Scott Morrison is now a victim of his own triumphalism.



Having used every opportunity to trumpet the success of his
hardline approach to stopping the boats, the Immigration Minister alone
has determined that any arrival, under any circumstances, for any
duration, will be viewed as a sign of policy failure.




So, rather than risk being accused of weakness, the minister
is prepared to hand asylum seekers back to the very authorities they say
forced them to flee their homelands after what appears to be the most
superficial assessment of their claims.



"Enhanced screening" of claims for refugee status is an
imperfect mechanism at best when applied to asylum seekers who have been
taken ashore - and quite possibly in breach of Australia's obligations
under the refugee convention.




As the United Nations refugee agency has made plain, claims
for protection should be determined through a ''substantive and fair''
process to establish whether they may be at risk of persecution or other
human rights violations.



Asking a few questions and making a decision on the basis of
top-of-the-head responses hardly fits that description. But enhanced
screening is far more controversial, and far more problematic, when
applied on the high seas to asylum seekers who are stressed, anxious and
fearful.



In a sense, it is even more radical than turning back boats
that have set off from a transit country, because the asylum seekers
face return to the country from which they fled - the country in which
they say they face persecution.



Had Morrison not used every question time in Parliament to
taunt the Labor Party over its policy failures, invariably giving the
latest tally of how many days since a boat arrived (it was 200 days on
Monday), it would have been unremarkable for him to have the claims of
Sri Lankan asylum seekers assessed on Christmas Island.



But he has raised the bar so high that anything remotely nuanced seems to be off limits.



Had he not chosen to withhold information, on the grounds
that operations could be compromised, it would be far easier to
establish if Australia is honouring its obligations.



The minister's response is to say ''trust us'', but that is
not the way the system works, especially where people's lives are
involved. Transparency, accountability and checks and balance are all
essential, even where those in charge have earned the trust of those
they are supposed to serve.