@Ludwig: That was a very difficult juggling act. If he’d been seen to be even slightly more accommodating towards arrivals than he was, then boats would have just kept coming.

That's a bit of revisionist history there Ludwig. They did keep coming after the Tampa. Howards handling of the the Tampa incident didn't stop them. The navy intercepting those that arrived after the Tampa incident and towing back to Indonesia stopped them. Following that was Nauru and TPV's.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/jakarta-bars-abbott-asylum-boat-plan/story-e6frg6nf-1225815742763

This is hardly surprising, because despite all the shenanigans we either accepted them into our processing facilities or paid NZ to take them off our hands.

@Ludwig: So Noisy, it begs the question as to just what you would have had Howard do.

Howards having of the Tampa incident was designed to do one this: win an election. To quote Wikipedia the article on the subject:

"In July 2007, an unauthorised biography of John Howard claimed that he had received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that refusing the asylum seekers entry into Australia would breach international law, but that he did so to gain public support in the then upcoming election."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair#Political_effects

I personally want better from my elected representatives. Someone who is honest and obeys the law would be a good start. But hey, I only get one vote, it was pretty obvious what he was doing, and he won the election.

Dear SPQR,
I don't pay much heed to peoples' assumption(s) about me,(especially if I don't know them) - I am always interested in debate, and am always happy to read others' opinions, that is how we see the 'other' sides of these problems. Water off a ducks' back me?....never, keep the debates going, I am always interested,in opposing views to my opinion, it is healthy and in my case drives me to analys what other people have to say, 'tis the overdose of compassion which I had the misfortune to be born with which drives me - it really is a bitch some times :)But I do take your point(s).....honestly I do.

Dear banjo,
I agree with your point about genuine refugees and the illegals, but once they hit Australian shores, are they not 'innocent' until proven guilty?
I would like to hear your genuine opinion.
Cheers,
Noisy Scrub Bird (NSB)

genuine refugees and the illegals.
Noise,
the problem is that no-one appears to put forward any ideas as to how to tell them apart when both have the same agenda to come to Australia & gradually change the demographics here or hasn't anyone noticed that yet.
Is a refugee genuine when he is not inclined to shirk the negative side of the culture he is supposedly running away from ?

Noisy,
The genuine refugees are brought here at our invitation, after their credentials are checked plus health etc. No problem with that except some have cultures that are very alien to ours and some have difficulty relating to our society. We may have to be a bit more selective in that regard.

The illegals simply gatecrash and take advantage of our goodwill. With no identifacation, no country will take them back, so we are stuck with them, irrespective of what our officials opinions are. Therefore we have to deter them from coming.

It took the Howard government many years of progressively making it tougher untill they finally got the formular that stopped the boats from coming. Because of ideology and stupidith this government has altered the whole situation.

Firstly with the closing of Nauru, and the illegals getting here, has cast doubt on the toughness of our decission makers, plus the cutting of the TPVs. So you now have a situation where the illegals have confidence that we will weaken and allow them in. The 'Oceanic Viking' issue did not help matters either.

This was supposed to be more humane, but it has lead to the deaths of some 200 illegals. How is that more humane? If 200 died trying to get here in 3 years, how many in the next? Humane?

You made some serious allegations in you first post, apparently solely based on a TV documentry that was designed to give a particular point of view. You should reconsider that in light of the information you now have been given.

Dear Noisy

I asked you a simple question which is of fundamental importance to this discussion, which you started. But it would appear that you have chosen to ignore me.

I’ll have to assume that what I posited in my question is indeed the case and that it is too difficult for you to come out and say yes.

My past experience with people who have expressed the sort of views that you hold is that they do indeed bear no thought at all of what would happen if we treated onshore asylum seekers as you wish them to be treated, or of what would have happened if Howard hadn’t acted decisively when it was absolutely needed in 2001.

They completely don't understand the great importance of a strong deterrence factor, without which the rate of arrivals would have and could still increase enormously.

And they seem to just not think at all about putting their energies into lobbying for Australia to boost its international aid directed at refugee issues and increase the intake of the most needy refugees via our offshore programs, rather than misdirecting their efforts into supporting the grossly inappropriate onshore asylum seeking route.