My understanding is that asylum seekers in Naru and housed and fed well, are allowed to mix in the community and their children can attend school. Hardly sounds like "warehousing" to me. Surely the "deleterious physical and psychological effects" of staying on a tropical island are much milder than the horrendous situation I imagine the refugees escaped from.

Australia has a right to protect her borders from illegal immigration and the Australian public demand our government enforce this right. It seems to me that offshore refugee processing is more of a set back for lawyers and other refugee industry vampires than it is for human rights.

Another turbulent priest presuming to lecture a Prime Minister whose action on refugees and border protection is the envy of lesser politicians, worldwide, who have not had the bottle nor the political will to play by their own countries’ rules and listen to the wishes of a majority in their electorates. Rather than “isolating” us from the international community – whatever that is – Howard has put us on the map as a fair-minded and generous country, but one that will not be bullied by the United Nations a la the UK and Europe, where they are being swamped by illegal immigrants, thanks to their own, lax, gutless attitudes.

As Fr. Holdcroft says, sections of the Government think the refugee system has broken down. It has (evidenced by illegal entry) and it is costly to targeted countries; more so in Australia than Europe, because we still have control, whereas illegal immigrants mostly disappear into landscape in countries without our control, and illegals stay on without detection.

This clerical gentleman thinks that the “proposals put forward” will not help the international situation. OK, but why should Australia provide the solutions if we are such a pariah in the “international community”? We have a formal programme for refugee intake which allows in UN processed numbers, already excessive in terms of our environmental situation, according to some experts. We have gone above and beyond in accommodating people turning up in boats until the penny finally dropped that we were being taken advantage of. Enough is enough.

Fr. Holdcroft refers to, BUT DOES NOT DISPUTE, Senator Vanstone’s assertion that: “asylum seekers cannot be allowed to dictate where and by whom their claims will be heard.” As Holdcroft merely offers his own alternative, we can take it that nothing illegal – even under international “law”- is being proposed by our Government, and the offshore processing can go ahead, with ‘genuine” (how can we possibly know who is genuine) refugees not necessarily being settled in Australia.

Good!

Bozzie, "your understanding" of the situation on Nauru seems not to be based on experience in the field. Of the Nauru caseload that have finally found their way to Sydney all are experiencing extreme forms of mental illness, most to the point of psychosis. That is what four years on Nauru does to you - people do not return from that experience the same. And for what purpose? Australia will have to take responsibility for those people eventually (as other states will rightfully see it as our problem to solve) and the human beings concerned will have been - senselessly - irreparably damaged. That's no solution by anyone's standards.

Georgie....what a load of absolute CRAP... ! excuse my french...

I lived for TWO TERMS of 4 yrs on a tropical Island, with a quite uncertain future, very limited resources, knowing that at any time, my visa could be cancelled and I would be in Limbo, it did not cause me to be any of those things you mentioned about the assylum seekers on Nauru.. and I would suggest that if they are strong enough mentally to face the perils of a nighmarish sea and land voyage.. then I highly DOUBT THAT they would be traumatized by 3 meals a day, a roof over their heads, access to medical treatment (free) and security.

This 'myth' of psychosis and various other manufactured illnesses which the refugee industry trots out regularly totally defies description as to its dishonesty or its delusionment..

I am of the opinion that these people have simply learned or manufactured such symptoms for specific purposes of 'getting a desired outcome' and they are fed by the bleeding heart brigade who they KNOW will jump onto any such snippit of 'problems' and publicize it and seek to USE it for again..the desired outcome.

There are only a number of possible outcomes for those at Nauru

1/ They are assessed as NOT genuine. (Returned to home country)
2/ They are assessed as 'genuine' (accepted in either Australia or other country.

end of story.

Longggggg periods of detention occurr when they DISPUTE the finding of the authorities.

David Holdcroft’s concern for the welfare of refugees / asylum seekers is admirable. But he hasn’t got a balanced perspective.

Australia should have and does have very tight border controls. We just need to take one look at the issues with asylum seekers, or illegal aliens, in the US and other countries that have porous borders.

We should be and are listening to Indonesia’s concerns regarding West Papuan asylum seekers and we should be and are striving to engage Indonesia in assistance dealing with asylum seekers that use Indonesia as a stepping stone to their country of choice.

We should be and are discouraging West Papuans from seeking refuge in Australia, while at the same time putting in a very strong diplomatic effort with Indonesia to sort out human rights issues there.

We should and do detain asylum seekers. We just need to look at what happens when asylum seekers who are allowed into the community, such as in the UK and early on in Australia. They had a tendency to abscond.

We should be and are observing the 1951 Refugee Convention. We should also be, but apparently aren’t, working with the UN to update it.

We should be and are putting in a significant effort through our offshore refugee programs, which we have been doing in many places around the world for many decades, at the first or second highest level of any nation, on a per-capita basis.

We should and do have a significant refugee intake as part of our immigration program, although I think it should be higher, while the other two categories should be much lower.

We should be and are NOT contributing the UN minimum recommended 0.7% of GDP to international aid programs, nor anywhere near it.

We could do better, but all-considered Australia is doing very well with asylum-seeker / refugee issues.

Its time to treat these "boat people" as any other invader.
The rules of engagement should be changed.
Any boat that enters our 200 mile zone & does not turn away [from Australia] after one warning shot, should be sunk