How two lies became accepted folklore

3. Onshore Applications - For protection visas under the Refugee Convention. This is the only program that is legally binding and legislated by the parliament yet not one media outlet, not one politician besides Judi Moylan in a speech this year, has pointed it out to the public.

So, lie number one festers into a vile sore as we continue to jail innocent people who have the right to come and claim asylum here. Asylum seekers have the right to claim asylum and have their applications processed on-shore as evidenced by Justice Ron Merkel, in the Al Masri case:

62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.

63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an "unlawful non-citizen" under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a "right" conferred upon him under Australian law."

This has been upheld by the high court in the Al Kateb caseas Justice Gummow indicated in Al-Kateb at [86] ff:

"The current Migration Act, unlike its precursors, does not make it an offence for an unlawful non-citizen to enter or to be within Australia in contravention of, or in evasion of, the Act.

Further, as Justice Hayne observed in Al-Kateb at [207]-[208] the description of a person's immigration status as "unlawful" serves as no more than a reference to a non-citizen not having a "valid permission to enter and remain in Australia". The use of the term "unlawful" does not as such refer to a breach of a law."

Imagine how different the 'debate" would be in this country if one politician simply stated this truth and showed the leadership to believe in it.

Then we come to lie number 2, considered by Malcolm Fraser and rejected way back in 1976 when the first Vietnamese arrived – "People smuggling." We claim that providing transport for refugees is people smuggling even though the law of this country states that it is a legal right to arrive without papers of any kind and ask for help.

How can something that is legal for the refugees, possibly be illegal for those who give them nothing more than one-way transport?

In 1999 Ruddock introduced penalties for giving refugees transport to this country and in response the UN wrote and put in place two protocols against the trafficking of humans and the smuggling of migrants.

The first is concerned with the trafficking of mainly women and children for sexual slavery. The second is for the forced movement of migrants across borders to exploit them usually for labour or war, on an ongoing basis.