Belly,

I've never seen you deliberately lie before. I never spoke of sending people to Iran. Because Iran is the worst example of a signatory to the UNHCR does not mean that it is coalition policy. North Korea is not a signatory, and following your logic it is a labor policy destination.

At the 2010 election Juliar informed Australia that Labor was pursuing an East Timor solution (apparently forgetting to tell East Timor) and that Labor would never consider Nauru, as it was not a signatory to the UNHCR. (just another lie).

A year later, and when the only amendment that the coalition wants to the stripping of rights from the immigration act is to uphold Labor's promise, Juliar stomps off in a huff.

Labor's policy is that if it cannot have exactly what it wants, it will do nothing and let people die.

Belly, why would be the govt's legislation be rejected in the Reps ?
They got everything else through. Even if the green voted against it
they would still have a majority.
The independents would vote for it.
If the PM could not get the legislation passed she should go to the
Governor General and ask for an election.
Surely that is the normal Westminster practise ?

Bazz, go wash your mouth out.

Do you want to give our illustrious prime minister a heart attack?

Please in future avoid that dirty word, "election", just the thought of one ruins her day.

I'll choose but one half-truth from SM's last post to counter, re the 2010 election "...Labor would never consider Nauru, as it was not a signatory to the UNHCR. (just another lie)."

Back then, SM, Nauru was not a signatory, that only came recently thanks to the tireless politics of Mr Abbott.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/nauru-signs-un-refugee-convention-20110617-1g830.html

In any event, expecting the switching of processing to Nauru alone to stop the boats is pointless as everyone in Australia, except SM, well knows.

I can't stand by and watch Belly, a respectable straight-shooter on OLO, called a "liar", outright, over a single error of interpretation. By all means, point out errors and have strong opinions SM, but consider cleaning up your own backyard before making rich accusations about others with good track-records. It's easy for Belly and others to find themselves confused by the barrage of half-truth that riddle your posts, whether they are purposeful or otherwise.

I also think SM's posts would have more cred if he didn't wear his hatred on his sleeve. Respect for the position of the PM of Australia would be demonstrated by calling the PM by the correct acronym, the correct name of the person holding office, or both.

WWG, your ‘logic’ defies….um…logic!

Australia’s open border ‘policy’ presents a HUGE pull factor, and hence a huge factor in the decision-making processes of people who are trying to work out whether the risk and the expense is worth it to get to Australia.

I mean, this is blatantly obvious, really!

As SPQR points out;

"If Australia does no want asylum seekers to come to Australia [by boat], it is a better way to close all the borders and THEN NO-ONE WILL COME."

http://www.smh.com.au/world/survivors-tell-why-the-boats-keep-coming-20111219-1p1td.html

You can blame people-smugglers, asylum seekers, corrupt officials in Indonesia, the Greens, etc. to some extent. But the lion’s share of the blame rests fairly and squarely with our incompetent (Labor) government.

<< We need to work with the Indonesian/Malaysian Governments to stop the boats leaving their shores in the first place. >>

Yes Suse. And whose job is it to see that this happens effectively?

Our government.

I find it interesting that you can see the need for this but apparently not see the need for us to greatly reduce the pull factors, by tightening our borders, implementing offshore processing, introducing TPVs, tightening the interpretation of a refugee, or whatever.

To attempt to address the issue with Indonesia and Malaysia while leaving huge pull factors in place would be completely nonsensical.

As far as working with the Indonesian and Malaysian governments goes, they would be right to tell Australia to get its own border-protection policies in order before sticking its nose into their business!

So, you agree that we need to take action to reduce the rate of arrivals if not stop it entirely. But you are loathe to do anything about reducing the attractiveness to Australia!

That really doesn’t compute!

<< How are we to know that the current situations in all the countries that people are fleeing from, would not have also caused the boats to still sail to Australia even under a Liberal Government/ offshore processing situation? >>

Look at the differences between current border-protection and that under Howard. There’s the difference. It’s huge!

Look also at the differences between the push factors under the current government and under Howard. Not much difference at all.

We can be pretty damn sure that the people (or at least the vast majority) that are now heading our way and have over the last ~three years, are doing so because of one changed factor: the tightness (or looseness) of Australia’s border protection policies…..initiated by our worst-ever PM; KRudd, and exacerbated beyond all belief by the second worst ever PM; Dillard!