No I think it would be silly to suggest that people can't have a range of opinions on this matter, but ultimately I'd find it hard to believe anyone would be happy with the way people are held in detention. It simply isn't acceptable even for criminals, and these people have not been found guilty of any crime. I think it was over the top of Rudd to reinstate Manus and Nauru, and I'm glad Morrisson is getting rid of it, though obviously both major parties are complicit in its use over multiple governments. Outsourcing what is effectively torture is just really sick. Once here the process should be similar to the USA - two weeks in detention for health and security checks (if you bring your documentation as many - but not all - currently do, if you don't you run the risk of staying longer as per current processes) then let them get out and work while the claim is assessed quickly. Put the money saved into better management of asylum seekers once they arrive (we are already world class n that regard) as well as returning hundreds of millions to the taxpayer. That's my opinion on detention. As for deterrence:
A lot of Aussies believe in the "tough love" approach and genuinely believe if we make it hard to get here and stop the boats coming, then its a good thing because nobody will drown. I definitely dont believe the government is culpable for deaths at sea unless they were actually told of a sinking boat and didnt respond. You can't control some things as a sovereign nation.
I dont think anyone could look at Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan right now and say these are safe places for ethnic minorities. Our country did play a role in that, and some of the people fleeing those countries have worked as interpreters and assisted our soldiers while they were at war. As a result they're now being hunted. Those guys need a specific avenue for them and their families to get here quickly, assisted by our military if necessary (this was being discussed at one point I believe). There's a myth that there is an endless amount of countries between say Iran and Australia, and that Iranians should go to one of those countries instead. In fact there are no signatories to the UN charter between mesopotamia and Australia, we are literally the first country they can go to (if travelling East) and apply for some resolution of their refugee status and begin a new life. The poverty and exploitation in camps camps kills people and about 99% of those who to UN camps don't get placed in a new country. They are not viewed as a place to seek asylum, but a place to live in limbo. So I understand the attraction of Australia, as it may be quite literally the only destination they can get to from where they are (I noticed on the Malaysian airlines flight that went down there were two Iranians flying via China to Europe on stolen passports to claim asylum, that's the other option for them, but it gets expensive to buy a whole family stolen passports, and its harder to get them for kids). Take the UN Camp set up in Quetta, Pakistan for the Hazara people fleeing the Taliban - the schools for the Shia Hazara children are bombed and shot at, their markets bombed etc so they actually end up having to flee from the country they fled to for shelter. Its a ****** up part of the world and entire races can get liquidated, its a very real nightmare of a joint.
So yeah I just don't think any deterrence method can be 100% effective, because the push factor can often be simply too big. And some people will drown if they take the risk on those boats and our navy can't get tot hem in time. but I reckon once they're here, they can no longer be part of any "deterrance" because they have individual rights at that point, and I'd like to think Australians respect human rights enough that even if we want to make a political statement or deterrent, that we respect that throwing unsupervised children into a tropical prison with young males and that sort of thing is just really repulsive and really, completely, below the standards of the kind of country I expect Australia to be.