"That said, if it comes down to Malaysia or Nauru, then I know which one of those would be more humane. The problem is that it's like chosing between the frying pan or the fire. Neither is acceptable."
Chuck, I think it's pretty clear that Malaysia is the worst of all deals where people can be caned and put into cages. And yet Gillard and Bowen seem hell bent on Malaysia, even though it is clearly a much worse deal than Nauru and frowned on by the UN and refugee advocates.
The Pacific solution (including TPVs) did seem to discourage potential welfare rorters posing as refugees while offering a safe haven for those who were genuine.
Labor's first grandiose policy was to stop the Pacific Solution. BIG FAIL, imo. Now we have thousands of boat arrivals who are not necessarily genuine refugees in overcrowded detention centres with subsequent violence.
I don't think there is any perfect solution, however, the Pacific Solution with TPVs did three things as far as I can see:
1. It gave a safe place for genuine refugees.
2. It seemed to discourage those coming to Australia purely with the intent to rort our welfare system as apparently boat arrivals dropped off considerably to Nauru.
3. Australia remained in control and arrivals would not be at risk of beatings and being locked up in cages.
Why on earth labor decided to change something that was so clearly working and addressing these issues is beyond me.
Why deliberately break something that was working well?
