Susan Metcalfe's article almost entirely misses the point about the Pacific Island solution. The idea was to discourage illegial immigration which it seemed to do. Australian governments have an obligation to enforce the country's laws - or change them - and the Pacific solution helped them do this. The camps were eventually closed not because they failed, as Metcalfe implies, but because they succeeded - the boat people stopped coming so the inmates for the camps were processed and either given immigrant status or sent home, long before Rudd came to power. The reason some stayed for so long in the camps was because they were appealing deportation orders through the courts.
I'm sure the behaviour of staff in the camps was less than satisfactory, but the Nahru people accepted the camps in part because they managed to chuck away their own money and needed funds from somewhere. At least they seemed to have stopped being international money launderers.
It would be better not to have the camps at all, of course, but the reason we have them is that there is no national identity system as there is in some European countries. If the authorities let them loose in Australia with a temporary vias while their applications are being processed, they would have the devil's own job to find them again.

Curmudgeon not only misses the point but also misrepresents the facts. The Refugee Convention, to which Australia is a signatory, guarantees asylum seekers' status as LEGAL, even if the boat on which they arrive is illegal. This is Refugee Studies 101, and these facts have been in the public domain for decades. How many times do we have to repeat this before people get it straight?

So it's not about illegal immigration, or indeed any kind of immigration, at all. It's about Australia's commitment and obligation to protect people from persecution, a consideration which falls entirely outside Australia's migration policies, both legally and morally.

Under international law, supported by Australian legislation, unauthorised arrival by boat, even without papers, is LEGAL for the purpose of claiming protection from persecution. Even John Howard knew that - why else do you think he authorised the processing of their claims (albeit very very slowly)? Do you really think he would have continued processing them if they really were illegals? Hardly. He tried every cruel and dishonest trick in the book to try to discourage them from persevering with their claims, but he knew all along that their right to that claim was supported by law. And he knew therefore that he couldn't simply deny them that right.

For heaven's sake, can we stop repeating the lies and misrepresentations which always seem to characterise these debates? Face up to the public domain evidence, and let's move on.

Curmudgeon, you provide a lot of incorrect information. The Pacific Solution did not deter boat arrivals. When the Nauru camp was closed by the Rudd Government in early 2008 it still contained 82 Sri Lankans (all but one had been found to be refugees) who had arrived in 2007 after the peace processes had started breaking down in Sri Lanka in 2006, as well as 8 Rohingyas who were still waiting for decisions since arriving in 2006 (they were obviously refugees and resettled quickly under the new Government. All had been left to rot in nauru.

The camp in Nauru was closed by the Rudd Governemnt because it was cruel to treat people in this way and the Opposition had no stomach to continue down this path, in PNG there had long been discomfort in accepting any new arrivals. The Howard Government had spent 390 million dollars of taxpayers money building the Christmas Island detention centre for future arrivals to excised territories.

You say that people in Nauru and PNG were challenging deportation orders in the courts. This is simply untrue. People in Nauru and PNG had no access to courts to challenge their decisions, that's the whole point of offshore processing. It is true that some Afghans returned under pressure to dangerous circumstances but no-one was ever deported from Nauru or PNG. These countries did not have agreements with other countries to accept forced returns, IOM would not involve itself in forced returns, no-one was taken by force although they were threatened that this would happen in the future. The current Rudd government has by contrast deported numerous offshore arrivals.

People seeking asylum arriving by plane are already living in the community. We don't need to keep people in other countries to police them and this article is not about allowing people to live in the community while their identity is being checked.

"ASYLUM SEEKERS" the genuine variety would have protection in the first 'friendly' country they came to. Or the next .... But no the "asylum" is better in Australia eh!
If you were an Asylum Seeker with a genuine claim, you would not object too strongly to being held on a tropical island for a few months or even a year, surely? Free of the persecution you have fled, not wanting for shelter, clothing or nourishing food, you should be able to mark time until your credentials and stories have been checked and approval issued?

Yeah right! These 'desperates' have paid their fares to the people smugglers and they want their moneys worth - entry into Australia. I call B*LLSH*t and these are reasons I won't support another Labor term

No mention from Susan of the many that have drowned with the Rudd 'solution'. Maybe she wants the open invitation to continue despite the facts that many more will die coming here for a better life. Oh that's right it is only the left who are 'compassionate.'

Slobodon Meshirtfront and Susan M
One of you point out there was 81 left in one camp, but that barely counts. Sorry but the point I made still stands. Those were the left overs from a successful policy which the Rudd govt disposed of by declaring refugees, thus allowing them to close the camp. End of story. Since the camps have closed, illegial immigration has started again.
I take your point on not having access to the legal system (pehaps, but I'd have to check that further) but they still had access to an immigration appeals system, which is why they were there for so long. The program was undoubtedly successful and you will find that any incoming conservative government will return to the use of camps. Although you lot may berate others over conditions the policy scored well with voters in marginal electorates, and it is simply not possible, under present legal conditions, to release illegial imigrants into the general population.
the camps will be back..