If that's the case Niarbe we should have a referendum on the issue- in fact, we should have a referendum on all issues- that way there is no "far right"- there is only the people picking precisely what policy they want governing their country.

Alternatively, we could directly elect ministers for each portfolio individually- that way any party will only get into the roles people actually want them to- and if people are generally left wing- but want to retain this border policy, they are free to elect left-wing candidates in most houses, but a "strong borders" candidate for immigration.

(I might also add that Australian voters can in fact change the constitution)

Nairbe do you see me as right,now think about this.
Greens are not the only party 85% would not ever vote for them.
I Challenge the view any one who cares other than your way is wrong.
In fact I think you are aware this action won nothing the wish of both sides and most Australians will see gaps filled.
One last thing, how do you think a refugee who has waited in a camp feels knowing hundreds are here to stay while he/she waits.

In fact we have had many chances to make alterations to our constitution and have turned almost all of them down. Why?
One can only guess but it would seem that the majority of Australians don't trust the politics that lead to these votes, hence i would agree let's have a referendum. On what i'm not sure because it would require the changing of matters that don't only pertain to boat people and the electorate will kill it dead.
The opportunity to make changes to an unjust and now illegal action was the labour parties when elected in 07. They promised but failed. I see the 2010 election as a strong vote of no confidence in the main parties. With the whole disaster that labor made of governing it should have been the liberals vote for the taking, yet that poultry 15% as Belly puts it swung to a party that stood alone against the two parties that seemed determined to lay waste to common decency and that elusive Australian way by persisting with the politics of hate and fear. Liberal would have had 10% of that vote if they could have eaten humble pie and done the right thing. Yes i believe that the boat people issue was the defining issue at that election, the labor faithful held firm the many who pined (not christopher) for the good old days went liberal but our conscience looked for an alternative.
From my posts you should see i don't like the current situation but cannot agree with the way we treat these people. The answer is not to treat them so poorly they don't want to come, it is to understand why they want to come and try to effect change in their countries through cooperative intervention not force and condescendence. Work with our neighbours to stop people smuggling not treat them with suspicion.
Our constitution is there to assure we stay the course not fall to reactive moods, it has served us well in it's short life. Not all change is good, especially reactive change.

All seven judges agreed in a single judgement that the government was wrong to deny asylum seekers who tried to come to Australia by boat access to our legal system. From my understanding I believe that the High Court decision was simply a change to make it a fairer system for all refugees. That is, asylum seekers arriving by boat will be treated with the same rights as those arriving by plane, including a full right of appeal. I do not believe that it changes any other law -
and people will be assessed as they have been to date. That is people with criminal records will not be admitted. If anyone else has added
information on this topic - by all means please put it forward.