So Tony Abbott's prescription for Europe in dealing with refugees is to follow the Australian example.
"This means turning boats around ... It means denying entry at the border, for people with no legal right to come; and it means establishing camps for people who currently have nowhere to go. It will require some force ??? it is the only way to prevent a tide of humanity surging through Europe and quite possibly changing it forever."
One revealing aspect of Abbott's speech is that all reference to the importance of saving lives at sea - which, as prime minister, had been his major defence of his policies, has disappeared. Is it too much to suggest that this was always a smoke-screen? Instead, there is a call to prevent the changing of Europe "forever" - a not-very-subtle appeal to preserve the European racial and religious status quo. 
What would happen if Europe were to adopt Australia's policy of deterrence? First, European navies, instead of rescuing boats, would tow them to North Africa and Turkey. Whether these people then took other dangerous routes or were forced back to the places from which they had fled would be deemed irrelevant.
Secondly, Europe would take those who arrived on European soil and, with the use of "some force", lock them in detention camps - more than 530,000 this year alone. It would make no exceptions for the sick or the children because to do so would only encourage the sick and the children to come. There would be no limit on the time in detention, although they would have broken no laws, been charged or brought before a court of law.
Thirdly, it would pay poor countries - the equivalents of Papua New Guinea and Nauru - to set up detention camps, then ship those people there.
Finally, it would tell these people that for exercising their rights under the 1951 International Refugee Convention, Europe would be forever closed to them. It would be a humanitarian outrage. 
The "Australian solution" would also be ruled illegal. One element of it has been tried. Between 2007 and 2009, Italy began sending undocumented people back to Libya. On   February 23, 2012, the European Court of Human Rights issued a landmark judgment against such "push-backs" The case concerned 24 Somali and Eritrean asylum seekers who set out in   May 2009. They were taken back to Libya and handed over to the authorities there.
The European Court of Human Rights found that Italy had violated the European Convention on Human Rights. Each of the applicants was awarded  ???15,000 ($23,200) in compensation. The 17 judges ruled unanimously that Italy had breached its obligations even though the applicants never reached Italian territorial waters.
A year earlier, the same court ruled in favour of an Afghan who had entered Europe through Greece but made his asylum application later in Belgium. The court found that Belgium was wrong to return him to Greece and found against both countries. It would almost certainly find against Australian-style mandatory detention were European nations to implement such a policy.
Whatever its faults, the Australian reaction to those seeking asylum in the 1970s and early 1980s contrasts sharply with policies today. There was no suggestion then that the poor countries of the region - Cambodia, the Philippines, PNG - should resettle the refugees permanently. There was no mandatory detention of asylum seekers. There was no policy of towing boats back. The Indochinese refugees we took then did, in some ways, change Australia "forever". Most Australians now are glad of it.
In 2014, countries in the European Union offered asylum to 184,665 refugees, but more than 570,000 applied for it. With the Syrian war raging since 2011, increasing instability in Libya and the further deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan, the build-up of desperate people in the transit countries - especially Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon - reached a tipping point. People languishing there without hope of permanent resettlement felt compelled to take dangerous journeys to Europe.
A combination of a higher refugee intake throughout Europe and elsewhere in the developed world and rapid processing of asylum applications in these countries of transit followed by safe transportation of those who succeed could provide an alternative and forestall the tragedies that we have witnessed in the Mediterranean.
The world today faces a choice. The response will have a profound impact on future relations between different parts of the world, peoples and cultures. Should developed countries turn their backs on the millions forced to flee and, instead, shelter behind walls protected by force while refugees live - or die - in misery, there will be enmities created that will not easily be forgotten or forgiven. Unfortunately, Australia has pioneered a path towards that dark future. Neither Europe nor anyone else should follow it.
Dr John Minns is associate professor of politics and international relations at the Australian National University. He is also a member of the Canberra Refugee Action Committee.