Fox,

You are wrong and the site (The Diplomat) you enthusiastically recommended -but now are ignoring because it disagrees with you- is right.

So what about going to the original source, the Migration Act - which is very little different from others countries? Wikipedia says, <Illegal immigration in Australia is defined by the Migration Act 1958, which distinguishes between "lawful non-citizens" (those in Australia holding a valid visa) and "unlawful non-citizens" (those without a valid visa)>.

The scam is up for all of those economic migrants and criminal scoundrels who come in under the radar (quite literally), even putting their children in boats to secure their own selfish future, a lifetime supported by Centrelink in most cases.

It is noticeable that your cherry-picking didn't select the ABC's Fact-Checker, which you would be chortling about if it did support your opinion. Mais non! The ABC Fact Checker confirms that illegal is the correct descriptor.

<Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa
Updated 13 Sep 2013, 10:22am

Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa.
PHOTO: Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa. (AAP: David Crosling)
MAP: Australia
During the election campaign, asylum seekers have been referred to as "illegal arrivals" who "turn up illegally" on "illegal boats".

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison was asked about his use of the term at a National Press Club debate on September 3.

"I've always referred to illegal entry," Mr Morrison said.

"It's the same term that's used in Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, on the convention on people smuggling which defines illegal entry.

"People have illegally entered Australia when they've come without a valid visa.">
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

The Human Rights Commission is not the arbiter of legal matters in Australia even though it sometimes presumes to be. The HRC was a political creation and it is known to take political sides, an example being the findings and rather obvious political timing of its recent highly contentious report.

The Human Rights Commission and so many other Quangos need to be scrapped and their functions devolved to the public service departments that are open to scrutiny and directly answerable to the Parliament through a Minister. Quangos are a useful way to avoid ongoing public transparency, scrutiny and accountability. First, the departments those unaccountable, cumbersome dinosaurs hang off should report on what crucial, measurable goals they serve that could justify further funding withing the department.

In the UK, the Taxpayers Alliance identified a whopping 1,162 quangos created by various political parties when in government. From the BBC, "The government reviewed 901 bodies - 679 quangos and 222 other statutory bodies. Of those 192 will be axed or their functions taken over by other bodies. The future of other bodies is still under consideration but 380 will definitely be kept". - No-one can figure how much they all cost with estimates "varying between £34bn and about £60bn".
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-11405840

Any wonder the federal bucket of taxpayers' money leaks like a colander and no-one can figure where it is all going.

Foxy: 88 percent of asylum seekers arriving by boat to this country have been found to be genuine refugees.

So were Monis, Lodhi, Khaled Cheinko, Moustafa Cheinko, Mahamod Ali Elomar, Abdul Rabib Hasan, (Hello Steelie,) Mahammed Omar Jamel, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, Omaerjan Azari & quite a few others.

How many others do you think we should let in?

The ones that are still in Detention & can't come to Australia have terrorist links.

Maybe the children can come without their parents, & grow up to be Law Abiding good Christian Citizens. ;-)

I see Paul and the other left whingers accusing TA of shooting the messenger and ignoring the report. Let's look at the messenger, the UNHCR executive committee and guardians of human rights includes representatives from:----Iran, Somalia, Rwanda, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen, Zambia.---And is renowned for putting out reports that try to equivocate the actions of the established democracies with the horrors of the totalitarian countries.

Next let's review how the "report" was put together. Was there a scrupulous review of the evidence backed with inspections and reports from the government and other agencies. Not at all. In a shameless episode of predetermination that would get a first year student failed, the report was cobbled together from a handful of activist organisations with a reputation for fabrication, and not a scrap of information from the government or institutions actually involved.

So should we take this piece of fiction seriously, or should we leave it to the Greens and other activists to use it to bay at the moon?

I'm not certain which HRC you are referring too, but the HREOC that I am thinking of is a statutory authority which is tasked on administering matters pertaining to the relevant conventions that Australia has voluntarily signed up too, in addition to the Australian made law which has been made by Australia in response to the requirement to implement relevant convention laws at a local level.

Thereafter, regarding so called "illegal entrants," it is an error to consider this determinative as regards whether or not offenders should be dealt with punitively, especially when dealing with legitimate Asylum Seekers.

If for example "illegal entry" measures are the only way for some to successfully flee persecution, and or if they are otherwise unwelcome in the place wherein they find themselves, then it is still (obviously) permissible to seek Asylum by "illegal" means and why? .. Because what matters is escaping persecution and reaching safety, and not your tin pot little laws and your silly little pieces of paper.

As for terrorists in the mix, well, if I was a terrorist I would certainly use each and every opportunity to get up you like a rat up a drain pipe, and thereafter, if I was put in the bin for acts of terror and regardless of whether my wife and child wished to join me, the privilege would not be afforded to them.

But, if I do not misrecall, ASIO has said it needs but 30 days to do its thing, and children do not generally go from being "relatively healthy" (despite their prior ordeals) to banging their heads on the walls and committing acts of self harm overnight.

And therein the length of time for processing in and of itself can be a most critical thing. The coalitions lapse in this regard is obviously not acceptable visa vi the significant medical risks.

On balance, all factors considered, under the rules and conventions agreed to by all participating State parties:

Thumbs down from the UNHCR,
Thumbs down from the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and
Thumbs down from the UN SPECIAL RAPPOTEUR AGAINST TORTURE.

Shadow, your man Abbott seen fit to attack the President of our Human Rights Commission Gillian Trigg over her report, and I am not going to try and justify the political intrigue between the woman and the former Labor Government. When it comes to the treatment of asylum seeker both Labor and Liberal have blood on their hands.
The UN report was complied by Juan Mendez, a preeminent person with world standing on these matters. Yet you make no reference to Mendez at all. When a person of such standing puts his name to something I think it would be wise to take notice. If its content is unpalatable do we just simply try and shoot the messenger again.