My understanding is that the Liberal amendment would allow off shore
processing anywhere that complied with the UNHCR rules.
Nauru is in the process of signing up and in any case it was
administrated by Australia. Seems reasonable to me.

Could it be the spelling N-A-U-R-U that is the government's problem ?
Surely it is not Julia's pride that is getting in the way ?
I suspect but do not know that Indonesia is UNHCR complient.
As Malaysia does not comply, that is why the liberal amendment would
not allow Malaysia.
Anyway that my understanding of the situation.

Dear Lexi,

You have no idea as to what I have or have not googled. You just
make these assumptions and then argue with yourself about your
assumptions.

Rather then address my point, its all emotion with you. Its black
and white, for me or against me, exactly as Daniel Goleman describes
in his "Emotional Intelligence". Reading it, might to you some
good.

Bazz Toni was s- frightened Malaysia would work. That was the principal of the no malaysia amendment. Malaysia made to much sense. Sending people to malaysia to join the que as they were supposed to. By this time they were broke, and no way of trying such a stunt again. The problem would have ceased in very short time, when word got out at what was happening.

579,

The principle of sending children to Malaysia where they could be beaten was the main reason the coalition opposed it and the high court specifically banned it.

That it would work when the 800 quota for 4 years was filled in 4 months after Bowen stated that all new arrivals would be sent there is clear proof that it was inadequate.

This 20000 quota is another slimy Labor back room bribe to get people to accede to their demands at the expense of the Australian taxpayer.

Lexi,

I would like to see links from anywhere else than the greenie New Matilda.

The 20,000 is the direct actions by mr no. Worried about kids getting belted, that is a very weak excuse, from a mob that encourages turning leaking boats around.

SM wrote "The principle of sending children to Malaysia where they could be beaten was the main reason the coalition opposed it"

Kinder to send them back out to a drowning at sea, I suppose. Mr Abbott has stated Coalition will again turn boats out to sea, if elected.

Labor could reinstitute Pacific processing tomorrow without stopping the flow of boats. It didn't stop them before and it won't again. Folks know they'd simply do the same time as they'd be doing in a mainland detention centre, but without the razor-wire. Mr Abbott would be thrilled to be able to watch this fail, as he knows it will, just to turn the screws while stringing out to the next election.

The Navy's guns were 100% effective but Malaysia offers a humane alternative. Sadly, thanks to Mr Abbott, the public will only have Sophie's choice at the next election, guns or wide-open borders.

So, SM, stop your sickening BS hand-wringing over the plight of children, which you raise in defending Tony Abbott yet again, and come out. It's guns for you, right?