Found this article glib and failed to properly address the questions it posed.Disappointing.

lovely facts ! Thank you.
I think the Malaysian situation warrants more discussion because of its inclusion in any regional arrangement to improve protection of asylum seekers in transit there.
As I understand it, about 100 000 persons are registered with UNHCR , most of whom are people who escaped from or were pushed out of Myanmar/Burma and members of ethnic and or religious minorities. A small proportion of these registered persons have had their claims assessed.

UNHCR is seriously understaffed to deal in a timely fashion with these numbers of applicants. Mandated refugees like registered and unregistered asylum seekers, live in the community unless they have been rounded up by the para police, RELA, and jailed as illegal immigrants, because Malaysia has not signed the UN Refugees Convention, so no refugees exist in Malaysian law.

The Burmese asylum seekers have come by sea and land, via or past Thailand. By sea, Malaysia is a near neighbour where desperate people saw as a country of first refuge, A few generations later, it feels far from safe, and rsettlement numbers have been few.

The Gillard Government has, as part of the so called Malaysian deal, committed to the resettlement of 1000 mandated refugees from the huge KL UNHCR pool. No , not in addition to the 6 000 refugee places in the annual quota, but part of it. So robbing places from other refugee quotas for the Middle East, Africa etc.
Significantly, horrifically, the threat to send the 800 asylum seekers who crossed our border, back to Malaysia and to THE END OF THE QUEUE is a fate worse than death for the Afghans, Iraqis Tamils ,Iraniuans, Kurds who will, in all probability NEVER be chosen for interview by the Australian officials because of political orders. We have seen groups of Burmese refugees arrive in Australia in accordance with Gillard's commitment. But close monitoring is required of the refugees who are not Burmese, who may be referred to Australia by UNHCR for resettlement and who are not selected, even though some have family support in Australia.

Maybe if we abandoned costly mandatory detention and costly morally and legally compromising disrruption and disturbance activities "up stream" designed to stop asylum seekers reaching a safe country... the savings could be offered to Malaysia for an integration program which gives the Burmese refugees and asylum seekers a future there.

Then regional authorities could focus on durable solutions for those in transit from war torn countries, and Australia can lift its game to resettle more refugees because they make great citizens given half a chance and strengthen our democracy.

DIAC statistics de humanise and do not tell us the ethnicity as well as the country of citizenship or the religion of asylum seekers which can explain the nature of their persecution. The frequent assumption that all boat arriving asylum seekers are Muslim is a furphy. I sat with three Tamils recently...a Hindu, a Catholic, a Protestant. A lot of the "born Muslim" are secular, and sick of religious extremism. It's what they are fleeing from.

In the wave which commenced late 1999, Australia became a destination chosen by travel organisers because it was the cheapest route! That's why Afghans and Iraqis who had been living in exile in Iran and Pakistan and were poor and had to borrow the passage money dominated the boat arrivals. Getting a ticket for a plane was simply not possible or affordable.

A misconception which needs to be corrected is that paying for your escape journey or being wealthy matters in refugee determination. The stereotype of a refugee as poor, thin, in rags still dominates the media, and neither Minister nor his public servants do much to correct it.

In fact, to answer the question posed, boat people do fly into Jakarta (and Kuala Lumpur) and do so with passports and other travel documents, these same documents subsequently go missing when the boat voyage is attempted.
I know from experience that you can get a tourist or business visa stamped into your passport on arrival at KL or Jakarta but it is not quite so easy to get a visa into Australia. I have friends in Papua New Guinea trying to visit Australia and, in addition to their formal written tourist visa appliaction and return ticket, they need a sponsor in Australia who is required to prove that they have the funds to support the visitors (ie they want to see your bank statement !) and stand as a surety responsible for the eventual departure of the visitor.
I agree, that we should at least trial the Malaysia people swap (ie 800 IMA's for 4000 processed refugees) to see if it at least disrupts the dangerous, expensive and illegal smuggling trade. Alternatively we contribute to a processing centre in Indonesia, administered by the UNHCR to formalize the processing and arrival system; we should also lift our placement limit from the existing 13,750 to 20,000.
Forget Nauru as anything other than a costly political football.

"While some Australians may fear being overrun by boat people" - more than some.

How many asylum seekers would we get if we let them fly in; removed mandatory detention; allowed them to work; taught them English; educated their children etc.? IMHO we would get very large numbers very quickly. Unsustainable policy.

And I agree with Sean somewhat in that I have doubts that the ones that find their own way here are the neediest people. And if we wish to maximise the humanitarian effectiveness of our policy we should try to take the neediest people.

But that said I cannot really countenance sending people back to Malaysia until they have protections against deportation and other forms of victimisation.

Thank you for this article. My impression is that fear of being over run by people with unshakable sectarian views and high birth rates will lead to an unacceptable situation similar to France, Great Britain, and Holland. The high birth rate is at present subsidised by allowances for unlimited children which has to be paid for unjustly by other taxpayers or by excessive and unsustainable borrowing as is the case in Australia at present. The only solution is to phase out subsidies for more than two children. If a couple decides to have more than two children, then the cost must be borne by them, not the taxpayer.
Another issue is the failed multiculturalism experiment that results in division, ghettos, and implied approval for antiquated and failed philosophies. Nelson Mandela used an approach that could be described as inclusivism which proved to be very successful, and we should replace multiculturism with Mandela's wise approach.