Good last point Albert (they are just like us etcetera).
Petro Georgiou may well be calling for compassion and accountability now, but many Australians have been saying this for years. For me, the inability of those on both sides of federal politics to agree to universal principles of humanity and human rights in the development and implementation of domestic policy that contributes to the wedging and dog whistling that Howard et al have so callously used. Our country is signatory to 1951 Refugees Convention and Protocol that provides the framework to guide policy.

But it is in the political interpretation of this protocol that sees it being used for domestic political gain. Back in 2000 Phillip Ruddoch announced that the Government was reviewing the interpretation and implementation of the Refugees Convention in Australia.

He went on to say that “Where necessary the Government will consider introducing legislation to ensure that only the obligations accepted by Convention parties are taken into account in our refugee determination processes,"

And:

"The Australian Government is focused on offering protection to those in the most vulnerable positions. If we do not take this action, public support for the Convention is at risk."
Who was Ruddock speaking about when he declared public support for the convention was at risk and a risk to whom?

And now we see Petro coming out after five years and asking for a compassionate approach in policies that he would have supported back in 2000?
What a load of crock.
http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media_releases/ruddock_media00/r00088.htm

Albert – the decline in the number of illegal immigrants seeking “economic refugee” status (the asylum seeking status was discarded somewhere along the journey of a dozen countries or so from the one which they fled to reach these fair shores) is evident of the success of the current policy – no point in getting petty about it.

Your point with having a visa with which to work undermines the benefit of selective and controlled migration versus rampant and uncontrolled flooding (suggest you look at the state of Turks and others in Germany or many other ethnic minorities who have invaded parts of western Europe to see the disaster which follows that strategy).

Ultimately, your remarks about people ignoring Australia’s right to defend its territorial integrity shows a complete lack of understanding about how this world works (not just Australia). Lets put it this way – If I decided to illegally enter another country, infiltrate their communities and gain whatever economic advantage I could through illegally debasing their social values – I guess they might want to detain me and see exactly what right I had to be their – they would treat illegal migrants not quite exactly the same as we – they would treat them a whole lot worse.

If the current policy works so well, what difference will a petty change such as letting them out of detention after a while make? Like I mentioned earlier, Petro Georgiou isn't arguing for an "opening of the floodgates", it's a minor change. And like I argued before, a system of indefinite incarceration wasn't a deterrant between 1994-2004, why would it start working now? If we really want to curb illegal immigration we should not be doing it by punishing people who are already here, but by preventing it from happening in the first place - ultimately by eliminating poverty and such but more practically by asking the Indonesian government (and any other relevant governments) to crack down on it at their end.

I see where you're coming from regarding the skilled labour comment, but I'm not talking about "rampant uncontrolled flooding". I was suggesting that the asylum seekers who would hypothetically be let out of detention under the system Petro suggests be allowed to work rather than relying on welfare payments.

What's this "infiltrate their communities" and "illegally debasing their social values" stuff? From what I've heard asylum seekers who have been declared legit refugees have gone on to become welcome and productive members of the community.

The pro status quo camp is boring, repetitive, predicable, off the air and unreasonable in this thread. They resort to phrases such as 'the real world', that says it all. Now I am not denying that there are people in Australia who could reasonably and effectively argue the case for immigration status quo, but none are commenting on this forum.

The general quality of pro georgiou responses has been far higher. So if you think you have a legitimate case, put it such that read above. You haven't yet decided if you are going to have a flame war or an intellectual debate, which is why only one half of the debate at the moment is pulling their weight. Remember, threads should be entertaining for outsiders as well as insiders.

There is nothing wrong with the policy.It works.Refugees need to processed faster and only be allowed one appeal.Many would then simply saved the anguish of internment and be freed in the country of their origin.

Refugees are supposed to go to their nearest country for refuge.Why do so many travel half way around the world to reach Australia?Could these people merely be economic refugees?There are 20 million refugees and at least a billion poor potential refugees;is our country to be the solution to all the world's ills?

Free the children and you will have to free the parents who will evaporate into our society ,creating an under class of cheap labour that will diminish us all.

Does it matter that they came across half the world to get here? The fact is they are here now, and now is all that matters. You can't go back in time and tell them to stop when they get to Pakistan.

We haven't had any new boat people arrive on our shores since around the 2001 election. I don't see this changing any time soon and as I've argued earlier I don't believe releasing asylum seekers from detention after a set amount of days would change this either. Given these assumptions, where does this "underclass of cheap labour" the lock-them-up brigade keeps talking about come from? And is there any evidence to suggest that the majority of illegal immigrants do take "cheap labour" jobs?