WHEN Kevin Rudd became Australia's prime minister in 2007 he promised big changes to the draconian treatment the conservative coalition of his predecessor, John Howard, had dished out to asylum-seekers. He insisted his government would be tough on people-smugglers, but humane towards refugees. Since then, his Labor government has speeded up the processing of applications, reforming a regime where some had languished behind wire for years. On April 9th, though, the government suggested that humanity has its limits: it suspended processing asylum applications from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan for three and six months respectively. Human-rights experts accused Australia of slipping back to the dark days of 2001, when the former government sent the navy to push boat people back to sea.

The move is not quite that extreme; but it is driven by similar populist impulses. So far this year, the authorities have intercepted 42 boats, just 18 fewer than in the whole of last year, carrying 1,970 asylum-seekers (compared with 2,726 in all 2009), mainly Afghans and Sri Lankans. The two groups make up 85% of the boat people Australia has accepted as refugees.

Although the government abolished its predecessor's “Pacific solution”, which sent detainees to grim camps in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, it still gives a nod to old Australian anxieties about the threat of incoming hordes from the north. Applicants are now kept on Christmas Island, an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean, about 5,000km (3,125 miles) from the big cities. The rising numbers might still be comparatively small; but the opposition and the tabloid press have waged fear campaigns accusing the government of “losing control” of Australia's borders.

The government justifies its new stand by arguing that Afghanistan and Sri Lanka are “evolving” from their war-torn situations; it suggests a forthcoming review of both countries by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees might mean fewer asylum-seekers will be afforded refugee status. Amnesty International, among others, is not impressed. It worries that more countries could take Australia's decision as a pretext to put pressure on the UN to stop processing Afghan and Sri Lankan refugees in Asia.

For other critics, the decision smacks more of a cynical fix to stop tabloid carping in an Australian election year. Even that may not work. Two boats with 55 passengers arrived within days of the government's announcement; more are said to be on their way. Cathy Branson, head of the Australian Human Rights Commission, says Christmas Island's remoteness and crowded conditions make it the wrong place to detain people. Indeed, closing Christmas Island would seem to make sense on two counts. It would save Canberra money. And shifting asylum-seekers to the even more dismal detention centres on the Australian mainland might even deter boats. The political risks, though, make such a move unlikely.