Some interesting comments, thank you everyone.

Poirot, I didn't examine anything about the motivations of the political players in my piece. They don't really have any bearing on whether resettling people in PNG is a good or bad thing, they're just about whether it is going to happen.

People from PNG are very good at negotiating. They come from a place where their basic survival is dependent on negotiating for resources that don't exist within their own tribal lands. everything from salt to new genetic stock in the form of brides is subject to trade and negotiation and occasionally physical conflict. Increasingly, conflict is becoming the standard method, because people see others getting something for nothing and they can't see why they should pay to get the same thing.

One of the rules of negotiating in that environment is to always be able to say "no" to a deal and keep the other side guessing about how much you need what they're offering, while making every effort to make them think you don't need it at all.

I suspect that's the real purpose of both the Nauru and the Singleton factors. The PNG government is playing politics on numbers, trying to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie for their wantoks, so the Australian Government has to make it clear they don't need PNG.

Joe, there is no future for refugees in Indonesia. It is very much like PNG in many ways - after all, PNG is just the largest island in the Indonesian archipelago - but it has a very well developed social/political/economic system that has little room for more groups to participate. Refugees would always be outsiders, just as the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia are still outsiders despite having a very long history in the place and a strong economic role due to that historic association. PNG is a tabula rasa by comparison and everyone could benefit. PNG people are respectful of those who contribute to the general good. It's a fundamental part of having a tribal culture.

Craig,

<<there is no future for refugees in Indonesia>>

I would have thought that being fellow Muslims they might have been a better fit for Indonesia than either Melanesian Christian PNG or liberal secularist OZ. And bear in mind that most have resided in either Malaysia or Indonesia for years.

The main barrier(s) to them settling in Indonsia is that neither they (the"refugees") nor the Indonesians want it that way.

<< Refugees would always be outsiders>>

Actually, they would probably be less like outsiders than the West Irianese or the Sumatrians (when faced with the transmigration of outsiders into their territories) or, their own local Chinese population (who have no own territory).

And, why are we/you making excuses for Indonesian boganism --would you permit/accommodate similair in OZ?

Just you all wait & see how PNG will be overrun in a few short years, courtesy Kevin Judas Rudd. The bloodshed will be horrific & then it'll be Australia's turn in earnest.

SPQR, thank you for your interest.

Indonesia is not "Muslim", despite having a very large Muslim population. There are 6 religions recognised by the State: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism.

As I pointed out above, the main problem is that there is already a sophisticated social/political/commercial set of structures within the country that acts strongly to exclude outsiders, especially outsiders without money.

Whether you or I agree with that doesn't matter, nor does whether Australia does the same. It's their country. Would you accept Indonesians telling you how you should act?

Besides, I'm interested in the pragmatic aspects of this, not in debating theoretical ideological arguments. In terms of achieving a good outcome, the PNG solution seems to fit at least some of the bill better than other courses of action that have been suggested, don't you think?

Individual, you seem to have a very high regard for the capacity of these refugees. That's encouraging.

Hi Graig,

I think you have an overly rosy view of things on the ground in PNG.I seem to recall fierce inter tribal rivalry, and deep antipathy towards its Asian minorities which has led to recent burnings and beatings.

However, my main intent was to expose the hypocrisy of our advocates & fellow travelers who are quite eager to excuse PNG & Indonesia any little peccadilloes like chauvinism or xenophobia,but would not tolerant similar for one moment in OZ. And, if anyone were to suggest that:
<< the main problem [with Oz accepting "refugees"] is that there is already a sophisticated social/political/commercial set of structures within the country that acts strongly to exclude outsiders, especially outsiders without money>>
Holy Moses! They'd be straight off to the International Court of Justice or something worse to overturn it (and the taxpayers of Oz would be paying their costs)

The best solution would for OZ to tightening-up of our processing system/procedures. Not an easy task, I acknowledge, since so many in Oz stand to benefit(in a corrupt way) from the constant inflow of "refugees". But if we were to derail that gravy train, take the sugar off the table and grow some balls we could stop the inflow overnight.

We'll have to agree to disagree on some things.

Still and all anyone who can come up with an assessment like this:<<shallow reactionary vitriol of people like Ms Shepherd or the patronising faux analysis that featured in Mr Haigh's piece>>
Must have his head screwed on right!

Cheers

a very high regard for the capacity of these refugees.
Craig Minns,
How much more evidence do you require that they're making headway in their mission. I bet Australia couldn't manage to send that many troops into the countries these people come from & get them slowly set up for the big day.