I can't work out their policy either. That's why I'm asking the question.

So far, we've had NOT ONE PERSON, who can answer the question.

That's not good for the coalition. I feel that after the dust settles their lack of policy will tell against them, and Mr Rudd will ram it home time and time again. Unfortunately, the coalition has shown itself to be utterly incompetent on the matter, and just like the 'people overboard' issue of a few years ago this issue will eventually be just another nail in the coffin of an incompetent coalition. We need a strong opposition. We're not getting that.

An incompetent coalition, such as we have now, is to Australia's detriment. We need better than that. We need people who can argue policy intelligently ........ that's what we're NOT getting. They "think" that by merely opposing, without putting forth policy, they'll gain political advantage without the spotlight being put on them. Well, that tactic has FAILED MISERABLY for the past several years. Australia deserves better than that type of incompetence.

TZ52HX: "That's not good for the coalition."

Are you saying that making their position clear would be better politics? If so I suspect Noah Sweat would disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_S._Sweat

And on this particular issue, I am with Sweat. Fulfilling your desire for clarity would be a mistake at this stage of the game. They are far better off waiting to see how public attitudes are modified by this current wave of asylum seekers, and then going with the flow.

but... but... but...

>>I can't work out their policy either. That's why I'm asking the question.<<

If you can't work out the government's policy, how can you be so scathing about the opposition's opposition to it?

>>That's not good for the coalition. I feel that after the dust settles their lack of policy will tell against them, and Mr Rudd will ram it home time and time again.<<

Surely, he'd be on pretty thin ice, criticizing an opposition for a lack of policy in an area where he doesn't have one himself?

Would it not simply draw attention to his lack of policy?

The general idea of a government is to implement policies. The opposition has no ability to implement anything. Surely therefore your anger (because that's what it comes across as) should be directed against the government?

If there is an election any time soon, the opposition will be required to articulate a policy, put it in front of the electorate, and be judged accordingly. There's absolutely no reason why they should allow the government to steal any bright ideas they may have on the subject, outside those parameters.

So if you want to lead a chorus of indignation against the government's appalling handling of the present controversy, I'm right behind you. I think it has illustrated perfectly the intellectual desert that Rudd and his team inhabit.

Which will come back to bite them, not the opposition..

"What is the opposition's policy";
It is so easy to understand I don't know why most of the posters on here have not realised what it is.

They know that a new policy, or a modification of the old policy will
be needed. They are not going to finalise it till a little while before
the next election. Why ? Because they do not know what arrangements
will be made between Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia.

Reading between the lines will tell you that the government are
looking at new arrangements with those countries.
Malaysia is the key as the passengers travel to Malaysia by air and
are then smuggled into Indonesia.
Indonesian immigration must be very successful in stopping
the trade at their borders or else they would fly direct to Indonesia.
However the present Oceanic Viking affair is settled it would be
stupid to announce a policy before all the above factors are
settled by the present government.

Does that make sense to you now ?

I will have a go at answering the question.
Not hard opposition policy on everything is blame Rudd.
Oppose every thing.
And even if he mirrors past policy's of the opposition blame Rudd
And oppose it.
No matter this single policy is self destruction.
Is highlighting lack of talent ,leadership, policy's, brains, keep the self destruction going.
Head long into the brick wall, back up and charge again.
Rudd however is getting a free ride, opposition wanting victory may well have room to treat refugees better than him.

SM,
My bad, I assumed you read and remembered other relevant postings on the topic of AS.

GY's post in another topic stated that "it wasn't up to the Liberal opposition to put up a policy". Then there was a lot about resources for costings etc.

I wonder what was the point of THE opposition (any party)? so I tested it. You responded saying the Liberal's primary purpose was to demonstrate values etc.....no mention of policy etc.

In this post I understood from you, that Liberal policy was to re-implementation of the Pacific solution. If that was so then the AS would now be in A prison camp somewhere, Naru wouldn't it? and the question is therefore moot. I wanted you or someone to justify it in logical cost benefit terms given the implied obvious outcome with 260k refugees in the wind from the latest conflict.
The labor swinging in the wind isn't addressing that.

On the other hand if the Liberals don't have one, in which case the 'values etc' comment is apposite.

Labor's view is obvious too 'given they were rescued in Indonesian waters it is their problem not ours'. Yes, it's morally flawed but that's clearly it.

I don't seem to win if I spell things out I'm accused of pontificating if I don't everybody misses the point.