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."

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.

"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.

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!

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?

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.