As a “constitutionalist” I try to consider what is constitutionally appropriate before contemplating emotional issues.
Constitutionally, any person who is alleged to be in breach of Commonwealth law must be handed over to State authorities and be subjected to a “judicial decision” by a State Court to determine their innocence or guilt. Section 120 of the Constitution provide that the States shall provide detention for any person accused (formally charged) and/or convicted.

As such, I view holding any refugee in any kind of styled concentration camps is unconstitutional. Exchanging refugees is also unconstitutional. We have a constitution and unless we operate within the framework of the constitution we are no better then any other terrorist as we terrorize others to be denied the very rights provided for in the Constitution we claim others do.
It is therefore very simple; If the Federal Government claims refugees are criminals in breach of Commonwealth law then have them charged and placed before a Court of law to be adjudicated upon by the judiciary as to their guilt or innocence. After all, isn’t that for which we have a judiciary?
See also;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

When a proposed Bill comes before the parliament, any member of parliament can challenge it upon constitutional grounds and then the Speaker/President first must have this appropriately dealt with before the bill can be dealt with by the members let alone voted upon. Perhaps Andrew will be so kind to show where in the Hansard it is shown he opposed each time any unconstitutional proposed legislation (Bill) regarding refugees was tabled. Or perhaps it goes to far to really represent constituents?
Remember SIEV X with the 353 dead, including 146 children?
Not a single person as yet was ever charged in regard of this!
THEY WERE HUMANS TOO!

See also http://www.schorel-hlavka.co

Mr Gerrit H Scharal-Hlavka,
Scheees, I'll callyou Gerrit, OK

You talk about the Australian constitution and at the end you refer to the SIEV X.

The SIEV X was an Indonesian vessel, with Indonesian crew. It was grossly overloaded and sailed from an Indonesian port and sank off Indonesia. Survivors were rescued by Indonesian fishermen and taken back to Indonesia.

Gerrit, what the hell has this to do with the Australian constitution?

Let's address Senator Bartlett's economic arguments then. This quote is from Robert Rowthorn, Professor of Economics at Cambridge University in the UK. (quote from Telegraph (UK) 5/7/06)

"If you repeat something often enough, you can perhaps make people believe it. What you cannot do is turn it from being false into being true. And the Government's claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration. There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.

Immigration can't solve the pensions crisis, nor solve the problem of an ageing population, as its advocates so often claim. It can, at most, delay the day of reckoning, because, of course, immigrants themselves grow old, and they need pensions.

The injection of large numbers of unskilled workers into the economy does not benefit the bulk of the population to any great extent. It benefits the nanny-and housecleaner-using classes; it benefits employers who want to pay low wages; but it does not benefit indigenous, unskilled Britons, who have to compete with immigrants willing to work hard for very low wages in unpleasant working conditions.

For low-skilled Britons, the result is that there are only two options: very low pay or unemployment. The economy becomes dependent on a constant influx of immigrants who are willing to accept low pay and poor working conditions. That is what Labour ministers mean when they insist that "public services would collapse without immigrants"."

Compare the rising share of profits and the falling share of wages in the context of arguments about shortages of labour here in Australia.

It is perhaps unfair of Sage to blame Senator Bartlett personally for the scandalous treatment of disadvantaged people in this country. His voting record on this is probably better than most. Still, I understand where Sage is coming from. It is not asking for utopia to expect that no one should be forced to live on the streets or to pull out his or her own rotting teeth with a pair of pliers. When politicians bleat about asylum seekers, I tend to react much as I would to parents who are so busy saving the world that they neglect their own children.

In any case Senator Bartlett can't save the world by taking people in. Visit any of the environmental footprint sites on the Web (such as Redefining Progress) and you will see that it would take about 3 Earths to sustainably give everyone a modest European standard of living, even if all the resources were equally distributed. That is now; at its current 1.3% growth rate global population is doubling every 53 years.

Like the other politicians, Senator Bartlett was elected (and is handsomely rewarded by the standards of most people) to represent Australians, not Afghans or Iranians. If he falls on hard times in the future, it will be his fellow citizens, not foreigners, who will be taxed to give him health care and a pension. If Australia is threatened, it will be his fellow citizens who will see themselves or their loved ones drafted to defend his privileges. I want to see all of my fellow citizens treated decently first. Then we can talk about what we can do for foreigners as well.

Part 1
Banjo,

You asked what Siev X has to do with the constitution, well let me explain.

The Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to detain any person in the styled concentration camps called Commonwealth Detention Centre as “common law “ and “civil” right derives from you living in a State. The Commonwealth of Australia is a creation by Statue and as such has no “common law”.
Hence, the High Court of Australia if using a jury needs to use one of the State of which the Defendant comes.
All persons accused and/or convicted must be handed over to the States and it’s the State authority that can only imprison an accused/convicted person. (Section 120 of the Constitution).
No one can be detained/deported, regardless if the Minister has ordered so, unless this has been formally ordered by a “judicial decision” by a State Court. This, as the guilt or innocence of any person can only be determined by a judicial officer. That is what is termed separation of powers!
What we had was the Australian Federal Police, using taxpayers money to so to say prevent people to come to Australia. Now, with or without their knowledge this was resulting then in the death of many because their boats were made unseaworthy. In my view, the AFP committed crimes by funding this kind of tactics, as much as Carl William (Victoria) was pleading GUILTY to murder having funded this. We have a Constitution and the AFP is not above it! Likewise, the holding of people at Ashmore Reef, during the 21001 federal election and forcing them back to the perils of the sea on orders of John Howard was not only cowardly but also illegal and indeed criminal (consider the Titanic inquiry reports that no one should be left to the perils of the sea) as it is against legislation to force an unseaworthy boat to leave the shores.

Part 2
Likewise John Howard had no prerogative powers to authorise the armed invasion into Iraq and hence committed treachery and indeed treason. Yet, he was sending people back into unseaworthy boats while he was a major instigator to cause people to flee their homeland because of the upcoming war.
Neither was it constitutionally permissible to spend moneys from consolidated Revenue to basically murder people in other countries by making their boats unseaworthy and causing them to drown. I am not aware of any appropriation bill having been before the parliament to allow such kind of spending, and indeed would not be possible to be voted upon by the parliament as it can only provide funding for the maintaining of the commonwealth of Australia “for the peace, order, and good government” and to contemplate and/or funding the murdering of people (refugees, etc) isn’t any of it.
Neither the holding of refugees in pacific solution destinations! The Commonwealth of Australia has a choice, it either charges every refugee with a crime and place the person before a Court of law, so the person can answer the charge or the Commonwealth of Australia let them being in peace. To hold people in detention for years on end and then finally accept them as refugees hardly is “good government”.
Also, the deportation of any child born in the Commonwealth of Australia, other then those born to foreign diplomates, is unconstitutional, but that is another long story.
Perhaps this response may do your request?
Gerrit