Transcript
BILL HODGE: They put that into statutory law, in terms of federal court and federal courts are the ultimate arbiter in terms of the entry rights and so on then it does become the highest law in Australia and you would end up with a two class New Zealand citizenship i.e. some that could enter Australia and some who couldn't but on the other hand there's some people with criminal convictions so this is another class of that sort except these people in theory have done nothing wrong. What I think Australia is doing is trying to slam the door shut as resoundingly as they can to send a message to put their view on it, and I'm not saying I'm defending it, but their view is 'we want to send a message to the smugglers, the ones who are making inhuman profit from these suffering people to protect our legitimate pathway to asylum, legitimate refugees who get in the queue and wait patiently so we're excluding and we're sending the firmest possible message that the exclusion is absolute and permanent to the queue jumpers'. That I think is the way they would explain it.
DON WISEMAN: Yes, and they can make that sound noble can't they but...
BH: I've done my best to make it sound good and maybe I've made it sound better than an Australian could but put it this way I sound like an Australian politician but that's the way I would spin it to say that we're slamming the door and making it absolutely clear that none of you suffering people can ever get in so don't even think about it, don't even think about paying money to those smugglers, that's what the Australian pitch would be.
DW: Well it's going to result, according to people like Julian Burnside who's an eminent Australian lawyer and refugee advocate, it's going to result in split families because there are already members of these families in Australia.
BH: Well exactly, and that's one of the consequences and I agree that one of the consequences will be permanent families left asunder and that's another aspect of this tragedy and I'm not saying that's a good answer but what Australia is trying to do is to shut off the tap at the source so that you don't end up with the split families down the road, they're trying to keep the families together at the outset so if the family has a legitimate asylum pathway this is what the Australians would say, the whole family takes that legitimate asylum pathway. That would be the best possible spin I can put on the situation, even though yes given the people already in motion, already at Manus Island, already on Nauru, too late for them, they're going to be suffering for the rest of their family existence.
DW: Have you seen anything like this before?
BH: Never have I seen another jurisdiction, there may be some informal practices elsewhere that I'm not aware of, I wouldn't be surprised. Probably somewhere in Europe right now there are practices similar in terms of Syrians trying to sneak across the border into Hungary and Poland, Czech Republic and so on, I don't know that any of those countries have put it into legislation, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are turning people away at the border in one way or another but I've never seen it in law, I've never seen it in a Western jurisdiction so overtly put in to the legal system.
DW: Could you see it withstanding international scrutiny?
BH: I can certainly see it being called in to international scrutiny and I can see international court being critical of Australia but in terms of the Australian legal system, commonwealth statutes within their jurisdiction are supreme law and of course they would have this defence, if I were them I would simply say but we are protecting asylum seekers, we are protecting legitimate people seeking refuge in our jurisdiction, we warmly welcome legitimate people who so justly and richly deserve a good place to live and bring up their family but the queue jumpers are not in that category and we're protecting the legitimate ones by permanently excluding and sending a message, that would be a pretty effective argument I think in the international forum.
