It has now become quite apparent that the people and authorities of Nauru are incapable of integrating the qualified refugees they accepted.

Refugees are prisoners. They cannot blend from the camp into Nauru without risking their safety. Generally, Nauruans are very bigoted and violent towards them and the Nauruan authorities turn a blind eye to all of it. Australia cannot improve this innate situation with money, IMO.

We did not initiate this solution as a deterrent to irregular maritime arrival in the way it has become. Where prospective refugees may once have seen Nauru as a place of second class asylum, with some chancing it for of a life free of persecution, they having jumped out of a frying pan and into a fire.

I realize it has become a better deterrent now was initially intended, but at what cost to Australia's soul?

I cannot stand by my country on this any longer. The solution seemed fair and was worth a go, but now fails the humanitarian standard initially intended. The solution, which I have supported until now, has failed.

Oz should take NZ's offer to accept the refugees. What then? I do not know.

The solution has been 'ceased' already by Nauru. Those people still on Nauru have been offered OUR money to return to their homelands. But, they are hanging out in the hope of Australian government weakness, which usually raises its ugly head if they wait longer enough.

New Zealand? As they soon as they could obtain NZ citizenship, they would be heading here just loke so many real Kiwis do. These people are not refugees, they are country shoppers, who have been told that there is no way they will be settled in Australia.

Hi Luciferase,

So where are you going to go ?

Yes, New Zealand, with its annual quota of eight hundred or so, could take those people on Nauru: it might take the pressure off Australia taking twenty four thousand this year, in addition to the 180,000 migtrants. Good on ya, Kiwis !

Presumably, your position is that we should take people from Indonesia in leaky boats, who have paid exorbitant fees to smugglers ?

Okay: firstly, why should they have to come on leaky boats ? Why not fully sea-worthy boats ? Nobody drowning any more ? Sounds good.

Secondly: why expect people to pay exorbitant fees to smugglers ? Sudanese refugees in Kenyan camps can't pay bugger-all, so even that is discriminatory. Refugees shouldn't have to pay anything more than commercial travel rates.

Thirdly: then why can't people come directly here on commercial transport ? Why do they have to go through this stupid process of finding a smuggler and a boat, etc. ?

Fourthly: if people can come here by boat at commercial rates, then why not by air ?

Fifthly: if people can fly here, why just from Indonesia ? Why not from anywhere ? Anywhere in the world, including Kenya [see above] ?

So, yes, I can see your point: why not have a completely open refugee policy ? For the sixty million refugees around the world ?

Ummm, because ........

I'd have written your post myself, until recently, Loudy.

While we did not set out to be sadistic jailers, I do believe that's effectively the outcome because the Nauruans are not going to play ball, whatever is put on the table. They're just not cut out for multiculturalism, from their institutions down to almost the last individual.

But, it was worth a try. I think the Malaysian Solution is probably the next best step to aim for.

NO is not a difficult word to understand.

Australia should, must hand over the Detention Camp to the UNCHR, after all, it's their job to deal with Refugees.

If they refuse to accept the Camps ask them why.