My problem is that this is not being done "to help PNG".

It's been done to appease the bigotry and whipped-up hysteria of Australians and to assist Labor to win an election.

Tell me how dumping traumatised people on a country that already has its own huge challenges, in a demographic whose people are less likely to absorb and integrate an alien culture, is going to work?

Here we go again. Is there no end to the disingenuous actions of rich countries pretending their populist and opportunistic policies are equally beneficial to the target of their exploitation?

Here's an interesting bit of news - which points to a belief that the PNG solution isn't actually in place to "stop the boats", but merely to win the election.

What's this about?

"The Federal Government has set aside tens of millions of dollars for a new immigration detention centre in the Hunter region of New South Wales.

The Government used yesterday's budget update to allocate $43 million for a new detention centre at Singleton.

It says the plan is to potentially house more than 1,000 asylum seekers at the Defence Force base there.

It has also allocated almost $90 million to eventually accommodate up to 1,000 people at Blaydin Point near Darwin."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-03/government-sets-aside-money-for-singleton-asylum-detention-cent/4862824

We're being sold a crock....it seems.

dumping traumatised people
Poirot,
And what precisely is the cause of people getting so traumatised in the first place ? Are you inferring it's Australia's fault & not those who tell,force,send these people here on a religious agenda ?
You starting to gradually expose yourself as a potential traitor to this nation.

Cor blimey! she's at it again.

<<we're being sold a crock>>

The real crock we've been sold is that we are part of this great fraternity of Asylum Convention signatories. And by naively resettling the highest number (on a per capita basis) we are just one of many doing our bit to make the world a better place.

However, whenever it comes to redirecting a portion of those "asylum seekers" to any of the non-Western member states in that great fraternity, there are, suddenly, 10,000 reasons why it can't be done(quite apart that is from the fact the "asylum seekers" only want to go to the five star, Western countries!)

For God Save! why would you sign up a country to the Refugee Convention if they hadn't the wherewithal to accommodate "refugees"?

It's rather like picking player X as part of your basket ball team but never having any intention of passing him/her the ball --what a crock --what a joke

For God Save s/b For God Sake

While writing it, I was thinking of how God might "save" Poriot, make her see sense --but that's even beyond him/her

Are we being sold a croc... I think Poirot raises a valid point.

Why would the government being doing this unless they plan to bring the refugees into the Country? But what about the numbers? $90 million to house 1000 asylum seekers is $900,000 each plus whatever social welfare benefit they receive. This seems way out of proportion. It would be nice to see this Government willing to spend that kind of money helping needy Australians.