Very happy that a decision I agree with was made by my government, not very common unfortunately
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
46 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
3583 readers
49 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well I mean, due to the separation of powers, the high court are separate from the parliament and the politicians. Just for the exact case of being able to decide against what a parliament had chosen. In this case you're still disagreeing with the governnent decision to indefinitely hold illegal immigrants, who in this case are legitimate asylum seekers, even while agreeing with the judicial process applying the constitution to that parliamentry decision.
Hope that helps reconcile your feelings since you can rest assured your still disagreeing with part of the government.
Actually I'm not sure which part you agree or disagree with. The decision that it's unlawful to indefinitely detain them is pretty trivial. Basically not much changed.
Ms O'Neil said the government aimed to have legislation passed to re-detain the cohort by the last day of sitting, currently scheduled as December 7.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
All seven justices of the High Court were of the opinion that indefinite immigration detention for people with no prospect of deportation was unlawful, according to reasons published by the court this afternoon.
The decision centred on the case of a Rohingya man, who had been in immigration detention after serving a sentence for child sex offences and could not be deported.
The ruling was handed down earlier this month, and overturned a two-decade-old precedent effectively allowing indefinite detention.
The High Court’s reasons show the judges decided to overturn that case from 2004 because they found it was “incomplete and, accordingly, inaccurate” in suggesting that indefinite detention was lawful because it made someone available for deportation at some later stage.
The judges said the principle couldn’t apply if other countries weren’t prepared to accept someone Australia wanted to deport.
The original article contains 139 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The original article contains 139 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 0%.
Solid effort!
To be clear, that's a bug. The actual article is much longer.