An " Open Door " policy?

A ruling by the Australian High Court has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons when it comes to our security needs.   It singled out a Sri Lankan who arrived on a people smuggler's boat and applied for political asylum. Our migration people agreed that he met the criteria as a refugee, but an investigation by the Australian Security and Intelligence Organization ( ASIO ) considered that he posed a security risk, and as a consequence he was ordered to remain in a detention centre.

This High Court ruling seems confusing.   It seems to mean that because a person is declared a security risk, this must not stop the issue of a visa being granted.   It then creates a murky situation of a person with a valid entry visa being detained, but with that visa holding an authority that the person must eventually be allowed to  reside in this country.    The court did not impose a time limit for detention, nor rule on the matter of " indefinite detention ".

All forms of legality are full of loop holes.  In this case, the court was ruling on our obligations - as they are defined by that court - as expressed in the migration act.    If we do not like the implications arrived at by the court, we need to bring the migration act back before parliament - and change it to express the will of the parliament.   To do that, it will be necessary for the government and the opposition to reach agreement on a common intention.

ASIO has not released a finding on why it considers this applicant - known before the court as M47 - a security risk.   His home country was engaged in a long and bitter civil war and both sides are accused of committing atrocities.   It is quite possible that at war's end, some were not satisfied to leave the matter there and fully intend to remain active in the country to which they have migrated.    We would certainly not wish to  offer an " open door " policy to such people here in Australia.

ASIO is our designated " filter " to screen our migrant flow of undesirables.   By the very nature of it's activities it is essential that it's personnel remain largely anonymous and it's information sources are protected.   It is possible that on some occasions mistakes will be made.   The court system allows multiple avenues for those challenged to have decisions reviewed - and we often see this process drag on for years.

There is an old truism that says " If it " ain't broken - don't fix it ! "     In this case it does need fixing, because the High Court just threw a monkey wrench into the security filter system.    We do need a clear and unassailable barrier to stop those who pose a security risk from entering this country !