LF,

Let me use small words. If the turning the boats around stopped them, then what started them in 2008/9. There was no naval intervention before or after just Nauru and TPVs. The links you have provided have said absolutely nothing on the cause of the boats starting, hence I assume you have nothing.

Labor on scrapping the pacific solution anticipated a small uptick in arrivals, that they increased 50 fold showed that the pull factor was the main factor, and that the pacific solution was a deterrent.

In debate, formal or informal we each get a chance to be heard.
May be we get an even better opportunity,a chance to hear, even learn.
Shadow Ministers post above speaks both to me and for me.
He like one of those sucker fish,latches on to wrongs Rudd and Labor committed.
IN 2008/9!
Yes INDEED sm, they did!
He infers he needs to use small words, to both put a poster down and wander further from?
Both reality and the truth.
In what way would John Winston Howard saying he was wrong, or being found guilty, for introducing work choices help in todays IR world.
SM ignores, refuses to be side tracked by, TRUTH.
High Court at least! challenges , without law changes, offshore processing.
I charge the 150 country's SM says his party has offered Labor to be a known untruth.
Am I wrong.
Is it not true AUSTRALIA wants this over?
Would most be happy to see Conservatives in bed with the Greens?
Without a meeting is any one of the view this can be fixed, is NEGATIVITY and self interest more important than resolving this issue.
2008!
Dispute resolution is not started by such muck raking

Belly it's my understanding that the coalition has offered to support offshore processing in countries that are parties to the convention on the status of refugee's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

I'm not quite sure how the numbers work, 19 signatories and 145 parties.

As I understand it Malaysia is specifically not part of that.

R0bert

Well, Belly, it looks as though the commencement of a bit of common sense may have returned to the government that could foreseeably permit the present parliament's handling of at least that part of the asylum-seeker issue exemplified by 'the boats'. Here's how it was headlined on Twitter at 12:20 AM today, 22 December 2011: http://twitter.com/#!/australian/status/149479263563825152

The link posted in the tweet is to a news item in The Australian that states that:

"Cabinet has given Immigration Minister
Chris Bowen the authority to concede the
Gillard government will adopt Nauru as
part of its border protection regime in
return for Coalition support for legislation
to circumvent the High Court's ruling that
wiped out Labor's plan to send asylum-seekers
to Malaysia."

Addressing that part of SM's topic that asks '... Is Labor to blame?', there exists right across the political spectrum of what the bulk of the interested Australian public view loosely as the 'political master class', an element that seemingly take every opportunity to minimise Australian sovereignty. To seek to lay blame exclusively at the feet of the present Labor government is, in my opinion, a dangerously short-sighted approach that diverts attention from this underlying malaise.

FWIW, when the 'Malaysian solution' was first announced (and before the High Court decision), the all but universal response to it amongst a fairly wide cross section of working Australians with which I have periodical contact (most of whom have little or no online presence) was that the 'five for one' aspect of it was no deal at all so far as the wider interests of the Australian public were concerned. I haven't noticed that aspect of the issue mentioned much, if at all, on OLO.

This link, http://www.smh.com.au/national/malaysia-plan-still-possible-says-ruddock-20111220-1p421.html , posted by Belly on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 4:43:26 AM, contains a statement that epitomises for me the shabby way the wider Australian public interest is served in this respect:

"the Coalition will accept any proposal from the government in strict confidence".

Secret deals. So sick of this!

Belly,

"And just in case some care,consider why America has developed a bird flu that can kill two thirds of the world. And is barring reports of it." Actually it was a Dutch vaccine lab that developed the virus, and the Americans wanted to prevent the scientist from publishing how they did it.

The conservatives and the Greens are in agreement that the Malaysian solution is an abomination with no legal protection.

"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion"

This does not apply to Malaysia. The militia who are largely above the law enforce Sharia law and target foreigners. The agreement with Malaysia ensures that they will not be deliberately targeted, but gives them no protections whatsoever.

As for my irritation with LF he keeps stating his ridiculous position without any support other than an opinion piece, and completely fails to address the gaping hole in his argument with regards the boats restarting.

That reminds me, you quoted Morrison as advocating sending refugees to Iran, and saying that it was recorded in Hansard. I challenged you on this and you have also ignored it.

Forrest, thanks for a good post.

I concur with your point about the openness of negotiations we seek from our politicians. A well managed public debate between our immigration minister and his shadow would be where each speaker was forced to address points made by the other would be a good thing.

It was interesting to read the following in your second link:

"Mr Bowen unsuccessfully proposed to cabinet in September that the government should accept processing on both Nauru and Malaysia and senior Coalition sources said yesterday Mr Abbott should acknowledge Immigration Department advice that opposition policy for processing on Nauru alone would no longer act as a deterrent."

I obviously agree with the point about Nauru. My question is what was the basis for the Immigration Department's advice?

If that is the advice, then what does the ID think caused a dribble and now a flood of boat arrivals since Nauru was closed in 2008? As not one of theses boats has been forcibly turned back since 2008, one can draw their own sensible conclusion. Mine is that that people-smugglers properly sensed the signal that the closure of Nauru sent and their business grew to the bustle it has become.

cont'd