Yesterday the High Court extended an injunction to hear a legal challenge to the Malaysian people-swap deal. The full bench of the court in Canberra will now sit on August 22. The Greens maintain that whatever the court's decision later this month, the policy of expelling vulnerable people, especially children, is wrong and should be abandoned. Under the Refugee Convention, Australia has an obligation not to send people to a country where their safety is compromised.

I've travelled a lot in the past few weeks and have heard from many people who say they are appalled by the government's arrangement. As people become aware of what the policy actually entails - sending unaccompanied children off to Malaysia - they become uneasy with the proposal.

Everyday Australians know the Malaysian arrangement is inhumane and wrong, and opinion polls such as those run by Essential Media show support for it is decreasing. There's been plenty of criticism from across Australia and Malaysia to the policy, from human rights experts to lawyers and ordinary voters. Indeed, the only group to endorse it, aside from the ALP, is the Australian Christian Lobby.

The Greens' position is that it's wrong to try making an example of children already on Christmas Island who seek protection by expelling them to a place where they could be put in harm's way. Australia should not be using these asylum seekers as pawns to scare others from making the treacherous journey by boat. Every person has the right to seek asylum and every child has the right to feel safe. The risk of children and other vulnerable people such as pregnant women encountering dangers in Malaysia is too great. Their claims for asylum should be assessed here on the mainland.

Australia can also take the extra 1000 refugees a year from Malaysia for the next four years. Indeed, we should be accepting even more than this. Australia can restore some of the international goodwill it lost during the years of the Pacific Solution by increasing its humanitarian intake without having to sacrifice 800 asylum seekers. (Increasing the intake was something Opposition Leader Tony Abbott promised he'd do if he secured the support of independent Andrew Wilkie to form government in 2010, by the way. The Greens' policy is to increase the intake to 20,000.)

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen should use his role as the legal guardian of these vulnerable young people to ensure they are safe. He has a conflict of interest, however, because as well as being their guardian, he also decides whether or not to issue their visas or deport them.

The Greens say Minister Bowen should not abandon these children. He must ensure Australia honours its obligations as a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, protect these children and stop them from being flown to Malaysia.  Children should never be used to score political points.

First published in The National Times on August 9, 2011.

Yesterday the full bench of the High Court began hearing a challenge to the Malaysian solution.

The Greens hope David Manne and Debbie Mortimer, SC, and their legal team succeeds, not least because we do not want unaccompanied children to be expelled to a country where their rights cannot be guaranteed. It's not yet clear when the court will issue its ruling, but it could permanently derail the Gillard government's plans to export Australia's international obligations to give protection to countries including Malaysia and, possibly, Papua New Guinea.

The Greens and others, such as human rights groups, have for years lobbied against mandatory detention. We think there's a better way, one that's humane and compassionate, in handling some of the world's most vulnerable people. We do not support the policy of locking fragile people up as a first resort, when it clearly should the last thing we should do. Indeed, Australia is the only country in the world as signatory to the Refugee Convention that arbitrarily detains asylum seekers, contrary to what the convention suggests.

Whenever the major parties, or shock jocks for that matter, seek to attack asylum seekers and others who lack a voice, myself and the Greens will be there to stand up for them. We refuse to follow the ALP and Coalition in a race to the bottom.

I think the Australian electorate is sick of that competition. They're tired of both sides repeating the same mantras, using the same language - indeed the same policies - to confront what is a relatively small problem, compared with the volumes of people arriving on the EU's shores. The major parties' responses cost billions of dollars and damage lives unnecessarily.

Australians want alternatives to a policy of mandatory detention because it has failed to be a deterrent for people seeking our protection since it took effect in the early 1990s. They want their government to explore other paths, such as those outlined in the Centre for Policy Development's report A New Approach, Breaking the Stalemate on Refugees and Asylum Seekers released yesterday.

They want their elected representatives to show results for policies to deal with Australia's ageing population, how to provide more affordable child care options, and a national dental health scheme. In addition to finally ensuring the future of a healthy Murray Darling Basin, they'd also like to see their parliament amend the Marriage Act, so same-sex couples can get married and formally celebrate their commitment to each other.

Everyday Australians are eager to see their government deliver a mining tax that fairly redistributes the wealth from the present boom so it is invested here and not sent overseas. They fear the proceeds risk being squandered instead of funding essential public transport and other infrastructure. And what about a sovereign wealth fund, which Treasury has supported, to invest in future generations?

The major parties have created these problems with immigration and asylum seeker policy, which serve their interests. But we can solve them all with practical measures and confront other challenges that the community would prefer we concentrate on.

First published in The National Times on August 23, 2011.