wot the australia defence association says on the matter,  on three key issues:

"For several years the Australia Defence Association has been pointing out that asylum-seeking is a strategic policy issue with domestic ramifications, not vice versa. Not appreciating this context continues to cause most of the misunderstandings so undermining informed and effective public debate. Even more importantly, it continues to hamper the implementation of effective solutions. We have also long condemned both sides of politics for often putting perceived short-term electoral advantage ahead of their responsibility to protect the long-term national interest regarding Australia's strategic security and the protection of our national sovereignty.

In terms of the new Coalition plan, the ADA has some concerns about three particular aspects and seeks clarifications that are not provided by the plan itself or in the subsequent and somewhat contradictory explanations by some of its authors.

1.   Risk of appearing to "militarise" a civil matter
2.   Care always needed when using the ADF to supplement civil law enforcement

1.    Risk of appearing to "militarise" a civil matter

In both perception and reality it is surely not conducive to informed public debate domestically, or Australia's reputation and diplomacy internationally, to “militarise” discussion of what remains unequivocally an Australian civil law enforcement issue.

Especially where such law enforcement measures in a border security context necessarily involve Australia’s strategic relations with our regional neighbours. And where public discussion of border security matters is often so ill-informed on all sides of the Australian community.

Or where elements of our defence force have been long used appropriately to supplement but not supplant relevant civil agencies in their law enforcement responsibilities. Such as where the ADF already assists counter-smuggling measures of all types undertaken by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service or anti-poaching measures by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Members of ADF (and Customs) boarding parties tackling people smuggling now need to be armed for self-protection and the protection of others aboard vessels making unauthorised entry into Australia.

But Operation Resolute now — and an Operation Sovereign Borders-type activity in the future — are still not the type of national security matters requiring the use of military force by the ADF in defence of Australia as governed by the self-defence or collective security provisions of the UN Charter.

Even where the ADF helps the relevant civil authorities, such border law enforcement operations remain a civil matter in both law and practice (including leadership and departmental responsibility). And in the ADF's proper legal subordination to the relevant civil authority it is assisting.

Potential domestic and international confusion about defence force subordination to civil authority should always be avoided.

2.    Care always needed when using the ADF to supplement civil law enforcement

The ADA also has some broader concerns about certain aspects of the Coalition’s proposed plan. At the very least, further clarification of what the plan is intendended to mean is needed.

It has long been our position that the use of the ADF for civil law enforcement should be minimised not maximised, no matter whether force or non-force assistance is involved.

For example, we noted our concern about continued military leadership of the intervention into Northern Territory indigenous communities when it was no longer an emergency.

Moreover, in the NT intervention the ADF was also dragged into substantial party-political and community controversy. Chiefly because some Australians misunderstood the ADF's (unarmed) role of logistic support to the civil authorities concerned, or where such critics deliberately chose to misrepresent the defence force's role and activities for politically-partisan or other polemical purposes

Aspects of the proposed Coalition plan concerning changed border security arrangements need deeper consideration to forestall such pitfalls.

•As a constitutional and legal principle the ADF should not be used for civil law enforcement unless it is a real emergency and the relevant civil agencies do not have the specialist resources to cope. Especially where such defence force assistance might involve the use of armed force. Chiefly because civil policing functions are based on the minimum-force principle whereas military force is necessarily based (legally, culturally and operationally) on using maximum force.
•As institutional, strategic and budgetary principles, our defence force should be enabled to concentrate on its key role of national defence. Not have its capabilities and activities unduly diverted to peripheral or wholly non-defence roles.
•It is a longstanding Westminster-system convention that our defence force is an apolitical institution that defends all Australians equally. National understanding of this, however, needs to be reciprocated, respected and reinforced. This has long meant not placing the ADF in situations where it risks being the focus of party-political or other serious community controversy.
•A bedrock Westminster-system convention to keep the "gun out of our politics" (as in all liberal democracies) means it is necessary to keep party-politics out of our military. This is why undertaking its duties in a non-partisan matter is so embedded in the institutional and professional cultures of our defence force. It is also why the ADF should not be used for partisan purposes or where there is a high risk that it will be perceived as partisan.
Every effort must be made to avoid involving our defence force in situations of party-political controversy.

and finally, the matter of

3.   Military leadership

read more 'ere:

http://ada.asn.au/commentary/formal-comment/2013/oppositions-plan-to-combat-people-smuggling.html

Quoting PNG politics/politicians is a definite case of the blind leading the blind, as in amongst your post NW is this little gem from Marat:

“O’Neill and his ministers should ask Australia to revert back to its turn-back policy for asylum-seekers’ boats where it is safe to do so. Turn back the boat to its port of origin.”

Or perhaps a dumb idea leading to a dumb idea!

nɥºɾ

And if that doesn't work supernova (and of course it won't work - not even he is stupid enough to believe that...I think...), he has openly declared that he would not abolish Rudds much despised PNG solution.