All
Interesting discussion.

o sung wu
"Don't they still retain normal appellant access to our Courts?"

No. Not if they apply offshore, that's the whole point. If they apply offshore and are rejected, even if they satisfy the definition of refugee, they have no legal recourse because being non-citizens, they have no right to live here. The Convention doesn't impose on signatories an obligation to accept refugees from anywhere in the world; it imposes an obligation on signatories not to send them back from inside the signatory country.

On the other hand if you satisfy the definition of refugee, apply *onshore* and are rejected, the courts will rectify the erroneous decision to reject, because the Convention gives you the right not to be sent back. The decision to reject is unlawful, because it's in breach of the Migration Act which incorporates the Convention into Australian law.

That's what's causing the entire issue. It's why they come by boat. Because once they get across the line into the migration zone, all of a sudden they've got a right for a factually meritorious case not to get rejected, which the courts will defend, even if they arrived illegally.

The problem isn't being caused by "people smugglers". It's being caused by the government.

Banjo, in telling us about corruption in those two country's you speak in terms belonging in the 1950,s.
As far as Australia is concerned.
We long ago joined in that practice, xenophobic of me but I think we learned that from past Migrations, we are as bent as any country.
You IMO are quite wrong, about those country,s not being concerned, not wanting an end to economic refugees.
They are part of a group seeking regional answers to this problem.
We MUST not become self defeating by not respecting other country,s rights, both these country,s have the ability in war to crush us.
Numbers, tell us that, but you and I talk in honesty of our concerns about the implications of some migration.
These country,s have the same right to be and are, concerned.
A post election look at how they are stopped will tell us who is right.

"A post election look at how they are stopped will tell us who is right"

It was working before Labor took government.

What Rudd and Gillard have done will make it infinitely tougher. Because there is an industry sprung up that employs an array of spivs, quick-witted lawyers and bureaucrats who earn their daily bread from spruiking free citizenship and providing services for illegal migrants. This industry is worth many millions every year.

Of course the electorate would prefer that the money is spent instead on such things as hospitals and so on. There is only a certain amount of money available from taxpayers. Wear your heart on your sleeve and dole millions out for benefits and legal appeals for illegal migrants by all means, but don't B.S. that the money appears by magic. It comes from taxpayers and it is diverted from other services the government is supposed to be providing.

Protest parties like the Greens don't care how it is to be paid for.

onthebeach, look, hopefully with an open mind.
No defense, Labor got it wrong, holds the blame for the MASSIVE INCREASE in boat arrivals.
But as a dam gives way one stone at a time , other things helped, one stone at a time.
Labor, perhaps it was Gillard, it bares her finger prints, a total muck up.
Said they would be fair, a stone falls more water comes.
Greens did what they do best, nothing of use, another stone, Abbott did his staring act, said no another stone.
Now today, right now, if Gillard, she does not have the wit, did every thing Howard did/Abbott says he will, it would not stop the boats.
But by just winning an election Abbott will slow the seepage, then by being far more crueler than Malaysia, stop them, thank you greens you sponsor Abbott,s cruelty.
Now IF Abbott wants to be part of the regional solution?
He will, not restricted by the dead and smelly breath of the greens hanging around his neck.
Talk to Malaysia.
Both party,s must put greens last on HTV.

How the feds spend our taxes:

Aussie floods
It is an election year so PM Julia Gillards deigned to tour the Bundaberg flood devastation and found it possible to give $1 million assistance. That will go to government salaries and to fixing government property. It is a cool $1M to advertising for Julia Gillard during her electioneering. So much for ethics.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-31/gillard-tours-bundaberg/4493706

'Asylum Seekers'
<The cost to the budget of staffing immigration detention facilities has ballooned by almost $650 million due to the large influx of asylum seekers over the past year, putting more pressure on the government to meet its surplus promise.

Combined with the $1.3 billion cost of increasing the annual humanitarian intake to 20,000 announced last week, the detention increase takes to almost $2 billion the extra costs to the budget unveiled in recent days.

Figures obtained by the Herald show that with 6803 people now in detention, the Immigration Department has had to reassess its contract with the private firm Serco, which staffs immigration detention facilities.>
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rising-cost-of-asylum-seekers-poses-threat-to-delivering-surplus-20120827-24wpy.html

Below is a link to tenders let by the main public agency managing 'asylum seekers'. Look at the large sums, because those millions are why there is an industry of advocates, lawyers and other leeches who benefit greatly and are ardent supporters of more 'asylum seekers' and more appeals for them.

https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.advancedsearch.keyword&keyword=immigration+AND+serco

It also explains why some are in favour of the over-enthusiastic immigration policies of the federal government. Quite simply, there is large money to be made from it.

Belly,

You think that Abbott will be 'cruel' if he can prevent people smugglers from risking the lives of more illegal migrants? It all comes down to values and priorities I suppose, but the charity of the Gillard/Greens government is never much in evidence at home.

In Queensland we still have families sharing housing with relatives because they cannot afford to fix their homes from the Brisbane floods two years ago. The small federal grant to the Qld govt was for repairing public utilities, public servant salaries (mainly) and some to fixing government assets.

Why don't you and your union mates (I say that kindly) have a look at the tenders I linked to above and start asking some pertinent questions about who really benefits from the taxpayers' money doled out in millions to 'asylum seekers' and for that matter to over-enthusiastic immigration policies?

Any wonder there is so much 'user pays' and additional taxes affecting the common working family. Labor isn't Labor. Labor policies continually serve and further advantage the intellectual elite that have the ears of career politicians. How lawyers must love Labor! That is where they get their big money from.