Hi Tim, more than just "Tony is a liar", I hope. It is just the first thingh I had in mind. On this note, as I said, I am living here for ten years by now, migrated short time after Tampa, and clearly shocked by the viciousness of the debate. It is strange coming from Central Europe, from Germany, and have lived in Berlin for the last ten years before. Berlin is full of people coming with or without being asked, and we just have to live with it. The open borders in Europe are having this as a side-effect, and the magnitude of the problem is much higher. However, part of the solution is, and was, the integration of wider parts of Europe into the European Union. It increased the democratic and living standards there, and eased the pressure on the migration issue. (I don't want to glorify the EU, there are problems too, but it seems to me more visionary as what I am seeing here) Australia does not seem to have a concept of building this "belt". Think about our Northern neighbour, PNG. Australian influence seems to be defined to secure Australian mining interest and palm plantages. Working together with the Northern neighbours would ease the pressure, would develope these countries, giving our industry entry to a growing market - and would lead to a natural "off-shore solution": people having a reasonable live in countries they are fleeing to are not desparate to reach our shores. Easing the pressure is one of the main reasons driving social development. Bismarck, as the "father of the Welfare state", as quoted here, was not just acting for the industry in need of skilled labour, he also had to fend off a powerful social-democratic movement. Putting a lid on a problem is never a good solution. Few billion dollars for a few thousand people per year are extremely expensive for a still tiny problem, and even Tony cannot turn the boats around. It is just rhetorics to harvest votes. What brings me to another thought, about the voting system. The voting system here clearly favorates big parties in a "first behind the post" system because the seats are not reflecting the proportions of the votes given in favour of a party. This leads to pander to "extremist views". In a proportional system you have these votes usually "quarantined" - you may have a extreme right wing party in parliament, with 5 or 10 percent, as the most West European countries have. But they do not determinate the election policies of the "mainstream parties". The main parties here seem to be sure that the race to the 50%+1 votes can be won only by the race to the bottom. Wonder whether how long they are right: after the last election they already needed the Greens and the independents.. Regards Peter