Yes the government has got it very wrong indeed by locking people, including children - and the 'odd' Australian citizen [only one, I wonder] - up for years.
This policy was done on the run and mainly for re-election purposes and it got out of hand.This pathetic mean spirited government is now in a bind. It cannot go back that is show compassion and decency with honesty and let the majority of the assylum seekers free. To do so would invalidate the tough or unmerciful stance they began with. By the way as I have no way of knowing - Just how many American, British people are locked up? Even this mean spirited mob would not have the guts or ticker to lock up their citizens. Of course neither the British or American government would never allow their citizens to be locked up in large numbers either.Yet there are a lot who have overstayed their visas I am led to believe.Regards, numbat

Tim, I agree with almost everything but do wonder why single women are included on the priority list. In what way do their needs differ from those single men (who do not appear to be mentioned)? I assume that fathers and mothers would be prioritised to be released with their children to provide care for the children and keep families intact.

Tim,
In order to get a handle on the size of the problem we need to know the median rather than just the mean time in detention, as the mean will be pulled up by a small number of people with very long stays. As you say, the number of asylum seekers here in Australia is small, and the overwhelming majority have been found to be genuine. However it is fair to point out that this is not always the case in other countries that don't detain asylum seekers. For example, in Britain last year there were 40,000 asylum claims, amounting to 800 people a week, including dependants. 88% were refused both asylum and humanitarian protection and 80% of appeals were dismissed. Not counting dependants, 50,000 claims were finally rejected last year but only 12,000 failed asylum seekers removed. These are Home Office figures collected by an organisation called Migration Watch UK
(www.migrationwatchuk.org). It should be noted that Britain is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and thus bound by the same rules as Australia. Your scheme would keep people in detention if their identity could not be established, thus eliminating one form of fraud leading to difficulties in removal, but some countries, such as Iran, at least until recently, won't take people back unless they go voluntarily. How would you deal with the situation of a failed asylum seeker who nevertheless refuses to go?

Your comment, 'The overseas experience of community assessment is that where participants have an incentive to continue to participate in the assessment process, abscondments are almost zero' is total nonsense.
The British experience has been that once detainees are let back into the community they tend to disappear.
Paul

One of the main problems I have with people who advocate a relaxation of our immigration policies is they seem to have no vision of how the world is likely to develop over the next 25-50 years. Do they consider that the factors causing illegals to want to come here will go away, that the world will become benign and peaceful, with the lion lying down with the lamb? Or do they consider, like me, that the world population will increase by around 50%, that conditions in much of the world will become far more desperate, and that if we relax our vigilance we will be overwhelmed by people anxious to escape to a better land. My main concern is that we will get to the stage where illegal immigrants will be declared to be enemy aliens, liable to be shot on sight with no questions asked, and that the navy will use their boats for target practice. The best way to avoid this is to maintain our current strict policy.

plerdsus seems confused about the issue here. The Howard government has been, and will continue to do so, increase significantly the number of immigrants Australia takes. The main impetus for this at present is a percieved shortage of skilled workers. For the past 200 years we have been a nation built on immigration. For the past 30 years we have not applied any racial discrimination to immigrants. So is it immigration or our treatment of refugees that concerns plerdus?

This post is supposed to be about humane treatment of refugees in Australia. plerdus refers to "illegal immigrants" but refugees are not illegal. Persons who come to Australia, whether by boat or by plane, and claim refugee status are legally entitled to have their claim assessed. These rights are protected by international Conventions to which Australia is a party as well as international and Australian law. Around 90% of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees and allowed to remain in Australia.

The issue raised by Tim is how we manage those people claiming refugee status while their claims are assessed. Under the current regime we lock up people who have committed no crime, subject them to worse treatment than hardened criminals and refuse to give any indication when they might be released. The government justifies this on the basis of being a deterrent to other prospective asylum seekers. It is unconsciable to punish people who have committed no offence to act as a deterent to others.

It is a sad reflection on the state of politics in this country when we have Liberal backbenchers and Dick Smith putting more pressure on the Government to change the mandatory detention policy than the ALP is.
I fully agree with Tim that it is time to address this blight on humanity in Australia. Mandatory detention may be popular with the Australian people but it is still morally repugnant.