As European leaders search for a response to a desperate migration crisis that has led to thousands of drownings in the Mediterranean in recent months — including hundreds just this week — they might turn to Tony Abbott for help.

Australia’s prime minister stands accused by his critics of breaking numerous election promises. But no one faults him on one of his core pledges: to stop the flow of rickety boats bringing asylum seekers to the country’s shores.

The navy began turning back such boats to Indonesian waters and locking up anyone that slipped through the net on remote Pacific islands in Nauru or in Papua New Guinea.

So far this year no asylum seekers have arrived in Australia by boat. Last year 157 people briefly entered but were swiftly relocated to an offshore detention centre in Nauru. By contrast, 20,000 asylum seekers arrived in 2013 — most under the previous Labor government before the policy was introduced.

And after years of wrangling between the coalition and the Labor party there are signs the strategy is gaining bipartisan support. Now, only the Green party in Australia regularly criticises offshore processing and turning back boats.

On Tuesday, as images of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean were broadcast around the world, Mr Abbott implored the EU to follow Australia’s lead.

“I suppose we must grieve for the lost, but at the same time we must resolve to stop this terrible problem and the only way you can stop the deaths is to stop the people smuggling trade,” he said.

“That’s why it is so urgent that the countries of Europe adopt very strong policies that will end the people smuggling trade across the Mediterranean.”

Jim Molan, a retired major-general in the Australian army and co-author of Operation Sovereign Borders, went so far as to describe Europe’s response to the immigration crisis as “incompetent”.

Some British commentators are already demanding an EU version of Operation Sovereign Borders. But could Australia’s “turn back” policy be exported to the EU — and would this be desirable?

Legal experts are doubtful, citing the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, individual states’ reluctance to breach international refugee law or to turn back genuine refugees.

“The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled against similar policies, including a deal struck by Italy and Libya to push back boats in the Mediterranean,” says Jane McAdam, law professor at the University of New South Wales.

The objections are not only legal, but also moral.

The tiny Pacific islands dealing with Australia’s asylum policy are clearly ill-equipped, say critics. Government-commissioned reports have highlighted claims of sexual abuse of children on Nauru, while last year an Iranian man was beaten to death by guards during a riot at the Manus Island detention centre in Papua New Guinea.

So far, very few refugees from either island have been resettled.

A report by the UN special rapporteur on torture subsequently found the detention of asylum seekers, including children, in dangerous and violent conditions on Manus Island violated their human rights.

Mr Abbott responded by saying Australians are “sick of being lectured to by the UN”.

Refugee experts say stopping the boats coming to Australia has merely shifted the problem to other states less able to cope and would be an unworkable solution in the EU. The practice has also exposed Australia to international criticism, even from countries with dubious human rights records, including Iran and China.

Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned last year Australia’s policy was leading to “a chain of human rights violations, including arbitrary detention and possible torture following return to home countries”.

So while Mr Abbott may have scored a political victory at home by “stopping the boats”, European leaders may still look elsewhere for advice.