Ho-hum, another half-truth from SM to counter, the High Court made no judgement about the treatment of refugees that Australia would send to in Malaysia under the swap agreement, only the legality of it under the Migration Act, which can be changed.

Another pearl from SM "The pacific solution where people were transferred from Xmas Island to Nauru has been stopped, but the direct interception and direct transfer to Nauru is not subject to the Australian courts and thus unaffected by the high court decision."

Wrong, and irrelevant in any case. Sending boats to Nauru, alone, has no effect on their arrival rate. That's why Mr Abbott will use the Australian Navy to turn boats back. Nauru, Christmas Island, it's all the same to boat-people. If he really thought Nauru alone would do it, he wouldn't bother compromising the AN. Everybody, including Mr Abbott and the readers here know this truth, but it still evades poor old SM.

I am interested in the Green notion of decriminalizing transport of asylum seekers with no jailing of crews or impounding of boats. We might expect that would quickly lead to better boats, better crews, better safety.

With the reduced peril to boat occupants, they could be turned away without risking life and limb. However, what I am doing in raising this is to bare a deeper situation to scrutiny, the humanity of our nation.

Now of course, we know the answer of some is "Just stop the boats, whatever!". However, for those willing to rationally discuss hypotheticals surrounding the Green position, without prejudice, please fire away. Misinformation and the blame game are not progressing discussion.

Diver Dan, and LF

If you disagree with me on the legality of diverting asylum seekers directly to Nauru based on "the laws of the high seas" perhaps you could point them out, as my review of maritime law indicates that there is no basis whatsoever for Bob Brown's bleeding hearts to make a case, and even to pursue legal action would need to go to the international court, as the high court has no jurisdiction.

Anthonyve,

What is the morally right thing to do? Coming from industry, the first question is Is it safe? If it isn't then it has to be stopped.

More people died on Sat night than from the Bali bombing, yet Sarah Hanson Young's response is that on shore processing is the right thing to do, and shot happens.

LF

The greens's solution of a shuttle service for asylum seekers seems humane, but how many should we make it for 1000/month, 10 000/ month, more? All expecting a visa, home, education, and welfare.

Luc,
If you think that rational people should consider any Greens policy without mirth you are madder than them.

That Hanson-Young sheila reckons we should provide the transport for the illegals from Indonesia or Malaysia, which is ludicrus.

What is wrong with building a detention centre on Macquarie Island, it is part of Aus. The demand for boats to sail to Aus can be stopped if proper deterants are put in place. It has been proven and can be done again.

Frankly I do not mind our navy firing shots across the bow of any vessel that won't heed request to heave to, in our waters. You do know that the Oceanic Viking has mounted 50 cal machine gun for that purpose relating to suspected poachers.

I'm not surprised you don't agree with me Ludwig!
In your mind, Labor is to blame for every problem Australia has, even when the Libs are in power!
Am I right?

I don't vote for either party, so I don't see all this carry-on as just an Australian political problem.
We live in the wider world as well you know.
We can't ignore all other countries problems.

No Government wants to encourage illegal immigration, but all Governments have a duty to accept asylum seekers.

These 'boat-people' must be pretty desperate to come here if they are willing to take on such a dangerous boat journey?
That's just it though.
It is their initial decision alone to take on the journey, and no one else's.

I would be very reluctant to give Indonesia any of these people for offshore processing, after reading today's paper.

'The West Australian' front page stated:
<"Many of the asylum seekers flew from Dubai to Jakarta, where Indonesian officials are said to have been ready for the migrants to arrive, charging each $US500 to pass through the airport without visas..."

So here we have at least 2 other countries governments colluding to get these people to where they want to go, so they can make money.
So we have any number of people along the line 'encouraging' these asylum seekers to make this perilous journey for profit.
This Labor Government seems far down the list of people to blame...

<< In your mind, Labor is to blame for every problem Australia has, even when the Libs are in power! Am I right? >>

Wrong of course Suse. Let’s not jump to silly extremes.

Like you, I don’t vote for either party and I haven’t for probably twenty years.

If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times on OLO – Labor and Liberal are like two peas in a pod. I often refer to them as one entity; the Liblabs. I detest them both, first and foremost because of their worship of continuous rapid never-ending expansionism, which just flies totally in the face of sustainability.

Apart from border-protection policy, there wasn’t much that I supported Howard over.

<< This Labor Government seems far down the list of people to blame.. >>

Aha, so you can now see that they do at least deserve a bit of the blame.

<< So we have any number of people along the line 'encouraging' these asylum seekers to make this perilous journey for profit. >>

Yes, of course there are abundant would-be profiteers out there. The same applies in all manner of ways across our society and around the world. That’s why we need a strong rule of law that is effectively regulated.

Surely if we had a free-for-all on our roads for example, with weak laws and ineffective policing, you wouldn’t just be blaming the people who broke the law for accidents and deaths, you’d be blaming the government for not implementing effective rules and making sure that the policing regime was at least half-decent, wouldn’t you?

The same applies to onshore asylum seeking, doesn’t it?

This comes right down to one of the most basic roles of government.

If the navy intercepted the boats Australia would either have to
return them to Indonesia or take them to Australian territory.
Once on an Australian ship, I believe they would be considered to be on
Australian territory.
The solution is to buy and register a ship in Pakistan and then they
could be taken to Indonesia or Pakistan.
Instead they could be taken to Nauru.

The main solution at sea would be for the captain to declare the
vessel in danger of sinking and return them to Indonesia as their last
port of call. This is best done from a merchant ship.
Alternatively set up a buyer of some product in Indonesia and run a
regular shipping service, which just happens to be always in place
to pick up those in peril of the sea on its way to Indonesia.

Senator Hanson-Young could ask the government to charter one of the
Bass Strait ferries and run a regular ferry service to Christmas
Island from various Indonesian ports.
I am sure that would make her happy.
Oh why not go the full hog and take them to Sydney or Melbourne ?
It is getting b$%^&y ridiculous !
There are plenty of solutions available for those well versed in trickery.