Jennifer,

My views are based on the fact that human trafficking by boat is killing people. The evidence is certainly there in the estimated 150 people dead in the last few months. The obvious conclusion is that reducing the number of boats reduces the risk of related deaths.

Secondly, as I have posted previously the Pacific solution directly correlates to a 1/50 drop in boat traffic, and subsequent 50x increase. This is not conjecture, but documented fact. Given the high degree of correlation, statistically, (my maths background) gives a greater than 99% confidence that even if the pacific solution is not the only factor, it is the single most important factor in change of numbers.

Saying that you don't accept the premise without offering a viable alternative is like saying you don't accept the premise that the earth is not the centre of the universe.

If my views appear entrenched, it is simply because when it comes to persuasion, facts and figures weigh more heavily than personal values and feelings, however commendable.

The real irony of the situation is that the humanitarian urges that led to the relaxation of the immigration policy and subsequent surge in boat arrivals, is the reason why the boat was off Christmas island in the first place, and their deaths, just a simple unintended consequence.

The intention of the pacific solution is not to have the deaths in the first place, so your proposal to use them as an example is paradoxical.

Jennifer, I get it about the laws in Australia - how could I not after reading this discussion?
What you skate over, or do not answer is the requirement that people fleeing their country of origin for whatever reason, must stay in the first country they reach, not take airplanes to where they can hire a boat to reach Australia many thousand miles from their homeland.
I also don't understand your lack of compassion for genuine refugees caught in the hopeless detention system, but instead advocate for leaky boat types?
You know - say it over and over, that Australia will not withdraw from the UN treaty, nor will we change our laws because that would make us look very, very bad.
You would also know very well that voters are not kept informed enough, as opposed to politics, about the state of any affair in Australia to make really informed decisions when voting which might actually give politicians pause for thought. Even if we were, our voice is comprehensively ignored by politicians once they reach their goal of government.
So, if you can't change it - the laws or system, why not put forward some practical policy ideas which might be looked at and indeed, might help genuine refugess, like expanding our humanitarian intake instead of railing at Shadow Minister - whom I agree with more than I do you?
Finally, whilst I have little or no faith in politicians of any shade, I do think your comment about people who disagree with you not minding a little dying is callous in the extreme.
People like myself hate death and dying whether it be in floods, by fire or of illegals who have no business trying to force themselves on us in leaky boats.

Actually, the reason why the boat was off Christmas Island in the first place is because the passengers were seeking asylum in a country that announces to the world that it offers exactly that.

I have offered a viable alternative. Here it is again:

If we aren't a country of asylum, asylum seekers won't try to come here. That will stop the drownings, in our waters at least.

I have yet to hear from you why you don't consider that to be a viable alternative.

As I understand your argument, it is that incarcerating a smaller number of people indefinitely now, will save incarcerating a larger number of people indefinitely in the future.

Your only method of addressing the issue of boat arrivals is to treat those who survive the journey as harshly as possible, because you believe statistically that will prevent others.

As we do with criminals.

Except the asylum seekers aren't criminals. We invited them to visit and to stay.

Your statistical solution fails the moral and ethical tests, as well as not having been conducted over at least decade, as recommended by authors of studies of global refugee movements.

The immorality of deliberately inflicting suffering on one group of people with the goal of teaching another group of people a lesson, is unacceptable.

1. The first immorality is extending the false invitation.
2. The second immorality is punishing those who accept the false invitation.
3. The third immorality is using the suffering you alone have caused in the first two immoralities, as a tool of instruction to others not to accept the false invitation.

I can only repeat my earlier post: we have no common ground, and this is a waste of time for both of us. You clearly have no intention of addressing the alternative I've offered many times.

The fact that you won't address this alternative, yet continue to accuse me of not offering it, makes me doubt your good faith, and question your intentions in persisting with this exchange.

Ibbit, I don't accept your disparaging description of boat arrivals as "leaky boat types."

I have met many such arrivals. They are human beings like you and me.

Have you ever met a boat arrival?

Neither do I accept your accusation that because I'm concerned at the moment with this debate about boat arrivals, I have no compassion for any other refugees. That's an insulting and erroneous leap.

Asylum seekers can move through as many countries as they like - it is only when they request asylum in one of those countries that they cannot then request asylum in any other country.

There are people in the world who do not mind a little or a lot of dying if it helps them achieve their purpose. I never implied you were one of them, Ibbit.

Governments are secretive, I agree with you. But on this particular issue anybody can become informed. Google will find you everything you want to know, for and against, so you can make an informed decision.

We should have the courage to look very very bad, instead of continuing to invite people then treating them cruelly when they accept the invitation.

Why should they suffer because we don't have the courage to look very very bad?

What does that say about us and our country? That we're cowards who'd rather damage others than lose face?

That we'll keep damaging others so we don't have to lose face?

"If we aren't a country of asylum, asylum seekers won't try to come here"

Funny, South Africa with its porous borders and shocking treatment of refugees (and non signatory to the UNHCR) has in the order of 10 million illegal immigrants with no access to welfare, schooling or even the legal right to work, which hugely contributes to its poverty and crime.

As for withdrawal from the UNHCR, the question is either one of extreme naivety or a red herring. The UNHCR for Australia is almost moot with respect to the boat people, as common law prohibits the repatriation of persons to where they might suffer harm. Once the refugees are on Australian soil, their prospects for remaining would not differ significantly.

As for my statistical analysis, the tests were done over 10 years and 20 years, (not just the years I posted for information) and the correlation results barely changes. All other significant changes could be linked to world events. However, none had the same dramatic effect on numbers, and there are no major world events that occurred in 2003 and 2008 that could provide an alternative.

Statistics and Mathematics do not inherently ethical or moral. If used correctly they produce the answers you need to know, not necessarily the ones you want to know.

Now I have answered your question, are you capable of providing any other explanation of why the boat arrivals decreased dramatically between 2003 and 2008? If you can't the premise for your entire argument collapses.

Ummm - I don't think my argument has to be defined by your criteria, Shadow Minister. Don't try to bully me into agreeing to your parameters.

I'm not presenting an argument based entirely on statistics. You are.

Your point about South Africa actually supports my position - even though the two situations are vastly different. No matter how awful conditions are for asylum seekers in SA, and they are, that doesn't stop them fleeing even worse conditions in an effort to have a better life.

If we are to learn from that experience we should conclude that treating boat arrivals badly here will not necessarily deter them from seeking a better life in Australia.

You seem to be saying that the only valid grounds on which to make decisions are statistical.

As I've said several times now, I do not accept that premise. We are complex beings. Statistics alone will not fully address our issues in any area. They are but one part, they are but one consideration. They shouldn't be excluded - but neither should they be the only factor in decision making.

And there are a lot of examples in government policy where they certainly are not a consideration.

Common law can be changed. It already has been by Howard when he excised the islands. Dead easy. Any government with an accommodating Senate can change any law.

I'm arguing that given our dishonest attitude to the boat arrivals, domestic law should be changed.

That would make their position once they arrived on Australian soil completely different.

We'd refuse to offer asylum because domestic law says we don't have to anymore. That means we'd pass asylum seekers safely on to countries that do offer asylum.

It doesn't mean we send them back into the danger they've fled. Why would we do that?

We already do our best to re-distribute many of those we've agreed are refugees - we ask New Zealand, Canada etc to re settle them, rather than offer resettlement here. What would be the difference?