Correct me if I'm wrong, but every person in detention is free to leave and go back to where they came from or apply to another country for asylum?

So " this is the worst psychological abuse of individuals I have seen" is for all intents a purposes self inflected.

"I believe that those involved in the major political parties are good people"

If this psychological theory is correct, then Hitler too was a victim of childhood-trauma or something like that, but essentially a good person.

All politicians are evil because by definition, their career is about setting out to enforce their policies on their fellow, helpless, human beings.

---

Dear Cobber,

«Correct me if I'm wrong, but every person in detention is free to leave and go back to where they came from or apply to another country for asylum?»

They came from the sea, they had boats and these boats were taken away by the Australian-government pirates who robbed their freedom. Give them back their boats!
(and millions of dollars each in compensation for their wrongful detention and torture)

Upon viewing the Nauru Files that the Guardian posted, I also found that a majority of the issues were asylum seekers either threatening to harm themselves, or actually harming themselves in attempts to enter the country, Which lends credence to the comment before me.

I did however find one legitimate case of assault which sounded horrific, but the Guardian reported it as over 2000 cases. Perhaps I missed something.

I think the quality of life experienced by the refugee's should be improved, and that greater transparency should be striven for in regards to media. However is it also possible that the Guardian has exacerbated the issue in order to appeal to emotions?

In cases of genuinely seeking asylum then I'd have to disagree with the previous comment, in that it perhaps ignores the necessity of some who are at Nauru.

However we must too wade through those who are simply illegal immigrants, in order to find the legitimate asylum seekers. And, as the article points out, this is not cheap.

I think there must be great emphasis (perhaps my ignorance precludes me from seeing that there already is) upon ones geographical proximity to the country in which they seek asylum. This means that those who bypass other viable countries for residency in order to get to Australia are not those we should most readily help.

There are perfectly good stone buildings at Norfolk Island and Port Arthur where heritage of Australian values will improve the morale of prisoners and guards alike. British Protestant cold water , porridge, rum and the lash will make men from these drifters.

Yes. We do 'have a problem in the way we treat asylum seekers'. We are far to soft on them. We should not be paying for their upkeep in detention centres. We should be repelling them, and not allowing their feet to touch land until they get back to where they came from. We should stop kowtowing to unelected organisations such as the United Nations, and start defending our country and ourselves from international hogwash.

Ah yes, we must ensure folks claiming asylum are treated humanely!

As I understand it detainees are free to come and go on Nauru, attend school, sporting fixtures, shop and visit medical clinics at will. All on the taxpayer's chequebook!?

Even so, some of these folk come from medieval patriarchal cultures, where spousal and childhood abuse are customary or advocated?

Moreover, some of those accidents that saw kids flown to mainland Australia, may have been perpetrated by parents, who may have thought they could get here that way? And if successful may well have seen more of the same?

When people arrive seeking asylum, that's all we are obliged by UN conventions to supply. And given they're are safer there than where they escaped from? We aren't obliged to offer more!

Certainly not in the face of bogus claims or confected outrage?

Many of these con artists have woken up to the fact that they are never ever be going to be resettled in Australia, unless or until they apply from their places of origin or accepted transitory camps, for organised immigration backed by bona fide documentation, rather than ambit claims not supported by accompanying documentation given, to a generic man, these folk have deliberately destroyed theirs!? And consequently could be anybody!

Yes, we can make a case for more transparency and punishing evil doers, with the full force of the law!

And yes, we can make a cost benefit case for assisting these folk financially, so they can return and get a modest enterprise started as a superior outcome to the one they left?

As long as we remain determined to stay the course and deny these folk any chance of resettlement here, except via legitimate means, some of which could be a UN sponsored regional solution?

That'll prevent many from undertaking journeys to transit countries to begin with? Most of the problem and the principle source of customers for false promise illegal people trafficking, all too often, culminating in preventable mass tragedy!
Alan B.