http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/asio-visa-bans-rejected-20121005-274ra.html
Who then is responsible for this country's security.
I truly want to know.
I wounder how we balance the fine line between law making and law enforcement.
It, in my opinion, would be far from rare for Australians to ask are the law enforcers judges and other representative of the feelings of the community?

I can see a benefit in having the right to review the law.
But it was the high court that stopped the Malaysian solution after refugee advocate lawyers won.
Who is served by ability to over ride the will of Parliament.
And who too by the chance to say our country,s first defense against terrorism can be over turned after doing its work.

We are signatories to so many international conventions etc that we have lost a lot of control on how we are governed or who is actually making the laws.

A lot of these conventions like the one on refugees were a necessary evil 50 to 60+ years ago when so many men died in the war that refugees were needed, trouble is it is now 67 years since then.

Even the UN has said a lot are just plain ECONOMIC refugees we need a Government strong enough to say times have changed these things need to go or be re-written.
The Government needs to re-write the laws so that we can be protected from undesirables that venture here.

One of the problems is lawyers originally were paid per word they wrote so they made it so long and complex they got paid a lot.

Re do the laws in plain English rather than gobbledygook.

OK yes Phillip S redraw the laws by all means.
I think we need to maybe do, not sure.
But I do fear the power of the few.
I think the high court judgment against the Malaysian solution went against the elected governments will.
And it happened to Howard too.
And,at first glance, even claims to set some who failed our entry test have to be set free, in our community?
I doubt the wisdom of that, and am concerned about who runs our country.

Belly that was a good decision by the hight court.It shows some independance.

Refugees are not a threat to our country.It is the international finance system and the military inductrial complex that has cuased these unlawful wars of imperialism which destrys nations and makes people look for a better life.

This system has totally corrupted our Govts and is taking away our rights under the lie of terrorism.

Belly,

You and I disagree about how effective the Malaysian solution would have been –but putting that aside for the moment.

The group who carried the latest challenge re the ASIO assessment is the same group who carried the challenge to the Malaysian solution.
And it needs noting --and, if it wasn’t so damaging it would be comic -- that group is to a large extent funded by state and federal govts.

Likewise many of the sites on the net that peddle mistruths about Australian immigration polices and practices e.g. conflating “hosting” with “resettling” in and endeavour to shame Australia into going soft on illegals (one of which was recently widely quoted by Alan Austin to support one of his misinformed beat-ups) are the recipients of govt funding.

And the other day, Sarah-Hansen Young was positively rubbing her hands in glee at the prospect that Indonesian “minors”-- aided and abetted no doubt by a posse of govt funded lawyers-- would be seeking to rip huge sums from the Australian tax payer in *compensation* for having been detained.

When you look at such examples, you begin to see that many of our wounds are self inflicted.

<< Who is served by ability to over ride the will of Parliament. >>

Good point Belly.

It is simply absurd that parliamentary decisions can get overridden in this manner.

The government seeks the best legal advice before any decisions are made. They try to make sure that they are on a sound legal footing. Of course they do, because the last thing they want is for this sort of ridiculous override to occur.

And yet time and time again we see this sort of thing happen.

Why on earth can’t the legal position be determined confidently and without fear of reversal, up front, so that decisions can be made at the top level in this country without this sort of amazing reversal or nullification happening, and all the uncertainty, loss of confidence in the system and social destabilisation that it causes??

From the linked article:

< The opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, expressed dismay that the court had found ''that our government has no power to keep known security risks out of our community'' >

I absolutely agree with that, although I would have put it in considerably stronger terms.

SPQR>> And the other day, Sarah-Hansen Young was positively rubbing her hands in glee at the prospect that Indonesian “minors”-- aided and abetted no doubt by a posse of govt funded lawyers-- would be seeking to rip huge sums from the Australian tax payer in *compensation* for having been detained.
When you look at such examples, you begin to see that many of our wounds are self inflicted.<<

We have Commonwealth and State legislation, and then we have U.N. protocols that come with a raft of "ideals" which at their core have caveats that over ride our sovereign national laws. These U.N. protocols win out every time in jurisdiction issues against Commonwealth implemented legislations.

Re the Judges fitness to mirror the community’s expectations…..forget it.

I am a member of a society that has fair sprinklings of Judges within its membership, we are stargazers. I have over the past 25 years spent hours and days in the constant company of many servants of the court……..My observation would simply be this……judges have not got a clue about community expectations in general…judges only raise "community expectations" if the crime is emotive to the public or the the big end of town.

Judges rely solely on the gazetted laws…..Judges like trains run down the tracks laid down for them. So in my opinion judges are insular and certainly not representative of community expectations in many instances, but they obey the law. Who makes the law, or signs away our rights to govern ourselves directly, the likes of Hanson Young, the Libs and the Labor parties.

Arjay - Quote " Refugees are not a threat to our country "
I would like you to tell that to the following to name a few.
The seven young girls sexually assaulted at the Darwin pool.

The people bashed and robbed by the African gangs in Melb about a year ago.

The 16 YO girl on the train in SA sexually assaulted.

The victims of an 18-year-old Sudanese refugee who pleaded guilty to a string of assault charges over a rampage injuring at least six people with weapons including a metal pole.

The 9YO girl indecently assaulted in Adelaide Febuary.

The 21-year-old mother of two was raped several times BY "Mohammad Elnour, 19, Mohammad Zaoli, 22, and Akoak Manon, 19"

The victims of Esmatullah Sharifi, 30, who appeared in the County Court for the second time in less than three years on a charge of rape.

The Cap't of the ship going to Singapore who was forced to go to Australia by the 67 refugees he rescued.

The 3 victims of the 86 YO man in WA again for indecent assault
A few of the people had the audacity to claim because we were tortured that is why we did it.
There are people that will disagree with you.

Belly in the above that might seem a small number by comparison to the number of refugees but consider 1) The public will not be told of every incident 2) How many crimes have been committed but the perpetrator not caught yet or witnesses too scared to come forward.

SPQR Quote " that group is to a large extent funded by state and federal govts. " -
David Manne, the human rights lawyer who successfully led the appeal against the federal government's Malaysia solution, with his Melbourne-based Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre receiving $4.13 million since his High Court victory in August.
THAT FIGURE IS CRIMINAL IN ITSELF when Australian citizens have trouble getting legal aid.
Don't forget Attorney-General Nicola Roxon wanting to stop the case against Slipper after costing $700,000.

Con't
Arjay - Quote " Refugees are not a threat to our country "
Now lets get to the financial cost which can have a direct effect on other things.
Legal aid bill in excess of $60 million.

Our navy ships (taxi) which are now in need of multimillion dollar services due to the extended duty in picking up refugees NOTICE I SAID PICKING UP RATHER THAN STOPPING THEM.

The $4.? Billion dollars for the current scheme (which is not working)

You won't be able to get the figure but it would be hundreds of Millions of dollars for our navy and border protection be out everyday looking for them (they can't stop 1 so why have them out there)

All of these things take money away from Defense and other services.

What about Culturally do you think 95% men on most boats are going to improve our way of life not when they are still on welfare after 5 years.

Thanks all I found common ground with every post bar arjays.
Indeed Roxon calmed me a bit, this morning on ABC she said governments right to continue to detain the single refugee involved is not challenged.
But it is my view 80% of us, both sides, think much alike on most issues.
And that, had he not introduced work choices John Howard would still be Prime Minister.
I DETEST left Lawyers! am sure most of that 80% do.
I doubt high Court Judges down to bush Magistrates care, or are even interested in mainstream wants and wish,s from the Law.
SPQR, it could very well be your side you will rebirth Malaysian solution.
I get no joy in conceding the election,this far out, without leadership change on my side.
And warn it if it takes place, it will, on your side we are road kill.
We have put less than 100 on the Island, it will not work until and if, our Christmas Island and the rest, bases are near empty.
Any one see that happening?

Belly - It won't happen because in the last 1.5 months over 3,500 refugees have arrived that is way more than the capacity of both places.
As of about 5 days ago the government started moving them to the Australian mainland in WA and VIC.

Score so far Smugglers 3,500 x approx $9,000 - Government approx 25 returned home with cash in pocket.

Smugglers are winning hand down.

It's amusing how the ones who squeal the loudest how terrific, fabulous and the very, very best Australia in the world is, which is why they think everybody wants to come here, are then so dismayed when they see the very workings of a democracy with a Westminster system doesn't act like any old dictatorship.

Australia's judiciary is separate from government. That's what keeps governments from acting only in their own interests, or rather, the interest of the governing party of the day. Erosion of this separation and indendence is the biggest threat to a democracy.

Australia's legal system follows the British legal system-Common Law. Nothing is set in stone. What appeared to be fair and reasonable in 1900's may no longer be in 2012.

Australia is part of the international community. Neither side of politics advocates isolationism. We trade with, we travel to, we send soldiers to other sovereign nations. We are going to be affected with consequences. Good and bad.

Philip's argument is stuck in gear. Malaysia should have been in operation, years ago , but with abbott's wisdom insisting on Nauru, nothing has changed. We are in a different environment than in 2010.
Refugees are on the move from about one third of the world.
Law courts are contesting all legislation, and finding holes.
Until amendments are made to law, and contested again, it's going to be tough going.

Yvonne as you will be aware opinions are free, but not compulsory.
Reading between your lines, re sending troops, I may take this opportunity to remind you, not every one agrees with any of us.
Phillip, you overlooked the driver to my post.
I too think the Islands solution will not work, temporary protection visa or not.
BUT I do think if Abbott let it, [a reason he will not] Malaysia would work.
Right now, thanks in part to Alan Jones exceeding any limits, crying Wolf and slandering truth, are out of fashion, Abbott,s replacement WILL STOP THE BOATS
And Malaysia looks the only answer, ten maybe 4 plane loads in a week? say next week?
It ends bank on it.

Belly - Malaysia is the worst thing
we get 4,000 people which our taxpayers have to support.

We give them 800 people which our taxpayers have to support.

Just to get rid of the 3,500 we would have to take 17,500 from Malaysia

THEY WILL KEEP COMING BECAUSE WE SUPPORT THEM IF THEY STAY IN INDONESIA OR MALAYSIA THEY GET NOTHING NOT ONE RED CENT. Basic economics.

579 - Quote "Philip's argument is stuck in gear." My argument is not stuck what it points out is Labor want to appear to be doing something about the problem WITHOUT actually doing anything.
After all why do they have our navy on permanent patrol and all they do is Indonesia use them to pick up refugees 45KM from there land and 370KM from ours. Only 1 time in the last 4 years can I remember the ones picked up by our navy being returned to Indonesia the others were always bought to Australia.
Nearly all the "so called "rescues are well into Indonesia's search and rescue zone.
OUR Government is WEAK

I'll now defend my statements on refugees being the least of our worries.

Every year we have an average growth of 3% + inflation of 3%.The money supply + inflation is 6%.We have a $ 1.2 trillion GDP economy. 6% of $1.2 trillion is $72 billion.We borrow most of this money from foreign private banks.ie they own our productivity and loan it back to us as debt.We are their debt bitches.This is why the world is in so much debt.

China let the private banksters in for a while but still produce 80% of its new money debt free ie( or as a tax credit for it's people)China was expected to roll over in 2008 to the bankster criminals of Wall St but stood it's ground.This is why China is now been demonised by the Western Oligarchs.

Do refugees cost us $ 72 billion pa plus interest?
It is our wars of imperialism which is creating these refugees.If third world countries were not imprisoned by our debt system of money creation,they too would enjoy prosperity which we are rapidly losing.

It really is time that the public were given a method of both Veto on the appointment of judges, & a method of removing them when they turn out to be ratbags, or are too far from the desires of the majority in their interpretations.

It does seem that their appointment goes to the heads of far too many of these people appointed for life. At very least a maximum term of 4 years, with only one reappointment allowed should apply.

I like the idea hasbeen it should include lower and local courts to.
One of the times my job saw me give evidence for the police, a magistrate heard evidence that the offender was in Scotland!
On holidays in? the Magistrates home town.
7 police officers, 3 recovery crew and my team of road workers watched a very guilty person be acquitted.
Arjay, by now your thoughts are well known,even considered.
I can not talk for other but your views on America and the western world are not something I believe or can digest.
I proudly oppose your anti western stand always.
And ask this question of every one.
ASIO has it a roll in keeping SOME out of Australia.

<< China let the private banksters in for a while but still produce 80% of its new money debt free ie( or as a tax credit for it's people)China was expected to roll over in 2008 to the bankster criminals of Wall St but stood it's ground.This is why China is now been demonised by the Western Oligarchs.>>

I can’t testify as to the veracity of the above, but I can tell you how China solved its “asylum seeker” problem.

A number of decades back China started receiving ,by land and sea, a stream of “asylum seekers”.
Practically all of whom were ethnic Chinese claiming they had been badly treated in other parts of Asia.
(and being ethnic Chinese one would have thought not difficult to assimilate into Chinese society --unlike some from the Middle East)

China said “Ok we’ll give you asylum”
BUT, BUT, BUT
You won’t be going to the big lights of Guangzhou City we’ll be resettling you out in the boondocks

Strangely enough, soon after the stream of “asylum seeker” to China dried up –and most of those already in China sought resettlement to more gullible climes like OZ where, on arrival, they'd qualify for a ticket to the big lights, with all the trimmings.

Well worth remembering when the usually sources parrot the usual lines about:
<< Australia is part of the international community>> and “what will the neighbors think if we get tough on illegal immigrants ”

Belly,
You and I agree that the illegals are shonks and they have to be stopped from coming here. I had doubts about the Malaysia scheme, but was willing to see it tried. However the courts settled that.

In this latest court decission, the government needs to move quickly to plug the hole that is exposed.

If the government is serious it should implement ALL the recomendations immediatly and then even tougher measures if necessary.

Because the illegals believe we are soft, it may take even tougher measures to stop them than before. But stop them we must.

I still think legal aid should be reserved for Aus citizens only.

You still haven't a single clue about finance, do you Arjay.

>>China let the private banksters in for a while but still produce 80% of its new money debt free ie( or as a tax credit for it's people)<<

According to the most recent figures, China's Public Debt is 43% of GDP.

http://www.indexmundi.com/china/public_debt.html

This compares to Australia's Public Debt, which is 30% of GDP.

http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/public_debt.html

But still you tell us that...

>>We have a $ 1.2 trillion GDP economy. 6% of $1.2 trillion is $72 billion.We borrow most of this money from foreign private banks.ie they own our productivity and loan it back to us as debt.We are their debt bitches.<<

If that makes us "debt bitches", how would you describe China's position, relative to debt?

Face facts, Arjay. You haven't the faintest idea how economies work, how Banks work, or how government finances work. Yet you still churn out the same meaningless gibberish at every turn. What on earth motivates you to display your profound ignorance to us all, at every conceivable opportunity?

Your information sources are, I believe, seriously light on fact. Read more widely, and you will understand more. Here are a couple of articles about China's economy that you may have missed.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/03/china_s_debt_bomb

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2012/02/26/how-will-china-pay-off-its-debt/

You might notice the complete lack of phrases such as "private banks [who] own our productivity and loan it back to us as debt", and instead such gems as "The 16.3% calculation excludes Beijing’s 'hidden liabilities.' Once you add them in, China’s debt-to-GDP ratio increases to somewhere between 90% and 160%. And if you believe Beijing has been overstating its GDP recently—it has, at least starting from the last quarter of last year—China’s ratio approximates Greece’s 164%."

But I expect you will once again implement your fail-safe avoidance tactic, which protects you so efficiently from hearing reality.

Have a great day, with your head stuck firmly in the sand. Or maybe it's somewhere else, similarly dark and unpleasant?

At least arjay now sees I am not biased against him.
Well Malaysia, the continuation of talks was part of the plan.
I TRULY thing it will work, if implemented as we heard it would, quick turn around arrival then depart.
Look, I do not mumble these words to offend, or to stab Abbott.
I HONESTLY, think the bloke is too negative, too politics driven, too personal achievement, the PMs job, driven.
He knows in my view Malaysia is the ONLY ANSWER IN SIGHT.
Further,in my honest opinion, he or his successor, will because of this, use it.
Turning the boats back would bring an international incident, they are not Indonesian.
Australia must not break the law of the sea, and we must not smack our neighbors in the face.

Hi there PERICLES...

You make me laugh, you really do ! You've this unique turn of phrase that I find both refreshing and downright amusing, and in this sorry ol' world of ours, a bit of humour is very much needed I reckon.

And how are you BELLY my friend ? In one of of you threads herein you stated '...I dislike leftist lawyers...' or similar words. My only dissent to that statement is, I dislike ALL lawyers, particularly those who happen to engage in matters associated with everything that isn't in accord with my own beliefs ?

I know, I'm merely trying to be funny...and apparently failing miserably.

YVONNE made some interesting points too, apropos the seperation of the Judicary and Parliament. And in my opinion, she's quite correct. True, the High Court does have it's place, and that's not necessarily to support popular opinion, rather to carefully elucidate and interpret law. And by so doing, equitably apply that Law, if and when the Court deems it necessary.

It's incumbant upon the Legislator's to carefully draft legislation, in such a way, that it closely reflects the will of government. And of sufficient precision and fidelity, the High Court can't establish fault with it.

And in conclusion, I don't 'think' the Malaysian Solution will necessarily work BELLY ? It's the arithmatic of the whole deal that I find troubling - we send over 800, they return 4000 ? Anyway, we'd soon reach the point of 800, don't you think, and then what happens ?

Another 800 for yet another 4000 ?

Cheers.

O sung wo/Phillips S lets do the maths.
And place our selves around the negotiating table.
Fact one Malaysia is part time home to thousands of refugees, more than this country.
Indonesia is too, most are not from those two country's, and, in truth not wanted there.
Do we agree so far?
A regional solution, one involving all our neighbors, needs wins for all sides, not just us.
And end to boats, MAY be the driver to less refugees traveling via those two countrys.
Do we agree.
Now those in Malaysia are MOSTLY no potentual boat people, mostly sitting and waiting for legal settlement for up to ten years.
Any one think differently.
Our win?
800 soon after getting here [within a month?] end up in Malaysia.
They, needing a win too, get to see the end of? 4.000 long term stayers.
Yes it could take three 800,s three 4.000,s.
But it would work.
Who would come at what costs to be sent back to start.
IF if worked a bonus,for us Malaysia and Indonesia, far less refugees, trying it on.
Those who fail to see the recent returns for what they are, proof no ones life was in danger are blind.

Pericles the USA Public debt is more than 100% of GDP.The US Fed has off balance sheet transactions of $16 trillion.Are they going to add that to USA public debt.China is holding US private debt of a $ trillion or more.Now QE3 will be open ended.Who are you fooling? When the derivative market collapses hyper inflation will follow.Google Barnaby is Right and explain how our banks can have a $15 trillion derivative exposure with only $2.66 trillion in assets of which many are loans based on inflated property values?

Which country has real productivity backing it's money and debt? The West has little manufacturing and is totally consumed by debt and your worthless derivatives.

China in 2008 refused to let the Western Banksters to further erode their sovereignity that is why the Banking Military Industrial Complex is now demonising them.China has won the peace while the Western Imperialists now contemplate nuclear war.

Prattle on some more Pericles.It is quite amusing.

The job of the High Court is to 'make judgements about the Law'. The reason for separation of powers as Yvonne refers, is to avoid situation of absolute power to any one sector of the the groups that maintain governance within Australia.

http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fss/fss35.html

Fact is the decision by the High Court does not necessarily affect parliamentary decisions as revealed in the recent Chaplaincy in Schools ruling. The government can move to amend legislation if it sees fit.

One of the problems with ASIO vetting procedures (and I believe it is the same for security vetting for asylum seekers) is there is no right of reply or ability to contest supposed claims. This issue has nothing to do with refugee policy per se. It is more about the fact that any one organisation should have complete power over this process. Seemingly goes against principles of ability to defend oneself (or through legal process) in the face of 'unseen' or 'secret' reports.

It is however, perfectly reasonable to refuse a visa for asylum status should the person be deemed through fair process as unfit for citizenship eg. mass murderer, serial killer etc. Also, reports show the government has, or is about to, implement a review process to ensure the security vetting is as transparent as possible.

pelican I found nothing to disagree with there.
I understand it all, my concern is when, an it happens too often, green/left Lawyers take governments to court.
Surely after a win, as they had in Malaysian Solution, they over rule both government and majority intentions.
I admit, after putting this thread up, my fear this ruling may see an unwanted person set free in the Australian community has been proved wrong.

A couple of issues about the above:

1) I don’t think anyone is bemoaning the Westminster systems separation of powers –though a couple of posters have tried to sidetrack things and make that an issue – what we’re are protesting is that some lawyers (often in receipt of public funding) or activist judges will through some obscure technicality seek to have a law interpreted in a way it was never intended , AND

2) I at least, have a further concern: what happens later –after we have determined someone is a security risk?
The story goes they are held till we find some other country willing to take them. But does anyone (in their right mind) seriously believe that we are going to find a lot of takers for those we have found a * security risk*? What is much more likely to happen is that they will stay in detention until some time down the track when one of the abovementioned lawyers or activist judges or the Greens (or a combination of all three) will find some loop hole or UN covenant that makes it illegal to detain them, and have them released into the community (and not beyond the realms of possibility, with a huge compensation for having been illegally detained.)

SPQR valid concern, maybe we should change the laws.
And as on this occasion it is likely the detainee is Tamil Tiger, we could well send him/her home.
A regional solution, should have in its final charter a rule letting such folk, EVERY TIME when arriving without papers, to be returned.
We should make it an offense to arrive without papers in almost every case.

SPQ
Nobody was 'trying to sidetrack' the issue. It is the issue as Belly had asked the question as to who is running the country. Fact is we do have separation of powers for a good reason.

Not again Arjay, please.

>>Google Barnaby is Right and explain how our banks can have a $15 trillion derivative exposure with only $2.66 trillion in assets of which many are loans based on inflated property values?<<

As I have said, many times before, our banks do not have a $15 trillion derivative exposure.

Let me say it more slowly, so that you can keep up.

Our

Banks

Do

Not

Have

a

$15 trillion

Derivative

Exposure.

Maybe you find it easier to understand if I said it backwards.

Exposure derivative $15 trillion a have not do banks our.

French?

Nos banques n'ont pas d'exposition aux produits bancaires dérivés.

Please, let me know how I can phrase this simple fact in a way that you can understand.

To refresh your memory, I explained it to you this way, last time you made the very same error:

You are a bookie at the races. You take a trillion bucks at even money for the horse "My Nag" to win. You take another trillion from punters betting on the other horses in the race to win. "My Nag" wins. How much is left in the bookie's satchel?

According to the arithmetic used by both you and Barnaby, there should be two trillion dollars floating around somewhere.

But there isn't, is there? Where can it possibly have gone?

Sadly, the same level of credibility attaches to all the other guff you write. Perhaps if you managed to get just one thing right, more people would listen.

Fat chance, though, eh?

So who do we believe Pericles,you or Barnaby Joyce? Even if their ie(our banks) deivative exposure is $ 1 trillion we are all in big trouble.

Pelican ,

<< Nobody was 'trying to sidetrack' the issue…>>

Yes you were Pelican, you can’t pull the wool over my eyes.
I was looking through your webcam this morning when you wrote in your diary: “My dastardly deed for today will be to sidetrack Belly’s thread”
And I was waiting for yah.