“One of the rights possessed by the supreme power in every State is the right to refuse to permit an alien to enter that State, to annex what conditions it pleases to the permission to enter it, and to expel or deport from the State, at pleasure, even a friendly alien, especially if it considers his presence in the State opposed to its peace, order, and good government, or to its social or material interests.”

The Privy Council a century ago stated the obvious. The government is absolutely correct in resisting the present hysterical campaign to conflate immigration control with the standards of the criminal justice system. Otherwise we would be creating a right in all foreigners to enter this country, which would be untenable.

Australians overwhelmingly understand this. Kevin Andrews’ critics do too, but pretend they don’t. The criminal justice system famously operates under the requirement that the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. It isn’t — it is much more than that. The defence lawyers’ lobby, with their various allies among the elites, have succeeded through activist judges and malleable politicians in moving the standard well beyond reasonable proof to the distinct disadvantage of the victims of crime, to a serious decline in law and order, and to the considerable benefit of both themselves and the criminal class.

Invest in the journalism that makes a difference.

EOFY Sale. A year for just $99.

SAVE 50%

This has been done by increasingly arduous rules on the admissibility of evidence, the excessively minute supervision of trial judges by the appellate courts and by neutering the concept that sane men and women are responsible for their acts. The result is that victims, for example those of rape, are now overwhelmingly disinclined to report this grievous offence.

What we are seeing in the Haneef affair is a ramping up of the campaign to hand over the control of immigration to the same elites. The calls for a judicial inquiry are of course pointless, and those making them know this — Dr Haneef has already initiated legal action. A Senate Inquiry, being one by partisan politicians, would be a useless waste of the taxpayers’ money.

But certainly let’s have a judicial inquiry. It should begin with the overturning by Paul Keating of Chris Hurford’s decision to deport Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali. And then it could go into the disastrous decision of the Fraser government, against advice, to set aside proper standards for entry from The Lebanon.

The rank and file would be outraged if the same elites who have done so much to debase law and order, mental health etc in this country got their hands on immigration. And as you can see, Kevin Rudd knows this too.

David Flint is author of Twilight of the Elites.

Save this EOFY while you make a difference

Australia has spoken. We want more from the people in power and deserve a media that keeps them on their toes. And thank you, because it’s been made abundantly clear that at Crikey we’re on the right track.

We’ve pushed our journalism as far as we could go. And that’s only been possible with reader support. Thank you. And if you haven’t yet subscribed, this is your time to join tens of thousands of Crikey members to take the plunge.

Peter Fray
Peter Fray
SAVE 50%