Regarding the oft-stated comment that Rudd caused the flow of refugees, it should be understood that what he did was to right a wrong Australia was committing on the high seas, i.e. turning boats back by force to deny due process to asylum seekers under UN refugee convention.

Of course, this approach was circumvented by pulling the bung out of the boat to invoke the UN maritime convention on boats in distress.

doog's comment "Nauru was dead and buried long ago. It is no deterrent.." reminded me of this. Offshore detention is clearly no deterrent judging by rising numbers and TPV's simply change the blend and resulted in most gaining residency anyway.

Bishop's statement regarding withdrawal from the UN refugee convention shows how rabid the LNP is. Australians are better than that, IMO, and the best answer lies in more hard-nosed processing to sift economic refugees from asylum seekers.

The announcement over Iranians raises the question of what constitutes the need for asylum. The new arrangement with Indonesia is saying, to me, that we are looking towards limiting ourselves as a safe haven only to oppressed ethnic or religious minorities in their own countries, over any focus on those politically oppressed.

If this is our stance perhaps we are responsible for going into bat for the politically oppressed such as in Syria, together with other nations under the UN flag, with a view to instituting democracy wherever it does not exist. This is a hard road and takes us headlong into conflict with Islamic theocracy, particularly.

Kevin Rudd unveils a "hard-line" on asylum seekers.
These were the headlines of the MSM.

I've just come home from having dinner with my
relatives - and most of the younger members are
devastated by the PM's announcement of the deal
with PNG. The Coalition appears to have
welcomed this move. I guess we'll have to wait and
see what happens next. I found the following link
which helps explain a bit more on the issue:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration-in-bid-to-stop-boats/story-fnghm1gu-1226681830019

Well that was short lived.

A few weeks of political shenanigans.

And here am I again with no-one to vote for.

(They both stink)

I think KRudd has abandoned his "labor" principles and taken some appropriate action for a change, and this has some chance of stopping the boats that he started.

For all the bleeding hearts that were happy to see 1100-2000 people drown, this must be a dagger to the heart. However, I see it as a huge vote winner for KRudd.

The danger for KR is that there is some dangers, every policy implemented by KRudd so far has been a stuff up, and:

1 Is there a limit to those sent to PNG? While none was discussed the figure of 3000 was raised. This is one month of arrivals and could terminate the deterent almost before it starts.

2 Krudd says it is not inexpensive, which means there is a fat price tag. And does this continue indefinitely for those dumped on PNG?

I would also recommend turning the boats back and TPVs as well.

I advise voters to watch a unique truth about to again show as a weird Liberal team.
Having pulled a hare out of his hat, truly stopping the boats.
In the long run.
Followers of Tony Abbott, here for sure, will make claims it will not work.
Or that it is cruel.
We should understand, that will be clear evidence, *Liberals do not want the boats stopped*
Yes I want them stopped, yes I understand a degree of cruelty exists in stopping them.
But too I know the unfortunate truth.
Not party can be elected without trust it will stop the boats.
A question will arise if not now some near future/post Abbott date, near future for both events, did the Liberals farm rage to gain votes?
Did they put them selves in front of our Nation?

I have mixed feelings on Rudds new initiative:

1) Can he make it work?

2) And as individual pickup on --what impact on PNG will the arrival of thousands of ME Muslims have?

3) What are the hidden sweeteners:as compensation to the lefties, is he planning to lift the official "refugee" intake to 100,000--200,000 pa?

Still and all:

Poroit does not like it--that's one positive sign it might be OK
<<And here am I again with no-one to vote for.(They both stink)>>

And Luciferase, seems all at sea about it --bemoaning that he should have followed his initial inclination and joined the Greens --another sure sign it has merit.