This does not have to be the case. It persists as our policy to fuel the queue-jumping myth. Even the Department of Immigration and Citizenship says boat people are not queue jumpers. The reason is that while the UNHCR registers people claiming refugee status, Canberra sets the intake. So the government says we'll have X number from Somalia, X from Burma, Sudan, Chad, etc. The department's officials who work with the UNHCR have complete discretion whom they take. The fact a refugee has been waiting longest in the UNHCR queue does not mean that person will be selected. Hence boat people don't jump the queue.

2. Did John Howard ''stop the boats''?

Just look at the figures. There was a huge reduction of people and boats under Howard and a huge increase under Rudd.

The ''Pacific solution'' was implemented after the election of November 2001, more than two months after the attacks of September 11. There was a peak in boat arrivals in 2001: 43 boats and 5516 people. That record under Howard has not been broken. It went down to one boat and one asylum seeker in 2002, one boat and 53 asylum seekers in 2003. In 2008, with Rudd at the helm, there were seven boats, 161 people, and in 2009 there were 59 boats and 2750 people. This year we're up to 2982 arrivals by boat. Bingo. The ''Pacific solution'' must have worked. But there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

There was a huge wave of people escaping the Taliban in Afghanistan, before the US went in with Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001. With the Taliban gone for a time the incentive to flee significantly subsided. Geopolitical circumstances had as much to do with the ebbing and surging of asylum seekers immediately after 2002, as did the scheme to process them on Nauru and Manus Island.

The reason behind this weird offshore processing arrangement was to remove the applicants from any benefits of review and legal assistance under the Migration Act.

Even so, 80 per cent to 90 per cent of asylum seekers who arrive by boat are granted refugee status because they are genuinely fleeing persecution. The figure for those arriving by plane is 40 per cent.

3. Boats and planes - what's the big difference?

Afghans, Iraqis arrive on boats. Chinese and Tamils generally fly in, then make refugee claims.

Little boats lurching over the high seas have been turned into the real bogey-people of ''border protection''. Maybe that's because the majority of boat people are Muslim, while most of the air travellers are not.

People-smuggling costs vary, but most of the Afghans and Iraqis who arrive have sold everything to rake up the tariff. It's about $3000 a person, with no refunds, but can be as high as $9000.

4. Is it common for refugees not to have papers?

Of course. Fleeing home in a hurry usually means no papers. Even to ask officials in these countries for documents and papers is risky. The UNHCR's recognition of a person as a refugee is not dependent on whether they have papers.

The department says, in spite of the absence of personal documentation, it makes its own checks.

Under an Abbott government they won't have to bother with the checks. No papers equals ''go home''.

In 1939 the historian and journalist Brian Fitzpatrick wrote about a ''Melbourne campaign'' led by Sir Frank Clarke of the Legislative Council and Mr Sanderson of the Chamber of Manufactures. The object of the campaign ''seems to be to identify the description of 'refugee' with that of 'exploiter' or 'helot'.''

The Helots came from Laconia, hence laconic. Sounds as though we need more of them.

justinian@lawpress.com .au