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.