Luciferase,

Yes, you're right - yes, we should kick up the refugee intake, and no, no government can afford to reward people for jumping the queue.

And yes, there is a queue, let's not talk rubbish about that: have some people had their names down for years ? And others for not so long ? And others for a very short time ? Then that's a queue.

On-shore processing would do two things: encourage more leaky boats; and presumably increase the pressure for early release of those processed into the community, which of course is quite proper for legitimate refugees. So the Green's non-solution would both give great heart to people-smugglers AND help people effectively jump the queue.

And the consequence ? Legitimate refugees who have had their names down for years would be pushed further down the queue.

So yes, how to make the option of getting on leaky boats as unattractive as possible ?

Malaysia is not a signatory to the necessary UN conventions, so that's out. Nauru is, so that's still an option. Are there other island nations who would be interested ?

Why an island ? Because focussing on mainland-based processing centres, in Asia or elsewhere, would complicate issues.

Even East Timor - because all people would have to do in that case would be to get to Indonesia, travel to its province of WEST Timor, cross the border, find the Australian-funded processing centre, put their hands up and claim refugee status.

That would cause all sorts of problems for the East Timorese if they were knocked back, and for Australia if they weren't.

In a sense, Nauru is the most heartless, but administratively-easy option.

And it won't go off the table soon.

Cheers,

Joe

LF,

Answers to your questions are:

1 Bump up the numbers of refugees by about 20% from 13000 to 15000 p.a.

2 We have to, only a sick bastard would consider sending unaccompanied minors to a non signatory of the UNCHR charter to be beaten. Even Julia promised not to do this in 2010. But I guess that was before the election and is just another lie.

3 Ship them to a UN supervised camp in a signatory country say in Nauru.

You know, SM, for the most part I consider your myopic input to be mere annoyance on this thread or any other. You are simply incapable thinking beyond the mantra or conceding a point of fact. The conversation has moved way past you so get out of the way.

Loudmouth,

I am, and hope you are, talking about not turning back boats by force.

I do think limiting ourselves to Nauru will only bring about problems and that once Question 3 is answered in the affirmative that any destination with UN blessing should be acceptable.

Luciferase,

There is a host of uncertainties about what might happen if Strategy A or Strategy B or whatever is implemented. But I'm hoping that once something like the Nauru solution is tried again, the boats won't leave their ports at all. Of course, if a boat is already on the seas, it can't be sent back once it has been confronted, that should be taken for granted.

I guess the premise of the 'Nauru Solution' is that the boats will stop coming once people realise that there is no quick way to get to Australia, that they can't jump the queue, that they will do their money for nothing AND risk their own lives and those of their children as well, so what is the point ?

After all, the premise of the 'Malaysian Solution' was something similar, that people would quickly understand the futility of trying to get to Australia by boat if they knew that for sure, they would be sent to Malaysia instead. The inconvenient problem with all that is that Malaysia is not a signatory to the necessary UN conventions.

But Nauru is. So why not ? If 'Malaysia' is okay for those supporters of the current government, then why not 'Nauru' ?

Joe

LF, I consider your myopic input to be mere annoyance on this thread or any other. You are simply incapable thinking beyond the mantra or conceding a point of fact, such as the Pacific solution reduced the boat arrivals by 96%, and the removal of the pacific solution increased boat arrivals by 5000%.

Likewise your hypocritical assertion that Abbott is blocking a solution to the crisis when you don't support the Malaysian solution, you direct none of your vitriol at the greens, and Juliar can have off shore processing tomorrow if she allowed the coalition's amendments.

I’ve always accepted that forcing unsafe boats back out to sea was a deterrent. IMA’s who got past that were happy to be taken to Nauru or to live under TPV’s which were likely to be made permanent with whole family groups involved.

If you look at my last dozen or so longish posts you won’t find me blaming the Mad Monk, but I am quite bilious towards Greens.

Labor compromised on Nauru but unless the ALP adopts Howard’s legislation, the coalition won’t “compromise” and even then I have doubt as the Mad Monk’s sole aim is to have the government in gridlock to improve his election prospects. That’s why I not blaming MM for the debacle this week as he’d only be culpable if he cared. Turning unsafe boats back to Indonesia, a non-signatory to the UN refugee convention, but voting against a contract between Oz and Malaysia on the basis of UN status is an indication of this, as well as the fact that under Howard’s solution with MM’s involvement, Nauru was a non-signatory.

Joe Hockey’s performance was stellar, I think he’d even convinced himself! Sarah, oh sad Sarah, she had ‘em bawling in the aisles.

I will never support turning boats away by force. My three “referendum” questions are predicated upon this. The offshore destination for IMA’s is not important, a multiplicity being perhaps the best solution. What is important to me is that IMA’s should not usurp the rights of those awaiting resettlement around the world and that we significantly up the refugee intake by setting a new annual total migration limit.