An excellent and very interesting analysis Graham.

Yes, Graham Young. The asylum seeker scandal is a huge vote loser for Labor. The question you should be asking yourself, is how is it that a political party which claimed to represent working and disadvantaged class Australians, could be so stupid as to implement a policy of open borders which was most vehemently opposed by the very voters it claimed to represent?

Hi Graham,

This is an interesting analysis and it confirms two issues. Firstly, that your respondents view the issue through a political/ideological perspective, which was its purpose.

The second is that because of this perspective, respondents seem to discount the common definition of the word (PNG) “solution”. Which is “An action or process of solving a problem”.

When the politics is removed a solution is something that solves the “causes” of a problem and not its “symptoms”.

When the focus is on symptoms, your solution inevitably becomes demand driven, the more and bigger the symptoms, the more and bigger your response has to be.

The nature of the ALP response and the diabolical dilemma into which they have driven themselves is best highlighted by Tony Burke who had this to say about the PNG Solution.

<< That the number of arrivals would “completely define” the scale of the accommodation. “And it completely defines the cost associated with it”>>
Source: The Australian, July 26 2013.

It’s quite simple, if the solution is demand driven it can never be a solution, just a source of more waste and indecision.

The problem is “boat arrivals” and not where to put the passengers after they arrive. We are yet to see what direct impact the PNG Solution will have on “the problem”. What we can observe is that this policy is already seen as having huge potential for negative and unintended consequences.

Risk of more deaths at sea, impact on stretched border security resources, social impacts on PNG and existing detention facilities, stressed relations with regional neighbors and socio-economic costs to Australians.

The negative responses from the commentariat to the Abbott proposals focus entirely on the political perspectives and yet, it is the only proposal on offer that tackles the source of the problem.

Eliminate some 15 departments/agencies to eliminate NGO/Activist/political/bureaucratic obfuscation, streamline the chain of command, issue TPV’s and turn back the boats where applicable.

Each aspect focuses entirely on targeting the problem and the ability to deliver the solution. No symptoms but a huge mess to clear up.

If women and children are not to be sent to Manus, then can we expect an increase in families coming by boat?
This has all the markings of a hugely expensive exercise in spin from Captain Chaos. I can imagine the ALP hierarchy (1) hoping that Rudd does manage to stem the wipe-out promised under Gillard and (2) that they will waste no time in sending him to the back bench as soon as the first post-election meetings are held.
Or perhaps an incoming Abbott government could offer him a job. Say as ambassador to PNG?

The problem facing Rudd is that people who want a tough approach to border control (the majority of sensible, hardworking Ozzies) don't trust that he will have the wherewithal to carry it through.

And people who want a soft approach (a small but vocal minority --backed to the hilt by a crusading ABC & SBS) will only vote for it as a lesser of two "evils".

This cartoon says it all.

http://media.stylespress.com/2013/07-2013/zeg-king-kevnute-1000x714.jpg

Big Kev's PNG solution is a joke, Having crowned himself Labor emperor, all he has is ego and couldn't organise a plss up in a brewery.

This is Dudd's version of the East Timor smoke and mirror election solution.