Mr. Schorel-Hlavka,

Even assuming that you are correct in your interpretation, the Constitution and international agreements are not suicide pacts. They are human agreements that can be changed or abrogated.

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!

Gerrit,
I reinterate. the Australian Constitution has nothing to do with the sinking of the SIEV X. You obviously believe that the AFP, or other Australian Government agents, had something to do with making the SIEV X unseaworthy. I put it to you that it is simply a conspiracy theory and there is no evidence to support these wild theories. Nor is there any evidence suggesting that we did not look hard enough for the SIEV X.

The simple fact is that the SIEV X was grossly overloaded, like most of the other vessels that proceeded it. The Tampa picked up people from a sinking boat. I wonder if it has occured to the conspiracy theorists that if the Tampa had not been hyjacked, and went to Indonesia as intended, the stories of their voyage may just have prevented the SIEV X dissaster.

As I said before, it is amazing that it took so many voyages in overcrowded boats before a catastrophy occured.

Fact is that the AFP (Australian Federal Police), a law enforcement agency was involved in paying monies to Indonesians to deter refugees from coming to Australia using taxpayers money. That is unconstitutional.
It is not relevant then if those being paid did or didn’t tamper with SIEV X specifically rather that they did in certain instances make boats unseaworthy! A criminal conduct the AFP cannot excuse itself from. They had no business in the first place to pay people to get involved in criminal acts.
To me the best way to resolve it is to have the head of the AFP and other charged and let a Court of law then determine their guilt or innocence, but as the AFP itself was not willing to await a Court of law to determine if a refugee was a refugee or not but took the law into their own hands, then in that regard we are entitled to condemn their actions, in particular where it is a law-enforcement agency being involved in criminal activities. The AFP cannot play a Pontius Pilatus to try to wash the blood of their hands, as they had no business in the first place to get involved in criminal activities such as having people making boats unseaworthy. It is not relevant if they specifically knew or authorised it, rather, so to say, that it was expected that they weren’t paying out money for Indonesians to give farewell greeting cards to refugees!
As for the Tampa, there is a saying, “You cannot go to Court with dirty hands”. Meaning you cannot argue about someone doing wrong after you have wronged yourself.
Under International law and indeed by the findings of the sinking of the Titanic boards one must render assistance to those at the perils of the sea.
It was the Federal Governments refusal to allow the Tampa (having on request of the Federal Government rescued the people in the first place) that caused the problems. The people rescued had therefore every right to pursue to be delivered to the shores of Australia.