Class warfare? Or just plain vindictive? Andy Burnham's announcement this week that Britain's middle-class areas will have to take in more illegal migrants is as cynical as it is predictable.Since Labour came to power two years ago, about 80,000 people have entered the UK on small boats crossing the Channel. On Monday, a dinghy nearly 50ft long arrived, crammed with 230 migrants.Labour was elected on a promise to 'smash the gangs'. They promised to pour resources into tracking down people-smugglers and bringing them to justice, halting their grisly trade of making money out of desperate people ready to risk their lives to come to Britain. So much for that policy.I said at the time it wouldn't work – in fact, I've been warning against these kinds of pitiful solutions for most of my political life.As Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs for about a decade at the start of the century, I oversaw the one policy that does work: relocation.As long as Britain continues to allow migrants to stay, despite arriving unlawfully, they will continue to come.As soon as the Government decides to send them somewhere else, and makes it clear that this is a rule with no exceptions, the trade in people-trafficking will stop. It's as simple as that.But it has to be a coherent, workable policy – not one implemented for show and headlines, because that will lead to social breakdown. On Monday, a dinghy nearly 50ft long arrived, crammed with 230 migrants Too many politicians on both Left and Right have been treating this crisis as a political game, an excuse to strike poses and berate their opponents, says Alexander DownerIn Piddington, Oxfordshire, the 350 villagers there have reacted with understandable horror to Home Office plans for housing 1,250 migrants at the nearby Bicester barracks. They fear being swamped, with their home lives destroyed by a Government policy that appears to have no rationale other than panic.Yet too many politicians on both Left and Right have been treating this crisis as a political game, an excuse to strike poses and berate their opponents. Nigel Farage is doing just that. His policy would be to take the asylum seekers and illegal migrants off their small boats, put them on Royal Navy vessels, and return them to France.It's true that, if France agreed to take back every migrant, the problem would be solved. But, of course, France will do nothing of the kind. From the French point of view, they're well rid. After all, these are not French people fleeing France.Farage and others misrepresent the policy which the Australian government implemented so successfully. They argue that we halted illegal immigration from Indonesia by 'turning back the boats'.But the situation was different in two ways.First, even at their closest, Australia and Indonesia are 90 miles apart, with a large stretch of international waters between them. Legally, Australia is able to intercept vessels in international waters that have the intent of making an illegal entry into Australian territorial waters, and send them back.In reality, that rarely happened. Australia never contemplated sending warships loaded with illegal migrants into Indonesian territorial waters. That would lead to a meltdown in relations.Instead, our most effective means of stopping the boats was establishing offshore relocation. I did that myself. I made the arrangements with the island state of Nauru, which covers about eight square miles in the central Pacific and has 12,000 inhabitants. It's the smallest island nation in the world.Anyone who embarked on a small boat to gain illegal entry into Australia was picked up and then sent to Nauru, no questions asked. They were given accommodation at the removal centre which Australia established and paid for.All refugee claims were dealt with while they lived there. This proved successful so quickly that the Australian government decreed that no one who tried to get to Australia by a small boat would ever be allowed to set foot on our soil. They could stay in Nauru indefinitely, go back to their own country if it was safe to do so, or find a third country willing to take them as refugees.That stopped the trade in illegal immigration dead in its tracks.I have examined whether the UK could adopt this same policy – in a report on UK Border Force for the Home Office. I take the view that to reward illegal migrants by allowing them to stay in Britain isn't merely immoral, it actively encourages other people to do the same, while enriching the gangs who run these routes.That has been the reality under Labour.But turning back the boats is not legally possible. Even if it were, France might well refuse to take them back. It's unlikely, though not impossible, that this would lead to open fighting between British and French naval vessels, but very likely that France would retaliate by taking all sorts of civil measures.They could, for instance, disrupt all cross-Channel travel, including imports and exports, which would be easy to do and hugely damaging to the UK.As I said, the only feasible answer is offshore relocation. The previous Conservative government tried this with Rwanda, but they lacked the resolve to implement it quickly enough. The policy, obstructed by activist lawyers, foundered. The Labour Party then abandoned it for ideological reasons.Despite its failure, the Rwanda plan was workable – the Conservatives under Kemi Badenoch recognise this. In order to stop illegal migrants, and stymie the lawyers, the UK would have to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.So what? Nothing else would change. Britain would not descend into totalitarianism. Real human rights will continue to exist without the say-so of a European law.And Rwanda is not the only country that would be willing to partner with Britain.Burnham should open talks immediately with his Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni, who is negotiating a deal with Albania to house and process asylum seekers.Other options include Ascension Island, a British territory in the Atlantic – 34 square miles of volcanic rock midway between Africa and South America.There is no overwhelming logistical reason why it should not be used as a relocation centre for thousands of people while their claims for asylum are dealt with.If migrants are genuinely in fear for their lives as they flee their homelands, because of war, religious persecution or other compelling reasons, offshore relocation is a safe option for them. They should welcome it.The truth, as we all know, is that almost all of them would be appalled at the idea.The mass influx of migrants to the UK would stop immediately. This is how to 'smash the gangs'.It might seem harsh, and it is certainly not a policy for the squeamish. But the alternative is unrestricted immigration, allowing everyone who wants to come to the UK to do so without question.If that's what Andy Burnham wants, he must say so.Alexander Downer is chairman of the Policy Exchange think-tank and was Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs from 1996 to 2007.