I wonder if this government has any remorse now about softening the stance on the illegal entrants, since obtaining office. I also wonder if those supporting the softer stance now have any regrets.

It seems that those that took the high moral ground, now have much to answer for. But I reckon they will not own up to that.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/pressure-mounts-over-ghost-boats-20110910-1k30r.html

Quote 'The boat is one of eight believed to have sunk between Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia in the past 2½ years. The most recent vanished on November 14 last year with 97 on board after leaving a port near Jakarta. It is believed many more have gone missing and one may have disappeared just before the SIEV 221 smashed into rocks on Christmas Island last December, killing 50'

Funny how the government has kept this quiet, especially after the rukus Labor and the Greens raised about the SIEV X and the wild allegations made at the time.

So has the new policy of luring people to take this voyage resulted in just 200 deaths or more. How many?

Banjo,

It is simple, Labor is hardly going to advertise it, and as they have not "arrived" they are some one else's problem.

SM, a further question, I wonder if through faulty navigation how many
have sailed past Christmas Island without seeing it and sailed off
into the Indian Ocean.
If their course was far enough off they would pass with the Island
below the horizon.

Banjo:

...If people generally wish to embark on a suicide mission involving themselves, women AND children, go for it; but the ultimate responsibility of the outcome, lies entirely at their OWN feet.

…Death on the ocean is a universally sad and tragic event; and includes death from thirst, hunger or exposure adrift; trauma and terror of drowning; terror and pain of being eaten alive by sharks; Machine gunned by pirates, (A threat not uncommon off the shores of New Guinea at the least, to my knowledge), are but SOME causes of death at sea from an extended list.

...Participants in the foolhardy venture of illegally boating to Australian shores, willingly present themselves (and others) as “fodder” for nature and man alike, and must not be supported in the venture by making life easier at the end of the perilous journey, with a reward of solace, given as it is by onshore processing, (forced as the alternative by the High Court ruling against the Malaysian solution).

...Supporters of onshore processing are ignorantly compliant to the continuing tragedies of the boat people (men, women AND children).

…”Full marks” to Gillard and Abbott for their attempts to stop boat arrivals, by making life impossible with un-pleasantries at the end of the boat journey, if this is what it takes to save fools arriving on leaking and overloaded boats from themselves,and risking the lives of their women and children as a consequence, then I support whatever it may take to achieve it 100%.

I thought that Banjo was making the point that although the behaviour of asylum seekers is foolhardy, they behave so because the UN Refugee Convention guarantees that such foolhardiness will greatly increase their chance of gaining asylum. It is a point which attracts little attention, probably because neither party seems interested in abandoning the convention.

So the question remains: Why does the government continue to support a convention which encourages desperate people to risk their lives?