of these people, mostly still on welfare, [the reason for them coming here in the first place] is huge compared to the detention of a few of them putting the brakes on the boats.

Now try a bit of human rights thinking, & promote the stopping of this rip off of those pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged you claim to want to help. They are human after all, don’t you know. That the best way to help them is to stop the boats will become obvious even to you.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 10:23:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb:

…True on all scores, but your argument against illegals does not go far enough. I support the anti-immigration arguments of Ludwig. By their own admission yesterday, we now have a complete NSW economy reliant on a propped-up, and totally distorted, fake-value property market.

…The most dangerous prospect for Australia and Australians in the present and the future, are moving into view from the left field, in the form of foreign investment. It is at this point that Kellie Tranter misses the mark entirely.

… Illegal immigrants have always been a diversion to the real and meaningful issue of open slather immigration, cloaked as the “good Guy” multiculturalism! Multiculturalism and illegal immigrants are the ruse used by governments with vested interested in re-election, and in “cooking the books” by distorting market realities, by recklessly "incentivising" legal immigration for their own purposes!
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 10:25:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
post 1 –

A major problem with the entire issue is the outrageously unfounded assumption that IT IS a FACT that this “dog whistle politics” actually exists and that furthermore, there also exists a massive section of the nation which is somehow hypnotised by that ‘whistling’ and thereby under the control of the political masters.

Tell me, who are these people, where are they and HOW is it known to be the case? Are there some statistics and research papers on this issue that I am unaware of?

Basically I mean to say –

How can anyone claim to have either the authority or extreme insight [telepathic level] into the minds of those who may have issue with the nation’s over bloated spending on luxuries like our current refugee industry [which is not base and reasonable but extravagant to the point where many refugees are given free a standard of living higher than that of many of our nation’s own citizens]?

To merely assume without evidence that such a person is immoral, selfish and bad [racist too] rather than maybe of genuine and fair concerns for how many citizens who have paid tax all their lives and whose ancestors have paid tax for the 2 centuries the nation has existed, now seem to be getting thrown away, crushed and ignored whilst the handful of immigrants who claim to be refugees receive 100% attention both politically and economically?

Remember this also before making ridiculous judgements about the types of people I know you all imagine to be those under the spell of the "dog whistle" [working class and poor whites] -

. . . . compare the massive changes to all aspects in their existence [e.g. jobs gone, land ad house prices beyond their reach today] to the ZERO changes and affects in the world of the middle classes. Who has the most reason to be upset especially now that they are being told that Medicare, the dole etc. are all under threat from those massive changes over the decades.
Posted by Matthew S, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 11:48:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To be sure, current outcomes seem to be cruel, although not as cruel as sending them to Siberia, or worse, the frozen wastes of Tasmania on temporary protection visas?
And given seemingly cruel outcomes, those still risking all, just have to be the genuine article?
All frivolous levity aside, I wouldn't mind if we doubled or trebled our legitimate intake, particularly if we could send all of them to Tiny Tassie?
And there surely is an element of truth in the homily, you sometimes have to be cruel to be kind.
I mean, we could solve all of the difficulties in the Ukraine and the Middle East, if we just opened the doors and let all the peace loving non combatants from just those two areas in.
And we could house the the truly desperate in tent cities/unoccupied mining tenements, at places like Woomera, or anywhere they like in Tassie?
The previously logged areas inside the Tarkine perhaps, where there seems to be quite a lot of free rudimentary building material, just lying about?
And that mass migration/relocation might just be a possible outcome of remaining a soft touch for the dispossessed of the world?
I mean, just add water to the midlands, and tiny Tassie is going to be screaming for "legitimate" guest labor?
And given they seem to be welcoming properly documented Genuine asylum seekers, maybe that's where they and all their benefits, could all go?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 12:08:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why are there refugees living in public housing at all?
Have any of the Melbourne based OLO posters been down and had a look at the Derby st flats in Kensington? You should, pop into the onsite cafe for a latte and a piece of cake and watch the passing parade.
If I wanted a two bedroom flat of that quality in that area I'd be paying upwards of $400 a week on the private market and you should see some of the share houses young, working people live in in the inner city, let's just say I make a decent living doing maintenance on them.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 12:16:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kellie you have got this all so spectacularly wrong I think you should stick to chasing ambulances! Here is a thing I read that a Barrister has gone broke 5 times and each time his creditor was the ATO. So he has never paid any tax. What about you and your luvvie ABC mate's going after him first and then tell me what to think?
Also after this absolute belting on OLO don't you understand that you are completely out of step with your fellow Australians?
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 2:19:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Switzerland made an unsavoury reputation for itself by locking its doors on Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. Sent them back to the Germans who murdered them. There are many times we Australians could have "gone Swiss" on people seeking refuge from tyranny. We are being urged to do so now.

Yet those with quite valid criticisms of our current hostile locked door policies don't seem to have come up with a non-Swiss alternative. The refugee debate will go round and round in circles unless we do what scientists do when solving thorny engineering problems: FIRST SEPARATE THE VARIABLES and deal with each independently. For example:

*Giving refuge vs extending welfare.
*Culture vs race.
*Values based on individual liberty and the Age of Reason vs the intolerant "principles" of Islam and other debased cultures.
*Colonists seeking an ethnic bridgehead vs immigrants seeking to be Australians.

Certainly we don't want people from crap countries bringing with them the cultural baggage that caused the tyranny they are fleeing from. We need to rake stock of what makes Australia a basically decent country (unlike ASEAN zone, Islamic zone and the lands of tribal savages) and try to preserve what's decent and express it both internally and externally.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 6:16:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EJ: *Givi

Giving refuge vs extending welfare.

Ok, we can give refuge but NOT permanent settlement. If these people can afford to pay People Smugglers, Plane fares, Middle men to get them close to Australia they certainly can afford to pay for their upkeep in Australia.

EJ: *Culture vs race.

As I have said before this is a Religious issue. NOT Culture, NOT race. The Islamic Religion MUST be barred from Australia weather the UN likes it or not.

EJ: *Values based on individual liberty and the Age of Reason vs the intolerant "principles" of Islam and other debased cultures.

Exactly. That's why Muslims should be barred from settling in Australia.

EJ: *Colonists seeking an ethnic bridgehead vs immigrants seeking to be Australians.

Muslims are the New Colonists seeking to change our Culture & demanding that we change later. I have no problems with immigrants provided they are from a non-threatening Religion or backward Medieval Culture.

EJ: Certainly we don't want people from crap countries bringing with them the cultural baggage that caused the tyranny they are fleeing from.

The first thing you have said that I agree with.

EJ: We need to take stock of what makes Australia a basically decent country and try to preserve what's decent and express it both internally and externally.

& What we need to do to preserve that by keeping out riff raff which some people are hell bent on getting into Australia.

EJ: (unlike ASEAN zone, Islamic zone and the lands of tribal savages)

I understand the Islamic Zone part (Religionist) but what's with the ASEAN & Lands of Tribal Savages. Do you mean South East Asia & the Pacific Islands. Isn't that Racist?
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 6:51:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why don't we just take the money needed to house, feed, cloth and pay the dole for every boat person, straight out of the ABC's $1.2 billion dollar p.a. budget, Kelly?

When it starts to hit home with trendies like yourself that the Aussie taxpayer is not a golden goose, and that the money you want to spend on boat people should come of trendy lefty sacred cows, I don't think it will be long before you and your friends grow a brain as the penny drops.

(Sorry for the mixed metaphor)
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 7:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stop the golden welfare welcome, do what other countries do for example.

What Ireland give refugees
Gives them group accommodation (like all in one housing commission building not separate house)meals and a bed nothing else they go to a different place and get 19 Euros per week spending money. They are not allowed to work. Some have waited more than 8 years to be assessed.

That will sort out the majority of economic invaders.
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 19 June 2014 12:51:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the Minister, Scott Morrison:

"Today Australia reached a significant milestone, marking six months since the last successful people smuggling operation.

Operation Sovereign Borders is working. The boats are stopping and this is saving lives.

Stopping the boats is saving the Budget $2.5 billion over the next four years – around $50 million a month.

We need your help to share the message that Australia’s borders are secure again.

Under Labor’s watch, 190 boats arrived in the equivalent six month period last year.

Combating the work of people smugglers is an ongoing effort. The Government will remain vigilant in ensuring that our borders remain strong."
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 19 June 2014 7:31:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Emperor Julian

Australia has not just signed the UN Refugees Convention, but has incorporated its refugee definition into the Migration Act.

This means that government cannot lawfully do what you, and every sensible person trying to come to grips with the problem, are suggesting, namely to separate out all the relevant variables.

For example, if an onshore refugee applicant meets the definition of refugee, but also thinks it would be a wonderful idea to introduce a sharia caliphate in Australia, it would be unlawful for the gumment to refuse the application on the latter ground: because the Convention definition of refugee has been legislated into the criterion for a protection visa.

If Australia withdrew from the Convention, it would allow what you are suggesting, and what the major parties are trying to achieve by their offshore detention policies, which is, to decide the numbers and conditions of the refugee intake without being restricted by the Convention's requirements.

Of the total refugee intake, only a minor fraction are 'onshore'; most are 'offshore'. The difference is that government cannot refuse or deport onshore refugees without breaking the law; whereas it's not unlawful to refuse offshore applicants, even if they satisfy the definition of refugee. It is this difference in treatment, based in the Convention, which causes the whole dynamic of people trying to get onshore to make their applications, hence the whole issue with boat people, and hence with detentions centres.

But my point is, that withdrawing from the Convention does not mean Australia could not and would not accept refugees, because the vast majority of refugees accepted are offshore refugees, whose acceptance is not required by the Convention. Never has been.

Therefore any argument that withdrawing from the Convention would be anti-humanitarian or intrinsically refugee-negative, is not valid. It would be anti-tokenistic, anti-wasteful, anti-daft, not anti-humanitarian.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 19 June 2014 12:15:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ: but has incorporated its refugee definition into the Migration Act.

It mentions it once in passing. But it's not Law.

Another Lawyer frightened he might lose his lucrative easy money when the appeals dry up. 6 months wait on the Dole eh! ;-)
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 19 June 2014 12:28:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KT is just another killer, just to feel superior to no doubt those she calls "Rednecks" she wants to drown thousands again and lock up real refugees in overseas detention indefinitely because they are not in Australian camps.

These killers are the same, everything is simple just don't look at the results. Global Warming predicted via poor models with crazy positive feedbacks in the normal range, result failure. Simple minded modelling of what is "Compassion", willful indifference resulting in mass death.
Posted by McCackie, Friday, 20 June 2014 10:19:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb
"It [the Migration Act] mentions it [the Convention refugee definition] once in passing. But it's not Law."

Not correct. The Convention definition of refugee is incorporated by the Migration Act into Australian law as the criterion for the grant of a protection visa.

The fact that you don't know how to find the relevant legislation, doesn't mean that the High Court's opinion on refugee law in Australia is wrong and your opinion is right which is what you're arguing.

All
Almost all of the public commentary in this particular field of public policy is by people like Jayb who simply don't understand what they're talking about.

They don't understand that government can't do what they're suggesting without withdrawing from adherence to the Convention. The concept that government powers are limited by law is completely foreign to the vast majority of the left wing, but it's not foreign to the superior courts who have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over unlawful executive action for the last 900 years.

Most of the remainder of public commentary, by people in the government-funded refugee industry who do understand refugee law, is based on
a) their intention to force other people to pay for their fake moral superiority, and
b) the premise that it's better for refugees to die in their numbers and be sent into offshore detention that the leftists condemn so bitterly, than that the prestige of the UN should be reduced even meritoriously, by Australia withdrawing from the Convention which, combined with governments attempts to evade it, cause those deaths and unnecessary misery, not to mention the expense!

That leaves the only sensible suggestion, which is to withdraw from the Convention, allow both major parties to do lawfully what they will never cease trying to do by any means, which is evade the Convention; permit those who *claim* they want refugees to pay all the costs (we'll then see how fair dinkum they are); and release those who don't want them, from being forced to pay for other people's moral fakery.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 20 June 2014 10:56:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ: The Convention definition of refugee is incorporated by the Migration Act into Australian law as the criterion for the grant of a protection visa.

I have combed the ACT through & through& the way it is written doesn't make it Law.

JKJ: That leaves the only sensible suggestion, which is to withdraw from the Convention,

Or remove the relevant Para & line from the Migration Act. But your suggestion does make a lot of sense seeing that the UN is really a toothless Tiger. Just looking at their behaviour over the last 20 years.

I think your friend JO'N has threatened to sue me. I believe he mentioned something about Libel. Must be to do with the Asylum Seeker Lawyer Racket drying up.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 20 June 2014 2:41:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I have combed the ACT through & through& the way it is written doesn't make it Law."

Keep looking.

I'll show you where it is, for a worthwhile little stake to make it interesting: shall we say $10,000?

"I think your friend JO'N has threatened to sue me. I believe he mentioned something about Libel. Must be to do with the Asylum Seeker Lawyer Racket drying up."

Yes LOL. Don't worry, the phony humanitarians are on a big well-appointed ship anchored off Manus Island with a nice view of the tropical sunset, with gym, library, friendly natives waving from their canoes, gin and tonic in the officers' mess, and all the rest of it, getting FAR above market rate for their services.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 20 June 2014 3:04:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ: I'll show you where it is, for a worthwhile little stake to make it interesting: shall we say $10,000?

You just give me Part, Para & Line. If you ARE right I will apologize.

JB: I have combed the ACT through & through & the way it is written doesn't make it Law.

Still, The Law Profession have a habit of turning things in the Laws to suit their own definitions. Especially when there is no Definition in an Act that describes a Word of Phrase. Depends on whose paying & how much &, of course, the agreements between all Parties that are made in the Judges Chamber a few days before the Case is heard, eh.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 20 June 2014 4:01:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oooooh, allllllllright, I'll show you.

But before I do, just think. If you were right that the Convention definition was "not law", then why would the High Court have made such decisions against the gumment as the one knocking down the Malaysia Solution? Why would the main migration workload of the Federal Court be refugee cases?

The missing pieces of the puzzle are:
Section 41, Conditions on visas
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s41.html

Section 504, Regulations
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s504.html

and then, criteria for the grant of a protection visa:
...
(2) The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention:

in Schedule 2 of the Regulation:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/sch2.html

Okay, settle it. What about a slab of beer and we call it quits?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 20 June 2014 8:14:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ: Section 41, Conditions on visas
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s41.html

This section talks about "Conditions on Visas" Nothing to do with UNCHR Convention & Protocols. It does not even mention the UNCHR Convention & Protocols.

JKJ: Section 504, Regulations
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s504.html

There is nothing in this section that relates to the UNCHR Conventions & Protocols. It does not even mention the UNCHR Convention & Protocols.

JKJ: in Schedule 2 of the Regulation:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/sch2.html
2) The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention:

I did a search for this it didn't come up. I put in, "The Minister is satisfied that" Lots of stuff came up, but not that. So I did a visual myself & still found nothing like it.

164.227 The Minister is satisfied that:
(a) the applicant is the holder of a valid passport that:
(i) was issued to the applicant by an official source; and
(ii) is in the form issued by the official source; or
(b) it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to be the holder of a passport.
I guess this does not relate to Boat People.

203.222 (2) If the application includes a proposal by an approved proposing organisation, the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for giving special consideration to granting the applicant a permanent visa, having regard to:

(a) the degree of persecution to which the applicant is subject in the applicant's home country; and
(b) the extent of the applicant's connection with Australia; and
(c) whether or not there is any suitable country available, other than Australia, that can provide for the applicant's settlement and protection from persecution; and
(d) the capacity of the approved proposing organisation to provide for the permanent settlement of the applicant in Australia.

No mention of the UNCHR C & P

1 of 3. Cont.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 20 June 2014 10:14:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2 of 3. Cont.
204.211A If the application includes a proposal by an approved proposing organisation:
(a) the applicant is a female person who is subject to persecution, or registered as being of concern to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and is living in a country other than the applicant's home country; and
(b) the proposal is not made on behalf of another person who is mentioned in sub regulation 2.07AM(5); and
(c) the applicant is still proposed by the approved proposing organisation.
A mention of the HC for R as being "concerned" but no UNCHR C & P

204.224 (1) If the application does not include a proposal by an approved proposing organisation, the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for giving special consideration to granting the applicant a permanent visa, having regard to:
(a) in the case of an applicant who met the requirements of subclause 204.211(2) at the time of application--the extent of the applicant's connection with Australia; or
(b) in any other case--the following:
(i) the degree of persecution to which the applicant is subject in the applicant's home country; and
(ii) the extent of the applicant's connection with Australia; and
(iii) whether or not there is any suitable country available, other than Australia, that can provide for the applicant's settlement and protection from persecution; and
(iv) the capacity of the Australian community to provide for the permanent settlement of persons such as the applicant in Australia.
Note 204.224 (1) (b) (iv) & (2) (c) (d)

(2 of 3. Cont.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 20 June 2014 10:17:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I admire your persistence Jayb.

The phrase "(2) The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention"
is in the Regulation at 866, about 90% of the way down the page of that link to the Regulation.

The "Refugees Convention" is defined in section 5 of the Act to refer to the UN Convention relating to the status of refugees, done in 1951.

Whether the Convention gives rise to "protection obligations" is determined by:
a) the text of the Convention - 'well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, and political opinion'
b) the common law in interpreting the Convention, e.g. are homosexuals 'a particular social group', and
c) the additional sections of the Migration Act that you referred to.

But the point is, the effect of the whole thing is to incorporate the Convention definition of refugee into Australian migration law, and make it a condition for the grant of a protection visa. It's incorrect to assert it's "not law", which is why the High Court treats it as law, and as binding on the gumment.

You are one of the few people who has taken the trouble to understand it.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 21 June 2014 10:04:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
3 of 3. Cont.

416.322 The Minister is satisfied that the applicant has:
(a) adequate means to support himself or herself; or
(b) access to adequate means to support himself or herself;
taking into account the applicant's work rights during the period of the applicant's stay in Australia.

Aid? interesting.

462.215 The Minister is satisfied that the applicant has at least functional English.
Interesting?

786.224 The applicant satisfies public interest criterion 4001 or, if the applicant is unable to satisfy that criterion because the appropriate inquiries have not been completed, the applicant declares in writing, to the satisfaction of the Minister, that the applicant:
(a) does not have a criminal record; and
(b) is not a terrorist; and
(c) has not engaged in crimes against humanity or war crimes; and
(d) will assist Immigration by attempting to obtain any relevant records relating to the applicant.
Interesting?
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/sch2.html
Provisions with respect to the grant of Subclasses of visas.

This whole set of Regulations has nothing to do with the UNCHR C & P.

Migration Act 1958. Act No. 62 of 1958 as amended. Volume 1 & 2
288 Application for registration
288A Publishing requirement
288B Requiring applicants to make statutory declarations or to answer questions.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 21 June 2014 4:23:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
addem.

Ok, found what you are on about.

866.1—Interpretation
866.111 In this Part:
Refugees Convention means the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.

866.21/866.221 —Criteria to be satisfied at time of application/ Decision
866.211 (1) One of subclauses (2) to (5) is satisfied.
(2) The applicant:
(a) claims to be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention; and
(b) makes specific claims under the Refugees Convention.
(4) The applicant claims to be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations because the applicant claims that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.

Ok, but all this means that Australia will abide by the "Conventions & Protocols." I fail to see how that is "Law." & punishable in any way if we don't stick to it.

That being so. If you take another look at the C & P It is a non binding Document. It states down at the end. Words to the effect.
"This is how the UN would like you to act. but if you don't like some parts of the C & P you don't have to effect them. Or, you can opt out anytime giving the UN 12 mounts notice."
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 21 June 2014 4:24:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Australian Government bears any responsibility whatsoever for any person who sets sail for Australia unless they do so on a valid ticket on an Australian registered ship.

The only Government that bears any responsibility for unseaworthy, or any other, boats leaving Indonesia is the Government of that country.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 21 June 2014 5:25:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Ok, but all this means that Australia will abide by the "Conventions & Protocols." I fail to see how that is "Law."

It's law because the Migration Act incorporates the Convention definition of refugee into the criterion for the grant of a protection visa, as we have just seen.

"& punishable in any way if we don't stick to it."

The question is not whether it's punishable, it's whether it's enforceable.

It's enforceable because the federal courts will make orders binding on any officer of the Commonwealth who tries to remove a non-citizen who claims to be a refugee without having been processed in accordance with law. This includes the common law, where 99 percent of refugee law is to be found.

It's enforceable because the federal courts will make an order binding on any officer of the Commonwealth who tries to deport from Australia a person
a) who has been found to be a refugee; or
b) who *should* have been found to be a refugee if the law had been properly applied.

That's what all the refugee cases in the High Court are about. The plaintiffs are arguing that, GIVEN THE GUBBAS ARE BOUND BY THE MIGRATION ACT AND REGULATION AND THE CONVENTION AND COMMON LAW, the decision to refuse the visa was unlawful; and seeking orders to prohibit deportation. So the government has to comply.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 21 June 2014 9:48:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The first principle of constitutional and administrative law is that all power must be authorised by law. A government officer does not have any authority to do anything - especially not a coercive action - if it is not authorised by law.

The court's writ, and the sheriff, will go against any person. That's how the rule of law works: "No matter how high you are, the law is above you."

These writs are ancient; they are entrenched in the Constitution; and the courts guard them *very* jealously because our entire system of government and way of life depends on them.

There is no need to punish Commonwealth officers for disobeying the Court's order, because no matter how high they are - even the Minister - they obey it as a matter of course. Because they know that if they don't obey it, the Courts will jail them for contempt and their badge of office will be no defence!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 21 June 2014 9:50:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q, given the poverty & homelessness that many Aboriginal, Torres Strait islander, even White Australians have had inflicted on them by the ruling left wing elites, should we worsen this sad situation with more upper middle class welfare in the forms of?

1, foreign students from wealthy Asian families living in public housing meant for homeless Aussies so that their extravagant lifestyles can be subsidised by Aussie taxpayers?

2, extravagant pay & conditions for ruling elite left wing academics in universities flooded with full fee paying foreign students?

3, putting young men from foreign organised crime families onto welfare & into public housing so they can import, wholesale & retail drugs to other public housing tenants?

4, feel good, well paid jobs for anti social workers in CBOs, community based organisations, neighbourhood centres & NGOs pretending to clean up the mess that has been created?

Do Kelly Tranter & any other ruling elite lefties have any answers to these questions?
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 7:48:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ: This includes the common law, where 99 percent of refugee law is to be found.

Is there a site where I can get the Common Law Act? If not what defines "Common Law" in Australia? I know it has to do with Habeas Corpus. But if that's the case it has nothing to do with Common People, Habeas Corpus only refers to "Land Holders" & excludes Commoners & Jews. I have a copy I picked up in York.

JKJ: decision to refuse the visa was unlawful;

If they haven't been cleared by Customs, they haven't officially entered Australia. As when people arrive in Australia supposedly on a holiday & are found to be going to a job they get kicked out. They've lied on their Visa Application Form. Boat people have arrived, Sans ID papers or a Visa of any sort. If they haven't crossed the Border officially then I can't see why they can't be refused a visa unless they return & Apply for one through an official channel.

In 866.211 (1)
4) The applicant claims to be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations because the applicant claims that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.

I can't see how, "removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm." would cause significant harm provided the receiving Country wasn't the one they fled from, like sending them back to Indonesia, their last port of embarkation.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 9:48:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By common law I mean court-made law. The judges in the higher courts give reasons for their decisions, and it is this long-winded process of reasoning that forms the law. There is no way of knowing it than by reading them. It is highly convoluted because each judge gives their own take on the entire case, and they may follow different lines of reasoning as to different issues. Then you need a squad of QCs to argue for a week over what they all meant. In the end the Court just makes it up as it goes along. Great stuff LOL.

Finding the cases is bit of an art in itself, which is why a special caste of law librarians have been bred up since the Middle Ages, complete with cowls, cassocks, and fusty looks.

austlii has the High Court judgments, for example:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/

The leading case, where the High Court first considered the correct interpretation of the Convention, was Chan's case:
Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 at para. 11
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1989/62.html

This is foundational. It set down the standard of proof, which means you can't find it in the Convention - you have to look Chan's case.

The Australian common law of refugee status then comprises all the decided cases of the Federal, Full Federal and High Courts, of which there are zillions. You can see lots of refugee cases here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/toc-M.html
because the Minister of Immigration has been named as the plaintiff, so it's alphabetically under M.
But of course there's all the other ones where the refugee was the plaintiff, so there's all the Chans, the Wu Shan Liang's, and so on.

Then the Migration Act was amended so refugees names are anonymized, so you get cases with names like SZGJV. It's great.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 25 June 2014 12:08:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting you should mention habeus corpus because this is one of a related group of court orders known as the prerogative writs, to what are called “inferior jurisdictions” – meaning either lower courts or executive officers - to prohibit them from doing something unlawful, e.g. deporting someone; or to compel them to do something the law requires - e.g. hearing an application according to law.

The prerogative writs are a creation of the common law, which means they are not created by any statute, but yet they control and limit the exercise of executive power in interpreting and carrying out all statutes including the Constitution.

“ If they haven't crossed the Border officially then I can't see why they can't be refused a visa”

If they haven’t officially entered Australia, then you have a valid point. However lots of them have. Remember there’s not just the ones coming by boat. Most onshore applicants come by plane.

“I can't see how, "removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm" would cause significant harm provided the receiving Country wasn't the one they fled from”

An example would be the Malaysia Solution case:

In that case, the Gillard gumment amended the Migration Act to empower the Minister to declare that another country was safe for Australia to remove asylum-seekers to. The Minister declared Malaysia.

But the High Court said that decision was not lawful, because Malaysia had not signed the Convention, so there was nothing stopping Malaysia from returning the asylum-seekers to their home country. Hence in sending them to Malaysia, Australia was in breach of its undertaking in the Convention, not to return a refugee to the risk of persecution. (PNG and Nauru have signed the Convention, obviously.)

You should read it: Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. It will give you an idea how mind-numbingly complex and impenetrably long-winded the cases are.

Another doozie was where the High Court decided the Immigration Minister can’t outsource a refugee’s character assessment to ASIO. Advanced hair-splitting; very well remunerated
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 25 June 2014 12:31:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy