Ludwig,
As I have previous stated elsewhere;
The Constitution is our ultimate law. Anything else has to conform to it. If we do not like it then we have a choice to express this in a Section 128 of the Constitution referendum and so amend the Constitution, but unless and until this is done anything that is being don in conflict to the Constitution is unconstitutional and so unlawful.
International agreements are made by Governments because it may suit them but cannot override constitutional constrains. To do otherwise would mean that the Government could nullify the Constitution entirely by making all kinds of agreements. For example the prohibition regarding religion could be side stepped by making some agreement with another country regarding religious matters.
The very existence of the government, so also the parliament and the Judiciary, is because we the People have agreed for them to operate within the terms we provided in the constitution. We sanctioned them to work within it. The moment they go beyond that they are violating our rights, and once you accept them to do so, merely because it might suit your purpose in something, then they can do it in regard of anything else what you may not particularly like.

The Constitution is our PERPETUAL LEASE and we should not allow it to be vandalised because of certain issues that we may like to have done. Nothing stops us to amend the Constitution by the provisions outlined in Section 128 and as such it is not that the Constitution it too old or too difficult rather it protects our constitutional rights and anyone coming under its provisions, that includes refugees.
We cannot have it both ways, so to say, have the cake and eat it. We have a Constitution we respect and observe or we have a dictatorship!
Meaning that to accept unconstitutional/illegal conduct towards assylum seekers is to support a dictatorship.
Threat them legally proper and and many problems might be resolved and at a far lesser cost to the taxpayers and without endangering our security.

Well isn’t this fascinating. I thought we had two passionate debaters on this thread; Rhian and Bronwyn. But as soon as the debate starts to get interesting, they abandon it!

LUDWIG

You may find it interesting what is debated that suits you whereas I respect any view given, even those contrary to my own, as after all they are as much entitled to state their views as I am.

For the record, my wife and her (now late) husband and child escaped, and both she and her husband were sentenced in absenteeism to about 9 years of imprisonment. Soon after they escaped communist regime after her husband had been imprisoned, and beaten up, for selling his invention to the West. This, even so he never did sell his invention at all to the West. As my wife makes clear, because she was a linguistic in Russian, and spoke other languages also, she was able to talk herself and her husband and child through the border guards and escaped. But, she makes clear that had they been caught they most likely would have been executed there and there. Now, while my wife’s husband was upon release smart enough to get immediately travel documents for the child and they were able to escape, it was a major risk.
Now, you may have your views about refugees, and whatever, but if you never have experienced reality why a person may despite facing possible death still desire to escape then why not be open minded and first LISTEN to some real versions of event then to merely assume that people might risk life and limb for a dangerous trip by unseaworthy boat.
As a “constitutionalist” I can see we can secure our borders yet treat refugees in a humane and legal way. Our constitution is based on this, but grubby politicians who are only interested in political power play could not care-less what is constitutionally appropriate. WorkChoices is a clear example, in regard of which I am publishing a book this week to expose why it is unconstitutional!
Once you accept dictatorship over a constitutional democracy, then you lost all your constitutional-rights!

You may not find this kind of debate interesting, but too often I have to repeat to other; "I TOLD YOU SO."