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.