Shadow Minister,

your ludicrously simplistic and reductionist assertions about the success of the so called Pacific Solution have been analysed in many places, but try this one for a start. http://www.islandsbusiness.com

Then you could go on with your own research, if you had a real interest in the complexities of the situation rather than just bleating adolescent slogans.

Of course the boats are a business, but if you think those SIEV crews are the ones who get the big money, you're dreamin' again.

I note your parochial tunnel vision - apparently the only human trafficking that concerns you is the almost infinitesimal trafficking (comparatively speaking) between Indonesia and Australia.

The only sure way to stop asylum seekers is to change the domestic law, and withdraw from the Convention. Then we will cease to be a country that offers asylum, and nobody will bother making dangerous journeys to get to us.

What is your objection to doing this, I wonder? Why will no politicians suggest this, I wonder?

You all say you want to stop people dying in boats. Put your money where your mouth is, if that's what your goal is.

Interesting that none of you will, isn't it? Still trying to find ways around the laws, rather than changing them.

So what really is your agenda, given you won't take the obvious solution to your complaints?

Jennifer,

Firstly check your links before posting them.

Secondly, here are the stats on boat arrivals:

Fin Year..Arrivals by boat
1999–00.. 4,175
2000–01.. 4,137
2001–02.. 3,039 - Pacific solution introduced.
2002–03.. -
2003–04.. 82
2004–05.. -
2005–06.. 61
2006–07.. 133
2007–08.. 25
2008–09.. 1,033 - Pacific solution removed.
2009–10.. 5,609
2010-11.. 3,392 ytd

As a simplistic and reductionist engineer I am having serious trouble trying to find other change factors in 2003 or 2008 that can account for the dramatic changes in numbers. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck.

I have done my own research, and I can find no other explanation. If you could brush aside your fog of self delusion long enough to look at all the facts, you might find that while there are other push and pull factors, there is nothing else that can account for changes of such magnitude.

While human trafficking is a huge problem, only the trafficking between Indonesia and Australia is relevant to this thread.

As from withdrawing from the convention, why bother when a solution exists that complies with the convention.

There's a global ebb and flow of asylum seekers over decades. it's never consistent anywhere in the world. Why would you expect it to be consistent here?

Why do you want us stay in the Convention when it only encourages people to get on boats and risk their lives?

Why do you want us to have the domestic laws that only encourage people to get on boats and risk their lives?

I thought your issue was concern abut people risking their lives in boats, not Australia staying within the parameters of the Convention and keeping corresponding domestic laws.

They won't risk their lives if we aren't a country that offers asylum.

Why do you want to keep extending the invitation that will cause them to die in boats?

Wouldn't no invitation at all be a much more humane solution?

Why do you want them to be able to risk a journey to Nauru?

Bit cruel of you isn't it, given you also believe they are likely to die trying?

This sheila is lacking a brain. Why do you lot continue trying to get anything into it when there is nothing there?

David

Jennifer,

With statements such as

"Will he use the navy, and will they fire on vessels that disregard instructions, risking death and injury to asylum seekers and their children? In international waters?"I see a deliberate ignorance whose intention is to ridicule, but unfortunately is so ridiculous that it beggars belief.

Similarly "There's a global ebb and flow of asylum seekers over decades. it's never consistent anywhere in the world. Why would you expect it to be consistent here?" is such an understatement that either you are again being deliberately ridiculous or delusional.

A 98% reduction when the pacific solution is implemented followed by a 5000% increase when it is removed can hardly be covered by ebb and flow.

As for simply withdrawing from the convention, that is also pathetic, and deliberately ridiculous, and much easier than it sounds.

Libs love 'boat people'

Without them they would attract

Precious few votes