What happens when we say 'yes' to everyone claiming asylum

That's why people jokingly say: "if you're going to tell a lie: make it a big one".

Nonetheless Labor got away with such a lie when Australia was being targeted as a soft-touch destination by people smugglers. Quite a few but not all in the media were willing, even keen participants, in peddling the lie.

Basically Labor told Australians that the government they elected was cold, hard and mean-spirited because they were anti-refugees. It was rubbish but they got away with it.

In fact the refugee intake grew under Malcolm Fraser, was substantially cut under Hawke, lifted again under Keating and settled under Howard. A generation of kids have grown up not appreciating that for decades the United States, Canada and us have been the three largest takers of refugees for permanent resettlement.

We offer housing, education, healthcare and a path to citizenship. Germany now comes fourth, but by a long way. It has been a bipartisan commitment for decades and one of which we should be very proud. Our kids should grow up recognising what a decent bunch of people we are.

However Labor successfully sought to portray Australia as being divided over this commitment. No more pride in a fabulous and consistent record.

Labor wanted to be seen as Mr Nice Guy to refugees and to portray the then Coalition government under Howard as being anti-refugee.

They did this to further their own political advantage.The lefties in the media were only too happy to go along with the con.

Labor and the Coalition disagreed not on refugees but on how to handle people smuggling. People smugglers have zero altruism, zero decency.

For them asylum seekers are cash cows. Effectively they say to richer people: "why be a jerk and go through the system? We'll help you bypass that. No queue for you". They don't give a damn about refugees without the capacity to pay.

Why on Earth would any government, on your behalf, allow people smugglers to decide who comes here and the circumstances under which they come?

You can see in the UK and Europe the consequences of governments not nipping the problem in the bud as soon as possible. Outsourcing border control to crims and spivs is never a good idea.

The politics of it all is made harder by two groups of people. Those who are genuinely caring people with a touch of Mary-Poppins lunacy that allows them to think it's OK to just say yes to anybody who arrives and claims asylum. And those who seek to take any opportunity to have a crack at the government.

Take out the emotion and heat of thousands of arrivals and reconsider in the cooler, calmer political climate around this issue today.

Whatever numbers of refugees you think we should take we all know there has to be a limit. You might want less, your neighbour might want more. But find a limit we must and that's the job of the government you elect.

Then comes the crunch. First you have to decide the make-up of those numbers. Australia has for decades been a good international citizen and worked with the UNHCR to try and relieve the pressure hotspots around the world. Remember what we did for Kosovo?

We have different elements within our refugee intake. For example there was a women-at-risk element which I had the good fortune to enlarge.

Deciding all that is difficult enough. But when you have people smugglers randomly dumping people on your shores it becomes a nightmare.

Remember you decided on your annual limit. Providing housing, education, healthcare and more becomes hellishly expensive.

But we do it well and we should be proud of ourselves. We just can't afford to have an open-door policy. What's worse is if you say you have a limit, but you don't enforce it you send a green light to people smugglers. They will be able to charge more and they'll dump more on our shores. As many as they can get to pay up.

When people are dumped by the money hungry smugglers two nasty expenses get lumped on the taxpayer.

First organising the arrivals, processing them to sort out who is and isn't a refugee and second the inevitable protracted litigation surrounding those found not to be refugees.

If you imagine every boat arrival is committed to telling the truth, you're in la la land. It was well known that if the government couldn't establish who the person was and where they'd come from it would be nigh impossible to remove them.

In order to get the rolled-gold platinum Amex card, otherwise known as being allowed to stay in Australia, you would just have to sit it out.

Plenty of other people got to stay here because they claimed to be apostates; people who converted to Christianity and would thus be persecuted if sent home.

READ MORE:

How many of them would be practising Christians today? Come in spinner if you think the percentage would be high.

Perhaps more to the point, given there is a limit on numbers each boat arrival means one less refugee in a camp gets to come here to start a new life. Most of the do-gooders arguing to just accept those dumped here by people smugglers had never seen a refugee camp like the one in northern Thailand with thousands of Karen.

People who arrived as children then had grandchildren in the camp. And still they had hope. It's just heartbreaking. If you had looked some of these grannies in the eye, seen them with their grandchildren, you'd have nothing but disdain for people smugglers.

And you'd have an intense revulsion for people who, wanting to portray themselves as caring, would side with those dumped by people smugglers to the detriment of those poor helpless refugees in camps.

In the world of I'm-a-nice-person identity politics, a picture of you with a people-smuggled asylum seeker is gold. Their proximity gives you a prop for your promotion. You look so committed and caring. For some people that trumps principle. Yuck.