Judy Cannon and some of the others who have posted seem to be trying to confuse illegal immigrants in search of "a better life" with refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution. While the boat people were still arriving asylum seekers found to be refugees spent an average of two months in detention. Admittedly some refugees were wrongly detained for much longer, but this needs to be balanced with the dangers of tempting people onto unseaworthy boats if detention is abandoned. Abandoning detention means that large numbers of illegal immigrants will try their luck at pretending to be refugees, as they do in Europe and America. In Britain only 21% of the very large numbers arriving in 1997-2002 were granted asylum, including after appeal. There were 87,000 asylum claims there in 2002 alone, not counting dependants. (Home office figures from the Migration Watch UK site, www.migrationwatchuk.org.)

Failed asylum seekers are often impossible to remove because they abscond, hide where they came from, and rely on home governments that won't take them back against their will. They undercut the wages and conditions of the local poor and compete with them for housing and public services. As Sir Anthony Green put it, "There is no point whatever in a 2 billion pound asylum process, if three quarters of those rejected stay on illegally."

Divergence repeats all the myths about asylum seekers in Australia. The simple facts are that mandatory detention has not deterred any asylum seekers. The number of asylum seekers increased for the first 8 or 9 years after mandatory detention was introduced. Secondly, the vast majority of arrivals in Australia were found to be refugees. The UK and European countries have a very different set of circumstances with a very different type of arrivals.

A large number of long-term detainees in Australia are now not asylum seekers in any case. They (and their children) still do not deserve years in prison until DIMIA can sort out what to do with them.

No one thinks it is a good idea for asylum seekers to risk their lives on unsafe boats. Providing alternatives and reducing the 'generation' of refugees is a far better approach. Some of that has happened.

There is no evidence of signficant absconding by asylum seekers in the community. There are thousands that have lived and continue to live in our community without a sign of any significant problem.

This is nothing to do with high or low levels of immigration. It is about how you treat people who arrive in Australia seeking protection from persection. Increasing their torment, separating their families and denying due process and the rule of law (at massive public cost) through mandatory detention does not 'deter'. What it does do is harm innocent people.

Andrew Bartlett: if our circumstances are so different from those of the rest of the world you should explain exactly why that is so, giving references, since you accuse me of repeating myths. After mandatory detention the boats eventually did stop coming, while Britain got about 40,000 applications for asylum last year, not counting dependants. Undoubtedly it did take some time after the policy was introduced to convince the people smugglers that the government was not going to back down. Has it occurred to you that not many people make false asylum claims here because they know they are likely to be found out and not be released from detention? Why should real refugees abscond? They know they are genuine.

I support evidence-based development assistance for poor countries, but it isn't going to reduce the incentive to put children on unseaworthy boats any time soon.

I don't have a problem with releasing children, since they are innocent victims. However, Australia can't afford to have open borders for families with children, which is apparently what you are proposing.

I have asked, over and over again, why we cannot use electronic surveillance for asylum seekers?
It is not ideal and should never be used on children, but at least it would allow asylum seekers to live in the community while their bona fides are checked. Under electronic surveillance ( a bracelet or anklet or similar) they cannot abscond or disappear into the community, but they and, most importantly, their kids, can live reasonable lives outside razor wire. It would also be immeasurably cheaper than our current system as well as more humane. Obviously if the wearer is found to be genuine the electronic surveillance device is removed and they are wished well. If they are not, they can be dealt with appropriately. Our borders remain protected and we can once again raise our heads as a humane and civilised country.
Yet, I have never received a response to this idea. Maybe there are valid reasons why it is not a better or more practical alternative to the current hideous system, but, if so, I'd love to know what they are. We are apparently using electronic surveillance with repeat sexual offenders in Qld so presumably it is a good way of keeping track of people. Mind you, I am not for a moment comparing asylum seekers with sexual offenders, please don't think that. In fact, we probably treat sexual offenders more humanely than some 3 year olds in this country, these days. At least they get a fair trial via a transparent process, the assumption of innocence and, if proven guilty, a finite sentence.

Your idea is a very good one, enaj, well worth following up where the main problem is that an asylum seeker is likely to abscond. However, in Europe there are also many cases where people can't be deported because they have no valid papers and it can't be proven where they came from. An asylum seeker might appear to be a West African or a Kurd, just as Cornelia Rau appeared to be a German, but they might have come from any of 4 or 5 different countries. No proof, no deportation. One German politician even got in the news a few years ago by proposing that his government give an African country $14,000 a head to take failed African asylum seekers, whether they came from that country or not. Sometimes the home country refuses to cooperate with deportation. I believe it was reported about 2 years ago that Australia had entered into a deal with Iran whereby they agreed to take back failed asylum seekers in return for increased legal immigration.

Even if they can't be deported, due to lack of proof of identity, its still cheaper and more humane to keep them under electronic surveillance. Not a fabulous solution, I grant you, but surely better than rotting indefinitely behind razor wire, and still not carte blanche to enter the country. I'm still old fashioned enough to believe in the old idea that it is better 3 guilty men are set free than one innocent man be punished unjustly and electronic detention would seem to allow us to manage both innocent and "guilty" effectively and in a civilised manner.