This subject has always been clouded by emotions.
And knee deep in intentional lies and untended.
First yes the ALP got it wrong.
Yes the got in to the Liberals for their policy's both in opposition, then killed it in government.

Well worth noting, holding the high moral ground worked against Australia, the ALP and Rudd/Gillard.
Worth seeing eyes open, it was Australian voters who demand and still do an end to the boats.
Abbott, RIGHTLY prospered on Labors mistake, HOW could my party not see John Howard won office, would still Be there, on this issue alone, but for WORK CHOICES.

Now Abbott UNDERSTANDS information held says, BOTH Nehru will be proved illegal if we do not change the laws.
AND IT WILL NOT WORK the very same people, who informed HOWARD have informed Tony Abbott/Gillard this plan will no longer stop the boats.
SM knows Abbott too we have a commitment no floggings.
And too that it will stop the boats, unfortunately that kills this as weapon, tony puts self before country his party is a disgrace they are aware of what they do.

579; Of course Malaysia would have worked.
The greens thought it would work too well.

Lucifer, What do you mean the Pacific solution did not stop the boats.
Of course it did, have you been out of the country or something ?
Nauru and the temporary visa did the trick.

You really should have asked someone about it.

Bazz that is crap. There's plenty of employers out there that target overstayed temporary visas. One person in the grape growing area, charged overstayers for accommodation, food, transport all at retail prices and had his own slave trade.

Luciferase, posting on Saturday, 3 December 2011 at 9:34:41 AM, made several assertions that are not correct.

The first is as to "... processing on Nauru, which [Abbott] knows did absolutely nothing to stop the flow of boats."

This claim is given the lie by the now famously scripted questions which the Ombudsman provided to Senator Hanson-Young that were misused as an excuse for forcing his resignation. The reason the Ombudsman had to have those questions asked was because the funding of his office in its role as Immigration Ombudsman had been based upon figures wherein there were essentially no maritime-arrival persons remaining within the immigration detention pipeline by mid 2008, there having been by then an earlier cessation of boat arrivals.

When, after the promulgation of the government's Immigration Detention Values in July 2008 was interpreted as a green light for boat arrivals and offered seeming certainty of quick processing and permanent Australian residence, the detention facilities rapidly filled up, the Ombudsman soon ran short of funds with which to investigate complaints. The present government, having ignored its own Immigration Values, brought the present political problem upon itself.

The second is as to the "Australian Navy forcing boats back out to sea in complete disregard for human rights and safety" having stopped the boats. I think there were only ever one or two turnings around of boats attempted, and that very early on. The whole idea of the boat traffic was to get to be intercepted 'in difficulties', or 'in imminent danger of foundering' by an Australian vessel, which by OUR law would become obliged to take passengers onboard and subsequently to safety. The greatest danger for intended boat arrivals and crew was in NOT meeting up with an Australian vessel after the short (guilt?) trip to Christmas Island or Ashmore Reef.

In promoting its Immigration Values, the Labor government in 2008 may have thought it was able to take a free kick at the expense of the reputation of Howard government policies. It was really at the expense of a very worried Australian public.

Dear Yabby,

If you had Googled the subject as I suggested
then I would assume that you would not have
summed up what I was trying to tell you as
being "ridiculous claims." Therefore here
is a link that might be a good place for you to start:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/refugees-$40,000-to-come-by-plane/story-e6frg6nf-1225802705191

Shadow Minister,

I trust the following meets with your approval:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/appeals-asylum-seeker-floodgates/story-fn7x8me2-1226208525393

Bazz and Forrest, why did the Navy get the call if border security was going along so swimmingly as you say, without its involvement? Because nothing else did the trick, that's why.

The boats started again when it became apparent that not only was Nauru processing abandoned, but Navy guns as the key element of the "Pacific Solution" were too. If you are saying the gov't deserves its problem because of this then Jesus deserved crucifixion by the same reckoning.

Just to remind you, go to http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4816#128339 to get a feeling for how the AN may have influenced boat arrivals.

I will do whatever I can in any small way, including posting here, to try to ensure that this never happens again. Australia is a better nation than that.