AT least five children were among 10 or more people drowned after a fishing boat overloaded with asylum-seekers capsized off the Java coast yesterday morning.

The Labor government has finally after a decade abandoned its on shore only processing policy and recognizes that off shore processing is required. As the government of the day, it is solely responsible for providing the best policy that it is capable of.

Given that the high court has sunk the Malaysian solution, and that the only legislation that Labor can get passed would only allow the pacific solution, the only options the government has open is on shore processing or Nauru, the least worst option open to them is Nauru.

It is the duty of the government of the day to implement the best option available to them at the time. Their failure to do so for political reasons is a dereliction of duty.

As Scott Morrison has stated:

"This is not a time for politics."

Both the government and the Opposition are
being careful not to blame each other for
this tragedy or to try to make political
mileage out of it.

Both agree that the blame for this latest asylum seeker
tragedy lies with people smugglers.
Both also agree that - what is needed is the strongest
possible deterrant. Nauru is not it.

We can only hope that the government will succeed
in finding one to this complex problem that continues
to plague the governments of this country.

If this is not a time for politics when is it? When the idiotic pig headed Labour party policy leads to 1000 more deaths. How could they have stuffed up something so thouroughly? No doubt Abbott will again get the blame for the collosal failure of our PM.

Abbott is the blame, as Naru has not been through court. His non support says it all.

We Shadow Minister are a sadder country for this subject being miss used.
You here, Abbott by stopping question time today, thereby going back on his party's statement it was not to be politicized, shames us.
If you have followed this matter some truths exist.
one LABOR GOT IT WRONG IN STOPPING THE Nehru plan.
TWO East Timor failed to fly, two strikes against Labor.
Today, every single parliamentary sitting from the day it was announced, conservatives miss led the public and the house.
Saying the Malaysian scheme had failed, even openly, lying, giving figures of arrivals and INFERRING they came AFTER IMPLEMENTATION of a scheme, your mob never let start.
Labor failed yet again, confronted by what history will show, with no doubt, OPPOSITION PREPARED TO LIE CONSTANTLY.
Labor must confront your team, take the Nehru thing, after the advice given proves true, it no longer will work, Conservatives again own the failure.
I no doubt, upset some, but firmly warn Abbott, some of his team, are incapable of honesty and remote from the past of what was once a great party.
In time to come, lead by true LIBERALS ,it will be again , and no longer a branch of American Republican tea party spoilers.
Remember my words too remember your own this is to come true and many will wish to forget they ever thought of Tony Abbott other than a flim flam man.

Lexi,

Quoting Scott Morrison? A new one for you.

Notably the Labor party has already tried to point the finger at the coalition, so I have no problem continuing.

My point was that given the Malaysian solution is a non starter, the government has the choice between Nauru or on shore processing. Whatever the concerns Labor may express, it would certainly be far more effective than what they have now.

They have the choice to pass their legislation with the amendment, and in the highly likely event Nauru does not work, then they can legitimately pressure the coalition to go with the Malaysian solution.

The reality is that the 800 boat people quota for the Malaysian solution would have already been filled, and the Malaysian solution would be dead anyway.

SM,

Thinking logically if a boat arrives from Indonesia into
Australian waters and the asylum seekers are taken to
Nauru in the middle of the Pacific in the general direction
to which they were travelling with the likelihood that
they would end up in Australia they will continue to
use boat smugglers and continue to take the risks.
In addition flying the boat people from Christmas Island
to Nauru and later back to Australia - is very expensive.

With the Malaysia Solution we should not consider 800
refugees as the limit, the numbers can always be
re-negotiated in the future. If a refugee ends up in
Australian waters and then Christmas Island it is a
relatively short and less expensive air flight to
Malaysia back to where they originally started.

It defeats the purpose of catching leaky boats, risking
drowning, and ending up back where they started.

Now which do you think works better?

You know, that by feigning pretend sympathy in an issue solely on the grounds of whether your preferred party happened to be in government in order to implement it- it is less likely to be resolved, and more likely the opposition will be handed enough rope you keep spinning, to tie you up with?

The simple solution would be to bar entry to Asylum seekers altogether.
Refugees from Iran and Afghanistan reportedly have the worst prospects for integration into the workforce. Since the Refugee resettlement program is nothing more than a labour deployment system it must be really irksome to the government, business and the NGO's involved in training and deploying them that this flow of irregular arrivals is eating into their supply of zealous, hard working Christians from Africa.

I think both sides are paying the political price of the opportunistic hate-mongering that started it all off with the Tampa and our society has been diminished as a result.

Defying agreed convention, the LNP desperately played the race card to win an election and the ALP was too gutless to match it with a moral stance.

We've already had the Christmas Island sinking as well as the Siev-X and there will be more to come.

The real tragedy is that the politicians are not the real victims.

Nauru will no longer be a viable option, nor will towing back the boats. The former was just an expensive extra step in the inevitable result of being granted refugee status and the latter is strongly being protested by Indonesia.

Claiming that they were some sort of miraculous solution is like me claiming that I make it rain whenever I wash my car - a fortunate coincidence.

Lexi we both know better.
I put these truths in to the muddy waters,,, again.
Yes Labor, in hindsight was wrong to stop Nehru.
That was some time ago.
NOTE! SM again informs us on what evidence?
Had the high court not stopped the Malaysian solution, IT NEVER STARTED, it would by now have failed, on what evidence.
Now unloved by many here is truth.
Today, the very same advisers who talked to John Howard,told our PM [not for long]and Abbott Nehru will no longer work.
It stopped boats once, but not now.
Abbott is misusing us all, he, tell me SM it is untrue, is supporting GREENS to hurt Australian Labor and his party's policy's.
After an election if Abbott won and needed ALP to get offshore processing?
Watch the EEL like slippery sliding from todays blind sheep if we act as badly as they do now.
Liberalism is in the hands of a destructive little [in every way] self interested traitor to his own party.
Not for long.
By ANY measure Abbott along side John Howard is lower than his old bosses ankle

So when is the PM going to realize she is simply out of her debth?

How many failed schemes and projects will it take before she comes to terms with that?

She is an embaresment to everyone and, due to her dodgy dealings, even the labor party are stuck with her.

She should call an election and give someone else a go as she and her position of being Hogg tied by these independents is just crippling us.

At least then we will rid our nation of these incompitent back stabbing independents as well.

Belly,
Your critisism of Abbott, in defence of Labor, is comendable, but the fact remains that Labor abolished a system that worked in detering the boats from coming. It was not just Nauru but also the addition of the TPVs that made the illegals think it not worthwhile.

I don't know if it will work again as, after Rudd abandoned Nauru and abolished the TPVs, the illegals see our government as weak. The fiasco of the 'Oceanic Viking' further weaking our credibility.

It is quite apparent Labor has not the ability or the will to stop the boats and it will be up to the next government. Even if Rudd replaces Gillard, it is he that caused the debarcle in 2008.

Whatever measures are taken it must be aimed at not making the voyage worth the risk and cost for the illegals. To blame the boat owners is pointless as they are merely poor fishermen trying to make a quid by providing a service. The demand has to stop.

The Malaysian deal may have worked, but a poor deal in 800 for 4000, but was scuttled because we were not in control of the illegals treatment there.

All in all a complete cock up by Labor, that is costing us millions.

Lexi,

If you are professing to think logically rather than parroting the party line:

With regards the Malaysian solution can you seriously say that the 800 quota for 4 years would be enough, given that after the announcement 400 arrived in 3 months?

With regards the Pacific solution (not just Nauru) in 2001 the boat arrivals dropped from 4000p.a. to less than 100p.a. and increased again in 2008 to >5000p.a. when stopped. in 2007 when Labor took control, there were 4 people in detention.

Labor is trying to persuade us that on the word of one government official, that the pacific solution won't work. Puleez!

The advantage of the Pacific solution is that less than 50% of those arriving in Nauru made it to Australia, and if rejected they could not appeal to the Australian courts, only a tribunal, and even if they did get to Australia, they only got temporary residence and were unable to bring their relatives.

Even with the changes in the region, whilst the pacific solution may not be as effective, it certainly would be vastly better than the on shore processing we have today.

Juliar should simply get the amendments passed, and start processing off shore again. By refusing the option offered by the coalition she is cutting of her nose to spite her face. Only if she tries the pacific solution and it does not work can she point any fingers at the coalition.

WAIT A MINUTE !
Didn't the opposition amendment provide that the boat people could be
sent to ANY UNHCR approved country ?

If so then what is Labours objection to the coalition amendment ?
Is the objection because it would also include Nauru ?

Bazz
Conservatives wants ONLY ITS POLICY.
Not MALAYSIA.
They/know/knew without their support only onshore processing remains.
Politics first country last for Abbott

Belly,

Juliar has formed a coalition with the greens and independents who have a majority in both houses. Their responsibility is pass legislation to enact their policies. If Juliar cannot do this then her government has failed. Trying to blame the opposition for her failure is pathetic.

If had the interests of the nation as a priority and not her petty politics she could have the option of off shore processing 148 countries by the end of the week. She also has the option of continuing with the Malaysian solution by getting Malaysia to sign up to the convention, just as Abbot got Nauru to sign the convention.

Abbott has agreed to 99% of the amendments, her refusal to go with this is an act of political spite and dereliction of the national interest.

SM,

I'm not interested in arguing with you about Nauru.
Simply because there is no logic to it.
Also, Finger-pointing by either of us -
is not going to achieve anything
constructive.

We have politicians in this country
who are well educated, experienced, professionals.
People who should be capable of coming together
to solve a problem that isn't going to go away
no matter who is in government. Neither side of
politics is perfect and neither side -
always gets it right. I believe that the function
of Parliament is to resolve issues in the
interests of the nation and not individual parties.

It's time that as far as this issue is concerned,
politics was put aside and both sides co-operated
to reach the best outcome for all concerned by agreeing
on a humane, practical, expedient, and economical solution
that would stop the people smugglers.

Lexi,

There is an old saying "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"

So far the pacific solution worked spectacularly well, and the Malaysian solution was in trouble from the day it was announced.

Juliar's version of co operation and compromise is that the coalition must accede to its policy 100% for example:

The coalition was invited to the climate change committee only if it agreed to the prearranged outcome.

The coalition was invited to the tax summit only if it agreed not to discuss only Labor's agenda.

Etc.

The Coalition has offered Labor 90% of what it needs, but because it cannot get everything it wants, Labor throws a hissy fit and trashes it all.

Compromise is not about getting everything you want, but getting the most you can to benefit the country. The coalition's amendment would allow a people swap agreement with the majority of countries in the world, and even Malaysia if it signed up.

SM,

We've covered this ground to extinction.
I don't accept your point of view and
obviously it is reciprocal. Therefore
I don't see any further point in
pursuing this topic with you.
You are again only repeating your party's
take on things and I don't want to keep
repeating myself by arguing with you because
I've learned from previous experience that
nothing constructive is achieved.

All our arguments will not change a thing.
We can only hope that possibly under new
leaderships on both sides - intelligence
will prevail.

I heard that Greens senator lady speaking on TV last night about how
to get the boat people here safely.
I suspect from her comments that it will not be long before they
suggest that we send a ship to an Indonesian port to pick them up and
take them to Christmas Island.
What she was saying left only that as a logical solution.

Belly, you have it wrong.
The coalition's policy was ANY UNHCR approved country.
It gave the govt the opportunity to make arrangements with anywhere
that the greens approved, whether the coalition liked the choice or not.

Lexi can see that, which is why she has withdrawn from the discussion.

Lexi and other "Deniers" claim that the pacific solution won't work in spite of the seven years of spectacular success. Their evidence is the opinion of a government employee reporting to the minister that things have drastically changed in the last 3 years. Pull the other leg. I know you would prefer the years 2001 to 2008 not to have happened, but they did.

Labor 3 years ago were claiming that there were no pull factors, and that dismantling the pacific solution would have little impact. Now they are eating crow, and the only reason that they are fabricating this fantasy that the pacific solution won't work this time is that they will have to admit that they were 100% wrong, and that the Labor party has blood on its hands and indirectly responsible for the lifeless bodies of women and children that they claimed to treat more humanely, and the thousands of people including children in detention.

Juliar should hang her head in shame and offer an apology to the families of Labor's victims.

Those reading this thread in the future.
After many elections and long after the death of the Australian sub branch of the American Republican Tea party.
Abbott's version of Liberalism, think kindly of Shadow Minister.
Forgive him, he knows not what he does.
Yes heard those words some place.
But yes, this very day every question this lost ship in an Sea it has polluted, ended every question with such words, Labor should be ashamed.
You future reader, will see with 20/20 vision aided by hindsight, indeed it may be the reason you come here, to research how a party, could manufacture, its own Bermuda Triangle?
You Will know by your time, like a dog burying a bone, your Liberals will try to avoid all reference to my today,look at the ground and shuffle their feet at the thought.
Thankfully I know, by then a return to Liberalism will have long ago wiped away these dark days.
that while highlighting Labors wrongs,and plenty existed,Liberals became entrenched followers of a man unfit to sweep the floors at the local pub.
From my view here in your past I thank you,for being part of bringing a very bad time for Australian politics to an end.
I am assured and rest easy for it, Australians while falling for Abbott foolishness woke up in time.

Nauru stopped working effectively when the people smugglers realised that most people sent there were accepted as refugees, either by Australia or other Western countries. The boat numbers were on the rise again.

I don't understand why the Coalition didn't support the Malaysia solution. It was effectively the same policy but with a more effective deterrent. The UNHCR membership argument is a red herring because membership doesn't guarantee adherence (Australia's own mandatory detention policy is an example of this). If the Malaysian authorities can prove compliance to standards acceptable to Australia, it should be a non-issue.

It is clear in their own policies that UNHCR guidelines aren't important to the Coalition, so obviously this is all just political game playing. Apparently they care about the well-being of people getting into boats to make the perilous journey, while at the same time have advocated to tow these boats back to international waters...

While I disagree with the policies of mandatory detention (particularly of minors), off-shore processing and obviously towing boats back, I don't have the answers for preventing people risking their lives. However, if both major parties want off-shore processing, clearly the Coalition should have supported the Malaysia Solution. It certainly would have been more effective than Nauru.

No Trashcan man, they towed them back to Indonesian waters.
From what I remember about it they patrolled the international
waters then towed them back to Indonesian waters.
Once back there they would not have enough fuel to get to Christmas Is.
I remember that some of the boats were so decrepit they were not able
to stand the strain of towing and they had to take them on board.

Returning boats could not be refused entry because they are Indonesian vessels.
Also their last port of call was in Indonesia.

SM,

I strongly object to your calling me and others
who don't happen to agree with your take on things
as "deniers." We're trying to deal with facts -
not politics. However, I realise that I am wasting
my time with you. You prefer to only see things
from your party's point of view - no matter how
skewed that may be.

The following website gives a rather good summary.
Presenting both sides on this issue:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2880632.html

This is a predictable tactic by labor. Since when and how does a boat accident in another country have JS to do with us no matter what the reason for the boat leaving port ?. What next, we blame ourselves for a boating accident in a race from Chile to Sydney if the boat blows up in a Chile harbour ?. For pity sake, get a grip and use some common sense people. This further proves the idiotic length labor will go through to prove their point, all reason and sense get thrown out the window.

pepper I think you should take a deep breath re read your post and put more thought in to future ones.
However you join SM in an elite list of those who miss inform.
This tragic event saw first the Federal opposition say it should not be politicized, then used as a club against Labor!
Both sides, AND MOST OF US, understand, the boat may not have left if offshore processing had been in place.
And both sides too want that to take place.
Now you, your side, have Labor pinned on its back.
Without Conservative support only the Greens win.
And a thousand more boats will surely come.
GREAT FUN! for conservatives, A TOOL, to flog Labor.
Will you think that after you win an election, break commitment after commitment and NEED LABOR to not act as you do?
CONSERVATIVES are telling my country its welfare is secondary to Abbott's wishes.
Australians will waken to him and those like you.

Lexi,

A "denier" is someone who continually claims something didn't happen in the face of overwhelming evidence. Susan Metcalfe is a refugee advocate who is not known for presenting both sides.

Financial year - boat arrivals

99/00 - 4175
00/01 - 4137
01/02 - 3039 <- pacific solution implemented.
02/03 - 0
03/04 - 82
04/05 - 0
05/06 - 61
06/07 - 133
07/08 - 25
08/09 - 1033 <- Pacific solution removed.
09/10 - 5609
10/11 - 4940 <- Malaysian solution announced.

Blind Freddy can see that the Pacific solution worked. As far as I am aware, world peace did not break out between 2001 and 2008, so what lame excuse can you provide for these dramatic figures.

Belly,

Given the figures above, there is overwhelming evidence that the pacific solution worked, and Juliar has the option of going with her immigration minister's advice and accepting the coalition's offer.

The Labor government has made it clear that the nation's welfare is secondary to Juliar's politics. Juliar after screaming for a decade that the pacific solution didn't work, is now faced with choosing between saving face or saving lives.

SM,

Precisely - therefore I am not a "denier."
I am not claiming that Nauru didn't happen -
only that it did not work then and it certainly
won't work now. Read the site I gave again .
As for the author - what she writes makes sense.
But of course you need to have the intellectual
capacity to be able to analyse the issues involved
and not merely accept only those arguments that suit
your political leanings. Never mind - I'm done here.
Once can't argue with a closed mind. I should have
known better than to even try.

Naru will be put before the court and we will be at square one again. As for turning boats back, that should not be talked about.
Get used of onshore processing, rejig acceptance rules.

SM,

It's easy for Blind Freddy to see that correlation when Blind Freddy is only shown two pieces of information.

However, show Blind Freddy more information, such as global trends in asylum seekers, and you get a different story:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BN/sp/AsylumFacts_3.jpg
http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/unhcr.jpg

It should also be pointed out that the global number of Afghan asylum seekers dropped for the same period, who make up the majority of boat-arrivals in Australia. And that overall refugee numbers in Asia dropped significantly too.

I have no doubt the Pacific Solution had an effect, just as the High Court decision on the Malaysia Solution has seen an increase in arrivals since June. The Malaysia Solution would have been more effective and matches Coalition policy. So why didnt Abbott support it if not to merely play politics for his own personal goals?

Lexi,

I have the IQ to spot a polemic when I see one, apparently you haven't. Where is the tiniest shred of evidence provided here that the Pacific solution didn't work. All I can find is "Chris Bowen said so".

The figures I provided are from the immigration department, and are irrefutable. Trash's graphs apply to all asylum seekers, not just the boats, and are pretty much irrelevant to this debate.

See Susan's previous articles

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/susan-metcalfe-41498.html

With gems such as "The Pacific Solution was an abomination. This debate is no better" Susan does not even try to provide a balanced view.

If you cannot provide anything more convincing than quoting Chris Bowen then I feel sorry for you and the other deniers.

SM,

"Trash's graphs apply to all asylum seekers, not just the boats, and are pretty much irrelevant to this debate"

You're kidding right? You're saying that a global downturn (~50%) in asylum seeker numbers would have no impact on the number of aslyum seekers coming to Australia on boats? Or are you saying that the Pacific Solution caused the global downturn? Or do you have another explanation as to why boat arrival numbers is independent of global asylum seeker numbers?

What caused the sudden spike in boat arrivals in Howard's second term? Obviously it couldn't be an increase in global numbers, that would be irrelevent

Trash,

I said it was irrelevant. Given that the number of boat arrivals declined by 97% from 2001/2 to 2002/3 whilst according to your graph asylum seekers world wide decreased by about 20%. This trend would have had an effect of approximately reducing the boat arrivals from 4200 in 2001 to 3400 in 2003 not to an average of 30 over the next 3 years.

This trend is no where near sufficient.

SM,

Your numbers don't include boats that were towed back under the Pacific Solution, or those boats that were lost at sea. Such figures are hard to come by, conveniently for the former Government. So to say there was a 97% decrease in boat arrivals is devious, the majority of boats that attempted the journey are not included in your figures.

I am accepting that the Pacific Solution acted as a deterrent and was effective in reducing boat arrivals to some degree. However, 'push' factors saw the sudden increase in boat arrivals from 1998 (an increase greater than the global trend), and the same factors decreased in 2002, with again the change of boat arrivals in Australia being greater than the global trend.

Considering boats were just turned back and the number of boats that were turned back is unknown, the effectiveneess of the Pacific Solution is clearly being overstated.

SM,

May I suggest that You walk in front of a full
length mirror. Stand there and talk to it.
You will find what you are seeking.
Someone who agrees with you entirely.

cont'd ...

BTW - Here's another source for you.
I wonder what you'll find wrong with
this one:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42486.html

As long as we have a namby pamby approach to illegal immigration we are going to grow the problem.

Our "processing" was/is never going to determine who is "genuine".
It amounts to little better than whomever has learnt their lines best gets rubber stamped "found to be genuine"

But now, even this feeblest of tests no longer applies.

"More than 40 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat in the past year were Iranians and, of the ones assessed, about two-thirds have had their application for refugee status rejected"

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/more-than-a-thousand-iranians-risk-languishing-for-years-in-detention/story-e6freuy9-1226180501361

But,and here's the rub! Even these will get to stay because we are told their former country wont allow them back: "They're yours OZ", a gift from the Islamic Republic of Iran (and possibly the grand council of of Ayatollahs)

We are told that *our representatives* are still diligently working behind the scenes to move them off shore. But what is the betting that when it is opportune ( opportune being when media attention is elsewhere). All of these *failed* asylum seekers will also be released into the community.

And it can only give one message to the millions of opportunists looking or a bargain: "COME ON DOWN, HAVE WE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU!

Lexi,

I don't have to look in the mirror, about 80% of the people in Australia agree with me on border protection.

I see you quoted another refugee advocate. For Sue to admit that the pacfic solution worked is to admit that everything she has been advocating for a decade was rubbish.

While the sinking of the SievX and other factors may have contributed initially to the precipitous drop in boat arrivals, they certainly would not have kept them low for so long. The other nail in the coffin of the (pacific solution didn't work) argument, is that once the pacific solution was dismantled, the numbers quickly ramped up to pre solution figures.

I also gather from this argument that both of you are then in favour of sending women and children to a country where they receive no assistance and no legal guarantee of safety or humane treatment?

SM,

Keep talking to the mirror.

Well said Lexi, your doing better than your last effort:)

Shall I give you all a window into the future:) While the Australian humanitarians pat themselves on the back for helping the poor boat people, more and more keep coming as the decades pass and what joy to see them prosper.
7 billion was the last strike of the clock, and no-one blinked an eye-lid, as the ever-able white man watches his own extinction. Then calls of" back off Mr " we have it all under-control! as the businessmen drink their last brandies.

Its almost midnight gentlemen, last drinks.....oh before you lot go, what was the last head count?.....'it doesnt matter! the watchman/gatekeeper said' we have everything undercontrol.

Oh dear......

What have we done!

Year.....2030.... 'it came so quickly!

How the time flies, when your making money.

CACTUS

Dear Cactus,

Big hug!

Keep on denying Lexi,

You and the tiny portion of Australia that kids itself that the pacific solution didn't work.

We are the 80%

SM,

Keep talking to the mirror!

Hasbeen, lexi:)....big hug to both of you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NhkK-1epUA&feature=related

Love the world, and you cant go wrong.

CACTUS:)

Keep on being a denier Lexi.

SM,

To each his own Sir!

Ohhh Dear, sigh.

Figures estimated by the government are that in the last 3 years, about 500 people had died trying to make the journey to Australia. That is about twice the number of Boat people that came to Australia in 7 years under the pacific solution.

The Timor sea has become Labor's killing ground.

SM,

Before you continue to pass your usual judgement on only
one side of the political spectrum - try to keep an
open mind and have a read of the following:

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/09/13/the-pacific-solution-was-a-fraud.aspx

BTW - The Lowy Institute is an independent assessor of politics.
And it this article shows that neither side of politics
has any reason to feel smug about this issue.

The assertion that the Pacific Solution put an end to people smuggling cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Processing in Nauru did absolutely nothing to abate the flow of boats. It was not until the Australian Navy began forcing them back out to sea that the flow stopped. If that is what is advocated as a part of the “Pacific Solution” then be honest about it? Most Australians do not support such disregard for human rights and safety.

Mr Abbott has stated he would again turn back boats under a new Coalition government. Why then should the Coalition’s supposed concern for safety and human rights now be believed as justification for marooning the Government on border protection through its insistence on a Nauru amendment in the legislation? History shows it previously achieved nothing. The insistence on the amendment is nothing more than a wrecking political ploy that ignores the national need.

We need a humane immigration policy that discourages boat arrivals. The Malaysian deal is the only one on the table that has a chance to deliver this and it should be given a chance. The Coalition should back away from a political position that has no basis in its own previously displayed behaviour and restated intentions

"One of the myths of progressive politics in Australia is the possibility of a regional solution to people smuggling...after a decade of policy failure, Gillard needs to reject this nonsense and embrace the proven success of the Howard government strategy: offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island and the reintroduction of temporary protection visas. As ever in public policy, what matters is what works"
Mark Latham writing in the AFR 22/09/2011:

Another of the myths of "progressive" politics is that the Gillard Govt's Malaysian deal was likely to offer a solution to illegal immigration. The enthusiasm shown by various Malaysian ministers & their attempts to resuscitate the deal --striking akin to the eagerness of the used car salesman to hold you to an offer you made on a heap of junk hidden in his yard -- should be indication enough that it would not have worked to Australia's benefit.

Yet another myth associated with the 'progressive" side of politics is often presaged by the use of the term "humane" in relation to immigration policy. It has come to mean that we wring our hands and talk about how complex the problem is --then whimpishly accept all comers.

Lexi et al,

The pacific solution comprised of several deterrents each individually were not sufficient to stop the boats, but combined, made the purchasing of a place on a boat to Australia a bad investment.

The components of the pacific solution were:
1 Turning a small portion of the boats around back to Indonesia,
2 Detaining the rest of the people on Nauru where they had no access to the Australian courts, and their cases were determined by a tribunal. Where 30% were determined not to be refugees and deported, and some were accepted by other countries, and only 43% of the total came to Australia.
3 Finally those that did come to Australia, were given temporary protection visas and were unable to return to the land they "fled" to bring their families.

Those getting on boats knew they had a good chance of ending up back in Indonesia, being deported back to their home country, and even if they were in the minority that got to Australia, they could not bring in their families. The result was they stopped coming.

Compare this to the present situation where about 30% of boat arrivals are deemed not to be genuine refugees, but through tax payer funded access to the appeal courts clog up the legal system and result in a 95% acceptance rate.

None of the articles against the pacific solution "myth" addresses that fact that boat arrivals dropped by 97% shortly after its implementation, stayed low for 7 years and increased by about 10 000% shortly after its removal.

Border protection has been a failure of both governments. It is laudable that SM posts this thread given the Opposition opposed the Malaysia solution which would certainly have 'stopped the boats' and broken the people smuggling business. This was just an example Opposition partisanship on a very important policy area regardless of one's stance on asylum seekers. Both the Opposition and Government are being pig-headed to score brownie points over Nauru. And these are the nongs we vote into parliament.

What about a new policy that involves no negative economic pressures (bullying tactics) and illegal military interventions which would certainly reduce the numbers of people needing refugee protection, of which currently thousands are sitting for years in camps.

Still not much in the media about Visa overstayers and others who fly in as tourists who later disappear into the community and who are allowed to stay during processing.

Those who come by boat would save a lot more money paid to smugglers (up to $30,000 in some cases) by buying a plane ticket. Not sure why many choose the boat route unless there is an issue with identity papers. Only 30% fail so I am not sure why the other 70% choose this option. Any thoughts

Pelican;
They have no problem with travel documents as they could not have flown to Malaysia or Indonesia without them.
It appears they are instructed to throw them overboard once on the boat.
What no one seems to comment on is that the Malaysia agreement is a
once only agreement. More than 800 have already arrived so once they
go and 4000 arrive from Malaysia it has to be agreed again.
Can't imaging the Malaysians knocking that back. Might agree to 8000
next time.
About the only thing that will stop them is if they run out of boats.

At some time they will arrive in Darwin, Cairns, Townsville or Sydney
on a rusty old freighter, the whole two thousand of them.
That is what happened in Canada and in the US.

I do not see why the public servant said that the "Pacific Solution"
would not work again. Nothing has changed, and why not just call it
the "Indian Solution" and apply those rules to Christmas Island ?

Shadow minister, and fellow naysayers, why do you think the Howard Gov't finally resorted to using the AN to tow boats out to sea (your point 1 above). Its because points 2 and 3 were ineffectual, that's why.

Mr Abbott, Public Naysayer Number One, is totally ingenuous about his reason for insisting on Nauru. He knows it did nothing, and temporary visas had little effect. His intention to again turn boats back to sea shows just how concerned he must deeply feel about the Malaysian proposal in relation to human rights and safety. He main concern is to stymie any possible gov't success.

His hope that paralyzing the Gov't at every opportunity will win him the prize is starting to turn on him and the Gov't is gaining traction by the day.

The Coalition condemned the Malaysian solution for 2 main reasons:

1 It wouldn't work. Blind Freddy could see that Whilst the boat numbers dropped after the announcement, that the 800 quota for the 4 years was going be filled up in 3 months.
2 It didn't comply even with the humanitarian safe guards that were imposed on the pacific solution. There were no legally enforceable safeguards, and if the Malaysian militia had brutalized the refugee women and children, what action could be taken? A strongly worded letter? Puleez.

As posted earlier:

Financial year - boat arrivals

99/00 - 4175
00/01 - 4137
01/02 - 3039 <- pacific solution implemented.
02/03 - 0
03/04 - 82
04/05 - 0
05/06 - 61
06/07 - 133
07/08 - 25
08/09 - 1033 <- Pacific solution removed.
09/10 - 5609
10/11 - 4940 <- Malaysian solution announced.

The figures cannot lie. The pacific solution worked.

Considering that only 4 boats were ever turned around in 2001/2002 claiming this as the reason for the success of the policy from 2001 to 2008 is pathetic.

Those deniers of the pacific solution success need to put up something more than rhetoric to be taken seriously.

We are the 80%.

SM,

You continue to claim to be part of an "80%"
who somehow have got it right regarding solving
the asylum seeker problem that this country faces.
And you keep repeating this
80% figure as some sort of mantra that makes being
part of a so-called "majority" a feat in itself.

As Mark Twain once stated: "Whenever you find yourself
on the side of the majority. It is time to pause and
reflect."

Or put another way - I would think that the object of
solving any problem is not to be on the side of the
majority, but to try to escape finding oneself in the
ranks of the ignorant.

Cheers.

Shadow Minister, numbers don't lie but they are not the only facts.

During September 2001, Australia implemented the Pacific Solution, setting up a processing centre on Nauru. It did not stop the boats. What did was that the Australian Navy turned them back to Indonesia. During the preceding three months prior to the implementation of the Pacific Solution 13 boats arrived in Australia. During the following three months after the Pacific Solution 14 boats attempted to reach Australia from Indonesia however John Howard, the Prime Minister, instructed the Australian Navy to turn them back. There was no pleasant way to do this. It is still the only 100% proven way to stop boats arriving.

What's missing from your numbers is the role of the AN and the timing.
You infer incorrectly from the data that setting up Nauru was the causative element. When the Pacific solution, including AN turn-backs was lifted, of course the boats reappeared, what did you expect? They'll now keep coming unless either the Navy is used against them again, which is repugnant to most Australians, or something else with a chance of success is tried.

Mr Abbott will not countenance the possibility of success of the Gov't because it does not suit him politically. He veils his policy in a ingenuous deep concern for human rights and safety which he is then willing to ignore by turning them back out to sea in a feat of flabbergasting cognitive dissonance.

If, SM, you want to continue to predict the ultimate failure of the Malaysian solution if it is implemented, do so to your hearts content (as you have predicted the failure of simply setting up on Nauru again). Howewer, please acknowledge that it was only the Australian Navy that that stopped the boats in the past, and that the 80% you refer to is actually the majority that is against repeating this disgusting chapter in Australian history. It must also be acknowledged this probably resulted in deaths at sea just as the open door policy we have due to Mr Abbott's intransigence did last week off Java.

SM,

We now eagerly await your usual party policy mantra.

How can facts get in the way of your "truth."

Re Iran refusing their citizens reentry, why not just put them on a
plane with a ticket to Tehran and if they are refused entry they can
just sit in the arrival hall for the rest of their life instead of
sitting on Christmas Island for the rest of their life.

PS

SM, why would the mere announcement of a possible Malaysian solution be expected to do anything other than increase boat numbers while the door is still ajar? Are the numbers somehow supposed to support your assertion that the solution will fail?

Please explain this and also whether you share Mr Abbott's cognitive dissonance. Please plainly state whether or not the Navy should turn back boats, so we can judge whether you are in or out of the "80%".

Lexi,

The facts are the figures I have published. You have yet to publish any facts at all, only opinion from refugee advocates.

The facts as recorded are that boat arrivals without the pacific solution are nearly 100 times that of those with the pacific solution. No one here has denied it. All I hear is feeble attempts to try and find other reasons for the numbers.

No one has yet even offered any plausible alternative reasons for the figures I have quoted.

Luciferase,

History lesson:

When the Malaysian solution was announced, as well as that all new boat arrivals would be included in the 800, the numbers dropped from about 500p.m. to about 250p.m. Even with the threat of Malaysia, the 800 quota (for 4 years) would still be filled in about 3 months.

And Finally: Who can put their hands on their heart and say that Malaysia is more humane than Nauru?

SM says "All I hear is feeble attempts to try and find other reasons for the numbers"!!

What, like the feeble attempts of boats trying to breach a blockade by the Australian Navy?

This is like a children's pantomime where the kids scream out to help the good guy (SM) work out where on the stage bad guy is coming from. SM just keeps looking the other way and won't hear anything.

What he should be comparing the Malaysian solution with is the alternative of TURNING BACK THE BOATS (go ahead, say it SM, that's what you mean by the "Pacific Solution"), not where the processing happens. Instead of turning boats back out to sea, people will be transferred to Malaysia and give up their place at the front of the resettlement line to five times more people waiting at the back.

I'll certainly put my hand on my heart and say the Malaysian solution is immensely more humane than turning boats back out to sea, raising our intake of regugees while deterring boats from breaching our boarders and risking human safety. SM seems sure the Malaysians are tripping over themselves to seal the deal so lets give it a go while keeping a good eye on how things go over there.

It is better than the open door policy Mr Abbott leaves us by his intransigent opportunism. If in power, he will reintroduce processing on Nauru and the AN blockade. The world has changed since 2001 and Australia must lift its game in the face of a larger humanitarian crisis, just as the rest of the world has done. I assert that majority of Australians understand this and do not support turning back boats as an option.

Luciferase said;
more humane than turning boats back out to sea,

They did not turn back out to sea, they turned them back to land into
Indonesian waters.
From my reading of those incidents they took place just outside
Indonesian waters and they towed them back and left them with enough
fuel to get back. The Indonesians could not refuse them landing as
they are Indonesian vessels.

Is this what you support going on just off Christmas Island? It takes nearly a fortnight from Indo to get this far in a crowded unseaworthy vessel, before meeting Australian attitude..... THIS IS WHY THE BOATS STOPPED COMING. Forget Nauru!

The log of HMAS Adelaide was tabled before a Senate committee on 21 February 2002. Extracts from that log relating to the inception of Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel 4 in October 2001 are below:-

6 October [2001]

1813 First warning given to master of vessel.

7 October [2001]

0153 Second warning issued.

0216 Boarding party ordered by Commanding Officer to prepare to board SIEV-4 when vessel enters Christmas Island Contiguous Zone.

0258 Adelaide made close pass down SIEV-4 starboard side.

0335 Adelaide directed by CJTF to conduct a positive and assertive boarding.

0402 Warning 5.56 mm (cannon) shots fired 50 feet in front of vessel.

0405 Warning 5.56 mm shots fired 75 feet in front of SIEV-4.

0409 Warning 5.56 mm shots fired 50-100 feet in front of SIEV-4.

0414 Boarding party advised by CO that if 50 cal machine gun warning shots do not stop vessel, boarding party is to aggressively board SIEV-4.

0418-0420 Twenty-three rounds of 50 cal (20 rounds of automatic fire) fired in front of SIEV-4.

0430 Close quarters manoeuvering by Adelaide, SIEV passed close astern to Adelaide port quarter and reduced speed/took way off momentarily.

0432 Boarding party issued final warning (to SIEV) indicating that if they did not allow boarding party to board, Adelaide would not let them enter Australian waters.

0442 Boarding party effected a conducted non-compliant boarding of SIEV-4.

0445 Boarding party in control of SIEV-4.[1]

Dear Luciferase,

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument supported
by knowledge of the issues and facts, is a skill not
easily acquired. You are well informed and as a result
you're winning the argument hands down. Well done!

Keep it up!

Dear Lexi,
I am with you, how can anybody disagree with the results of an inquiry?
There should be more of these inquiries to weed out the unabashed liars such as we have seen recently.
Have been away Lexi, so am just easing my way back into OLO.
Hope all is well,
NSB

Dear Noisy,

Welcome back my dear!

You have been greatly missed!

All is well now that you're back!

LF,

So whilst the 4 boats turned around in 2001 and 2002 may have helped stop the boats, how can you explain the lack of boats in 2003,
2004,
2005,
2006,
2007
and 2008, even when the Labor government made it clear that they would not turn boats back.

Why was the closing of Nauru the trigger for the swarm of boats that followed, and not the stopping of turning the boats around in 2002?

I take it from your comment that you actively support sending women and children to Malaysia where they have no legal protection.

Golly, SM, one can only imagine the horror that refugees thought awaited them on Nauru must have put the fear of &%$@?! into them! Just like the mandatory detention we have now is keeping them away in droves.

When you were a little guy/gal, SM, did you ever learn, by observing others, not to oppose the school bully lest he beat the bejasus out of you? Did you notice how nobody challenged him who did not want a bloodied nose? It's like that, SM. Why on earth, until the Government changed in Australia in 2007, would a boat-load of people try their luck?

Oh yes, and it must be clear from the general tenor of my posts that I support the torture of woman and children in Malaysia, and in Australia for that matter where even those granted refugee status continue to be incarcerated indefinitely. Fortunately, I do not believe our Gov't shares my viewpoint and will put a stop to any shenanigans or just call the whole thing oFf if issues arise, despite the Malaysian gov'ts firm assurances that it wants the solution to work.

I'll now sign off from this discussion having revealed my evil intent in supporting the Malaysian Solution over the humane Pacific "fist-in-glove Solution. Thanks for having me.

PS Check figures on boats refused entry or towed away.

My recollection is that they patrolled the area between Australian
and Indonesian territorial waters. That is not to say one or more still
did not get to Christmas Island or Ashmore Reef.
They could not enter Indonesian waters without their permission as I
believe is the custom for warships.

The very people your trying to help, are the one,s ripping you all off with the Internet scams...well not directly, however the 2 and 3 world peoples are playing you all.......and the take-over will be over soon.

A boat tragedy!.....lol.....thats the least of Australia's problems:)

Whats to come is in gods hands we trust, A lexi:).......I have only one true comment for the stupidity I can see......Its going to be a very interesting century indeed.

7 billion and counting:)and no-ones got there eyes on this spit of land.

Shut the gates!

" The great trick that the devil ever played, was to convince the people that he didn't exsisted.

How human of him:)

I might write a book called.." The end of a champion race "

Existentialism is a term applied to the work of several 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual...In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.

The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of existentialism. He maintained that the individual is solely responsible for giving her or his own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely, in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom.

Subsequent existentialist philosophers retain the emphasis on the individual, but differ, in varying degrees, on how one achieves and what constitutes a fulfilling life, what obstacles must be overcome, and what external and internal factors are involved, including the potential consequences of the existence or non-existence of God. Existentialism became fashionable in the post-World War years as a way to reassert the importance of human individuality and freedom.

CACTUS:)

@Luciferase,

You are right about one thing, your presentation has all the characteristics of a children's pantomime. But let’s move past your child’s play.

You claim: << the Malaysian solution [would have had the effect of] deterring boats from breaching our boarders….>>

But let’s look for the devil in the detail:

i) We are told that there are 100,000+ asylum seekers in Malaysia. The truth is many are more like illegal WORK seekers than ASYLUM seekers, but let’s plug in the 100,000+ figure.
ii) We are told that these 100,000+ hold very insecure tenure: they can be arrested any time, they can be are caned, they are not allowed to pursue education or work legally.
iii) However, we are told that as part of the MS anyone caught trying to boat their way illegally to OZ will be shipped to Malaysia. BUT unlike those already there, they will have certain guarantees: they will be given education and work opportunities & have upgraded accommodation and they will not be subject arbitrary arrest or caning--and (very importantly) they will still not be out of the running to eventually settle in OZ.

In view of the above if you were one of the illegals in Malaysia, might not this motivate you to make a run for OZ!

If you’re lucky you might get into OZ. But even if you are unlucky & get caught & shipped back to Malaysia. You have a whole of lot more guarantees & benefits than you would have if you’d simply had stayed put.

Why, I’d posit, the returnees to Malaysia would have a WHOLE LOT more benefits than many of the slum dwellers in most south Asia cities. And when the news of this new bonanza filtered through it might have encourage another gold rush.

And as for this little quip:
<< What, like the feeble attempts of boats trying to breach a blockade by the Australian Navy?>>
You must be joking – you must be thinking about the U-boat blockade of Britain not the Australian navy’s feeble attempt to cover our 25,760 KM coastline.

I read what you write, and still think your all insane. Why import more people, when the systems wont support it?

Still! I ask you all....." when your children leave school, where are they going to go?

Yes! I know not one of you can answer the question.

mmmmmmm! 2016/2020 and beyond....I wonder if your view's will still be the same.

CACTUS

Australia!....a prostitute for sale.

SPQR.....more care for those off-shore.....why?

Has our piggery and wealth made us think so narrow kindly, or have we forgot our own people at home by mistake?

And what for them, hence the Roman soldier that weeper,s into his hands... and the"less we forget"our back-bones that becomes our curse to the lodgers of foreign problem.

CACTUS

Luciferase,

So then you are happy with the estimated 500 that have perished at sea thanks to the removal of the pacific solution?

As for the figures on boats turned around I did check, and the number is 4. While 14 boats were approached, only 4 were actually turned around.

Now we have to grab them of the Indo coast? What are the Navy, the fricken Thunderbirds?

I like the way 99% of people blame Australia or Malaysia , for the terrible things that happen to the asylum seekers. What I dont seem to understand is WHY we do not scream as loud at the reasons for WHY these people to seek asylum.

Dear Mick C.,

We don't ask important questions -
Because of the total irrelevant and
unimportant issues that clog up our public debates.

While our pollies keep stoking
and politicising issues such as these - Australia will
never develop into a mature nation. If they don't stop
we may stop paying attention to politics altogether.

Imagine no people dying at sea whilst travelling to Australia, and only one boat a year.

Bring back the Pacific solution.