Reports from the field suggest that prosecutions for people smuggling ( pretty stupid description really) have not been smooth sailing (pun intended). As once smuggler defender put it "Sure they proved their case, but the jury didn't like the customers." The Commonwealth lost.

The "smugglees" (is that a word) are ordinarily liberated by the time the smuggler comes on for trial, and they gladly give evidence against them. Perhaps too gladly. It is suspected that the smugglees may have been tantalised with the prospect of "early release" into the general community in exchange for testimony. Maybe juries don't warm to people who turn on those who arguably rescued them from their plight.

Due to the numbers of smugglers needing to be "keel hauled" (I thought nautical terminology was appropriate) the Commonwealth has had to disperse them to the four winds of the various States of Australia. This, naturally was not cheap, and the States have complained about the cost of the trials which are productive of delays in the States' own legal systems. The smugglers are given Legal Aid, the prosecution is paid by the Commonwealth, so it all becomes a bit expensive.

It always struck me as slightly odd that it should be a crime to help someone do something which they are legally entitled to do under treaty law incorporated into our law, but the oddity of that situation never seems to be discussed.

Whilst Nauru and perhaps Katmandu are thought to be the solution, the simple solution is to exit from the refugee treaty. No incentive no smugglers.