Given a 5:1 ratio, and a quota for 13500 refugees per annum, that means that whether in Indonesia or Malaysia, sending 2600 refugees to these processing centres would consume our entire quota.

Given that the 800 is a total number, and that Malaysia has indicated that this is a one off, this is at best a stop gap. Given Labor's track record, I can see huge potential for foul ups.

How can issuing Temporary protection visas be any worse than sending the refugees to a Malaysian refugee camp? If the point is to stop the boats being a guaranteed way to get a permanent visa, the TPV is an excellent choice.

Shadow

You are ignoring the fact that this solution has the potential to STOP the flood of boat arrivals.

The point about 800 asylum seekers is moot if we don't have 800 arrive in the next 4 years.

WHY would anyone pay a large amount of money to risk their lives on a tiny boat if they KNEW that on arrival they would be shipped to MALAYSIA, and the back of the queue? Once they understand the change, they won't do it.

The majority of Australians are offended by the fact that boat people are self selecting australian residence. Thats the heart of the problem for the gov't. Not the actual arrival and resettlement of refugees that we have vetted, and in many cases have useful skills that we need.

This is a game changer if the gov't can sell it properly. It fits all their key criteria

1) its a regional solution,
2) It will stop the boats.
3) it ends the perverse system of punishing those who play by the rules, and rewarding those who break them
4) It encourages refugees to stay in camps near their homes, which the UNHCR recommends

Paull

This solution in itself will not stop the flood of boats, as given that in 2010 there were nearly over 6000 arrivals, the 800 is only a few months at present flows. However, it is better than the absolute fiasco that is Labor's present policy.

The devil will be in the details, and this could easily turn pear shaped. Just look at what happened on the Oceanic Viking.

Shadow,

The reason why there were 6000 arrivals in 2010, up from 149 in 2008, is that under the existing policy, arrival by boat = permanent residence for over 90% of applicants.

If we shift everyone who is arriving now to the back of the queue, then noone is going to pay a fortune and risk their lives only to be placed in a Malaysian refugee camp.

It will stop the boats. And it will provide a fairer go for those without the money to jump the queue.

PualL while much of what you are saying is true you will not progress a debate with SM.
And unhappily not with middle Australia.
Under J W Howard Rudd then Gillard, few Australians know the true cost per head of each single boat arriving refugee.
Know, understand, I am ALP every inch of me, But know J W H owned the lodge, he not Rudd made a choice to leave, he called it WORK CHOICES.
He won middle Australia and ALP voters with refugee policy's.
As we stagger from one half planned badly thought out plan to another we have shed voters like a balding man lost his hair.
Had this been our policy instead of east Timor, had we not settled 9 in ten of these better off financially refugees,we may be able to defend it.
We are talking about a nightmare.
An Abbott lead government,a NSW like destruction ok yes the bleeding heart say I have no heart , but I have eyes.
Our policy makers are rubbish, our leader the wrong person, defend us if you want but the day after the last of the 800?
Gillard, on your way out repudiate the UN convention on refugees.
Offer to take only those in camps, warn those who destroy documents they face imprisonment and deportation, without an out,
Poll not the greens, not Labors left , ask those who put Rudd and Howard in the lodge how they intend to vote, then leave please leave.

Many, such as Flo in an early post to this thread, believe that as
conditions improve in the source countries the numbers will decline.
However I believe that propersition is totally wrong.
With declining food production, declining economies and either no
growth or indeed contraction a repeat of the Egypt syndrome will be
much more widespread and severe.

Some might not be aware of what caused the Egyptian crisis.
It started as a protest against food prices.
Prices increased because the government reduced subsidies on food.
They reduced subsidies because they had less income from oil sales.
Oil sales reduced because of Egyptian oil production is in depletion.
Food imports have had to continue, despite less income.

The population had increased to 80 million which is more people than
the Nile Valley can sustain.
This story will be repeated almost everywhere and will increase the
number seeking other places to live into 100s of millions.
Our policy will have to change dramatically to cope with the new world
situation. The UNHCR organisation will have to change or collapse.

I don't have an answer, except to pull up the drawbridge.