Foxy Quote "It appears that the Minister has the power to set aside
AAT decisions. Why isn't he considering to do just that,
at least on a case by case basis."

Where did that info come from, as you say, especially in the case of the 6 Iranians the public would be percentage wise very highly on his side if he did deport them.

Maybe he should have just cancelled there passports so they could not return, except by boat again.

The perception amongst many Australians is that the AAT simply rubber stamps refugee claims.

That about 99% of applications are approved by the AAT when <70% are approved by UNHCR procedures, and when there clear evidence of fraud by so called refugees their approvals are still upheld blows a huge hole in the credibility of the Tribunal.

Is the Tribunal pushed by the Lefties? I think so. Corrupt? Maybe.

Dear o sung wu,

Firstly may I apologise for not replying to your post directed at me.

You had originally written;

“STEELEREDUX states in his last paragraph; '...That is not to say people shouldn't become accountable for what they put on their applications for refugee status because it remains a vulnerable system open to fear mongering by our less then ethical right wingers...'?”

I will admit to not reading further at the time.

But you went on to address me directly which I had missed. You of course deserve a response which I am happy to provide.

Please permit me for taking the liberty of coalescing the issues you appear to have with my post. It would seem these are your points;

1. That fearmongering is not only the purveyance of the right but also of the left.

I fully agree.

2. That the use of court rather than tribunal would better inform the less attuned to the role of the ATT.

This I will agree to a point. I remember appearing before the AAT on a planning matter and presenting evidence to which the counsel on the opposing side objected. The adjudicating Member dismissed the objection saying the evidence rules were not as delineated as in a law court. In some ways the tribunal system more closely reflects the French inquisitorial system rather than the British adversarial one.

Cont..

Cont..

3. That something could put one in fear of one's life to such an extent that living in a country would be perilous but visiting vastly less so.

I think a good example might be those who were local interpreters for the 'coalition of the willing'. Many knew that some day or night there would be a knock on the door from those who wished to do them or their families harm. As I stated earlier the risks involved in living in a fixed abode are vastly different to a short term visit. I have no problems with the veracity of original refugee claims being re-examined if new evidence comes to light. What I am more concerned about is that after being tested by an independent body such as a tribunal that that decision should be honoured.

I respect the checks and balances we have to political power. The fact that so many of Dutton's decisions are being overturned probably speaks more to the punitive nature of his department's actions than any issue of bias within the AAT. In China the easiest way to get rid of someone they don't like is to accuse them of corruption. Their courts have a 99% conviction rate. Do we really want that for Australia? This is what people seem to be calling for.

It's hard to know what powers the Immigration Minister has when his decisions can be overturned by the AAT, made up of Left, un-elected Fifth Columnists. It is the AAT overturning the Minister's decisions - nearly 5,000 in one year!

All the Minister has said is the they will have to 'make laws' to prevent this from happening. Fat chance of any such laws passing through the also Fifth Column senate.

Australia is rooted.