LF,

You have made the assertion previously that turning the boats around was the sole reason for the success of the pacific solution. However, this is at conflict with reality.

The total number of boats turned around was 9. 4 in 2001, 4 in 2002, and 1 in 2003. However, the massive drop in boat numbers coincided with this and the opening of Nauru. The number of boat arrivals stayed constant from 2003 to 2008 without a single boat turned around, with 4 boat people in detention in 2007 when Rudd took office. The fact that the boats started arriving in colossal numbers after 2008 kills your theory stone dead, as there was no change in boats being turned around whatsoever.

The main problem in the argument against Nauru is that at Nauru 30% were refused asylum (with only 43% making it to Australia), whereas when in Australia the number is initially 30% but the courts take a far more lenient approach and the final number is about 1%.

When everything that can possibly be said is said, by all sides and by the Immigration Department, by there is SM saying his bit again as if the last man standing wins. Congratulations on being the last man standing, SM.

We're beyond the question of where and the the important point now is that refugees understand they must await their turn to be resettled, wherever they wait. The focus of the Australian refugee industry would be upon Nauru, however, as it would be under Australia's direct control (oh yeah right, the Nauru gov't controls it, tee-hee). It would also be the most expensive solution with the need to renovate and augment the entire infrastructure and supply lines from the mainland on through. The per capita and total cost of the Pacific so called "solution" was immense.

Whatever results in the end, whether before or after the next election, it must not involve turning back boats, and it may be that Clive Palmer also has it right in suggesting allowing arrivals by air, although I don't think he's thought through the equity issues for refugees wallowing in wait for resettlement in UN camps around the world.

LF,

Again with the misrepresentations!

In 2007 the cost per asylum seeker in Nauru was estimated at $600 000. For about 100 people this comes to $60m. Compare this to the present detention system where the average cost of rejected asylum claims is costing $500 000 with close to 1300 p.a. What we have now is by far and away the most expensive.

The cost of "boat people" has increased more than 10x since the idiots ditched the pacific solution.

"Again with the misrepresentations!" The status quo is very expensive, I agree, but I was clearly saying the Nauru solution, going forward, will be the most expensive of possible offshore destination options.

Latching on to a few of my words, adding your own context, then claiming I am guilty of misrepresentation, that's vintage SM! Why use the whole truth when you can make the point you want with only half of it, eh?

SM, the essential difference between us is you support blocking refugees from seeking asylum by force, I don't, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Try advancing from your petty, closeted position to embrace the entire issue if you expect any further response from me, or stay on mantra if you want to remain irrelevant.

LF,

Half truths are your specialty. Perhaps you could try and point out where I have specifically proposed turning the boats around?

Your tacit approval of labor's policy puts you in the invidious position of supporting the Malaysian solution which is sending unaccompanied minors by force to be beaten in Malaysia.

SM,

1) You support the Pacific solution which incorporates the use of naval force.

2) You have defended the legality of using naval force when it is challenged by other posters.

Ipso facto, you support the use of force against asylum-seekers.

Why play ducks and drakes? Simply answer the following question "yes" or "no". There will be no response from me either way.

Shadow Minister, do you support the use of force to block the entry to Australia of asylum seekers?