Pelican writes

'There is no easy solution on this one, and it is sad to see both political parties using this tragedy for point scoring.'

It is more sad that those responsible for totally flawed policy that contributed greatly to these deaths are not held to account (unless of course they are conservative). The national broadcasters are a disgrace.

Shadow Minister:

Considering the fact that boat arrivals are a minute percentage of refugees, whereas the majority of refugees as well as visa overstayers arrive by plane - wouldn't it be wise to direct your concerns at the latter group of people? Because they cause more problems to our authorities than a few hundred coming by boat. The Pacific solution as practiced by Howard was a major drain on government finances requiring boat people to be taken by plane great distances, to the middle of the Pacific, and housed on an island that was sinking into the ocean. These people eventually ended up in Australia anyway. So what's wiser? To tow a boat to an island (Timor) off Indonesia, or tow the boat to Christmas Island and then fly them to Nauru? The Gillard government is in the process of negotiating (as
I've said previously many a time) to process the people in Indonesia or Malaysia and until we have the consent of those governments we have to cope with the problem. No amount of speculation on this forum is going to solve anything. And we well know that negotiations take time.

Actually Lexi,

Boat refugees are approaching 50% of asylum claims.

Nearly all visa over stayers return to their country of origin and don't make any claim against Medicare, unemployment, or schooling.

The boat people cost the tax payer more than all others put together.

<Considering the fact that boat arrivals are a minute percentage of refugees, whereas the majority of refugees as well as visa overstayers arrive by plane - wouldn't it be wise to direct your concerns at the latter group of people? Because they cause more problems to our authorities than a few hundred coming by boat.>

This comment shows a lack of understanding of the issue. What is of primary concern is that people put their lives at risk for the sake of gaining asylum. What it has in common with those arriving by plane is the belief that the action will increase the chance of gaining asylum. And the problem is a direct result of government policy.

Why should engaging the services of organised criminals and undertaking perilous voyages give you an advantage over other people seeking asylum? It should not, but thanks to government policy it does. For as long as it does we will continue to needlessly and cruelly kill refugees, and at the same time fill the pockets of organised criminals.

Ok Folks, let's look at things realistically.Australia spent about a billion dollars processing 1637 boat people on Manus and Nauru Islands. (Do the maths: it's a horrifying $600,000 per head). The boats stopped coming, but it took five years to clear the islands. As David Marr points out in his article in the Brisband Times, Sept. 18, 21010 - "Pacific Solution no real answer,":

"The detour to Nauru was never, in itself, much of a deterrent to people smugglers. What helped killed the trade was leaving refugees to rot there for years. We can stop the boats. That's the ambition of both sides of politics and it isn't hard if we are willing to be cruel. We can order the navy to force them back to Indonesia - operations the navy loathes - or send their human cargoes off to island prisons for indefinite detention. Those strategies work. But they leave a humane country facing a hard question - how brutal are we willing to be?"

Lexi writes

'those strategies work. But they leave a humane country facing a hard question - how brutal are we willing to be?"'

How brutal are we to the other 2 billion people who would like a better life in Australia. Should I tell my Tamil friends who have been waiting for years to immigrate here to jump on a boat?