Actually Rhian - go easy on Sonya - I think she's a secret asylum seeker advocate who is throwing us chocolates to make whoopee with! Bless her little cotton socks. Good to see a little subversion. That's why I'm still here. She should be appreciated! Anyway positively the last post.

Anyway Sonya, thanks. Nobody as you know expects individuals to pickup the responsibility as individuals for asylum seekers or for the homeless for that matter. Some people do to their eternal credit, but most aren't in a position to do so.

That is why we are tax-payers and voters. This family coughs up a very respectable amount of tax. While this causes my partner some sighing at tax time, it enables wealth to re-distributed through the community and all Australians given access to education and health - not as well as we would like sometimes, but at least the basics are there. It makes for a more equal and balanced society

Which is why as tax-payers we have a perfect right to feel miffed when we see governments flushing money down the toilet by pandering to this idea of us being over-run by boat people by spending a billion dollars on the so-called Pacific solution. It is also why we are outraged at Governments locking up people (some even here legally) for years in what have been described as mental illness factories. The hundreds of thousands spent on Government feel-good advertising are annoying too.

Asylum seekers and refugees once accepted to Australia mostly are ready to contribute, stand on their own feet and be proud Australians. Unfortunately after we have put some through the ringer in detention, they are no longer as mentally healthy as they should be. But I did think of one reason to close the borders today and probably the only one. I bet those Kiwi's would love to steal my son's terrific specialist - almost certainly a boat person at one stage of his life. Any country would. We should be looking to keep some people in (joke I wouldn't really).

i wasn't coming back either but i have to add= 'refugee advocate' is a description of someone not a job title as some people are wrongly saying. Most advocating for refugees are paying for that privilege, not getting paid and it comes at a price. A lot of supporters of refugees have given up a lot of their life and sometimes all their money to help refugees. They have taken them into homes and cared for them as family members. We have international obligations to help people in need, we would be the pariah of the world if we didn’t do our bit. We take nearly 14,000 each year, included in that are the people arriving on boats (no difference in total). Allegations that people supporting refugees make any personal gain from that are baseless and defamatory.

Ludwig, I obviously disagree with most of what you say. I just have a different view to you and there is nothing that I am not admitting. Although the Pacific Solution was designed to punish those people to try to scare off others, I don't believe it had the deterrent effect you suggest. I do believe that the change in circumstances in Afghanistan in particular was significant, the rejection of cases, the sinking of the SIEVX, and other factors. I say what I believe about a complex subject. I believe that the Howard government was spooked by the Pauline Hanson factor in an election year, it was a frightened reaction.

Having been so deeply involved in the Pacific Solution I saw a lot of damage caused to people and it is simply not the way we should be treating anyone. I don't embelish or exaggerate, I can be pedantic about facts - I don't believe that anyone is served by misrepresenting a situation. I tend to err on the side of caution if I don't believe claims are founded in fact but the Nauru experience was not a good one for anyone. And many Nauruans don't want that policy and all that went with it in their country again - it is a tiny piece of land and we are not real popular there. I could say a lot more but having written 100,000 words on the subject to be released soon (with all proceeds going to assist asylum seekers, like everything else in my life for many years) I will let that speak for itself. (Continued next comment)

(continued from previous) On your point about focusing on onshore arrivals - that is just is seen in the superficial debate in the media. No-one is interested in the wider debate about refugees even though that is at the core of most of the refugee advocacy that takes place. From an advocacy perspective the onshore focus is mostly on damage control and trying to get the attention on to the broader problem of the world's refugee population. People who support refugees don't control the debate, the media want superficial conflict and the subject seems to provide easy tough talk for politicians. My direct focus on Nauru and boat arrivals is simply because I became so involved. I could equally ask why people want to focus so much energy on talking against boat arrivals instead of calling for countries to up their intake so there is no need to get on boats. It's all about resettlement for those who have no other options. People arrive on a boat becasue they have no other options. A recent UNHCR advisory made a good point (I quote):

'Myth: Most refugees want to be resettled - Truth: Most refugees want to return home. They want to live in their country in peace and safety. For those who cannot go home, UNHCR works with States and NGOs to protect them and their families. Resettlement is for refugees who have no other solution. Resettlement is about needs, not wants.'

But most refguees in the world who need resettlement will never get it and can you really say that you would not do all you could to surive and take care of your family if you were in the same situation?
Of course I don't want people feeling they have no choice but to get on a boat - I don't know anyone who does - but it is no reason to punish people for their need.

Susan Metcalfe

Shouldn't we be more worried about Nauru selling passports to terrorists than people smugglers selling safe passage to refugees? This is from a story in 2003 here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nauru-bows-to-us-and-shuts-down-its-banks-595021.html

'The US claimed that both banks and passports from Nauru – the world's smallest independent republic and a member of the Commonwealth – have been used by al-Qa'ida-linked terrorist groups. The Americans clearly remain suspicious that Nauru will renege on its promises. As a "big stick", the US Treasury announced on Friday that it is going to impose "special measures" against Nauru under the US Patriot Act. In a move that threatens to take the island to total economic collapse, American businesses will be banned from having any dealings with Nauru's offshore financial sector. Details were also released last week that six suspected Islamic terrorists who have been arrested in South-East Asia and the US were carrying Nauruan passports.

Susan,

You say: “I don't believe that anyone is served by misrepresenting a situation. I tend to err on the side of caution “
But then glibly quote your UNHCR cue card : “Most refugees want to return home… Resettlement is for refugees who have no other solution. Resettlement is about needs, not wants.”

If you’re honest you would have needed to distinguish between those refugees who in the event of trouble move to the nearest safe haven—which may well be the majority--- with those who move half away around the world, all the time window-shopping for the best deal.

Australia tends to get a lot of the window shoppers .You will recall the “refugees” who hijacked the Oceanic Viking .They wanted “ resettlement” . But they only wanted resettlement in a select group of affluent western countries .

In the case of both Afghanistan and Sri Lanka there is ample opportunity for such ‘refugees’ to satisy their "WANT" and stay home –relocating to another part of the country – for yes, contrary to advocates hype, both countries have many regions that are outside the current conflict ---as the UN itself acknowledges.

The strange attractor that draws them to OZ is the same that attracts many other opportunists.And it must be very strong because some of the overseas students are even prepared to undertake such arduous courses of study as cooking & hair dressing, just as long as it affords then opportunity of “resettlement”.

One final point, I’ve noted you say: “Many Nauruans don't want that policy and all that went with it in their country again”
Very noble of you to have such consideration for the feelings of the Nauruans (and even more admirable that you didn’t write them off as xenophobes) BUT you apparently haven’t noticed that many Australians, also, don’t want Australia used in similar manner!

So, please,now that it's been drawn to your attention, show us the same consideration as you show the Nauruans and stop haranguing us with Namby Pamby advocacy pieces on OLO.