I think nearly everyone will admit that Labor has totally lost control of Australia’s borders, with numerous boats chugging over the horizon from Indonesia on a daily basis.
The amount of traffic that is now enroute to Australia via the people smugglers is quite easily the highest ever recorded.
Don’t forget that under Howard the people smuggling trade had all but dried up with only FOUR people in detention in 2007.
While Australia should have a humanitarian program, illegal arrivals via the people smugglers in Indonesia is undermining our capacity to actually look after legitimate refugees by having an immense impact on our budget.
The fact that Labor has fundamentally lost control of our borders is one of the key reasons Labor has a $12 billion dollar black hole in its budget.
With boats seemingly lined up over the horizon to get into Australia before the election is held, it is worth analysing what Labor estimated in terms of numbers and the accompanying spend it would need to outlay to process the anticipated arrivals.
Labor budgeted $1.1 billion in the 2012/13 budget for processing asylum seekers.
This was based on the assumption we would get 450 arrivals per month.
That works out at a cost of $203,704 per person based on Labor’s own cost estimates.
Now the problem lies with the amount of people that are actually arriving because it has outstripped even the most horrendous estimates.
Just in April this year alone, 3,436 people arrived on illegal boats, most of whom identified as asylum seekers.
Not 450 a month but instead over 3,000!
So if we extrapolate this monthly figure out for the next 12 months we can expect to cater for 42,232 people arriving by boat in the next year.
So, how much can we be expected to pay to process these illegal entrants to Australia? Let’s go back to Labor’s own figures.
42,232 x $203,704 per person = $7.42 billion
That’s right kids, over SEVEN BILLION dollars just to process them.
This is not the final amount because many of these people will go into the community and be supported with free housing, free access to services and free money from the government to survive.
SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS of our money being used to look after people who decided unilaterally that Australia should be the place that should look after them.
Seven billion dollars is more than the required amount of funding for the full implementation of the NDIS or DisabilityCare as it is now known.
Don’t worry about slugging us taxpayers with yet another tax to pay for DisabilityCare, how about you just shut the doors to illegal boat people, save a boat load of money and put it to use looking after Australians first and foremost.
It’s not that hard surely to see the connection? At this rate we WILL fill the MCG quite quickly wont we Julian Burnside?
(H/T – Michael Smith News)
Dacka's Razor 
The really stupid thing is housing them in detention centres rather than in the community, which is estimated to cost just $39 a day, around a tenth of the cost of housing them in detention. http://rightnow.org.au/topics/asylum-seekers/the-economic-cost-of-our-asylum-seeker-policy/
Ah Rambles,
I am sorry mate but you completely miss the point of the post and once again show the naivety that is common amongst proponents of Labor ‘s and the Greens’ open border policies.
Fair dinkum mate, your short sightedness and blinding naivety astounds me. Just $39 dollars a day you say… pfft.
It is not only the short term cost of processing these illegal immigrants, which would have to be done regardless of whether they are housed in detention or not because they dont magically teleport into the western suburbs of Sydney straight off the leaky boat they rocked up on but also the long term costs of housing and supporting them and their families well into the future.
Are they going to be allowed to work whilst they are detained in the community or are they going to be provided with money by the Government to support themselves for god knows how long? Statistics show that over 70% of asylum seekers are still on welfare over 5 years after being accepted into our country.
If they have $10,000 that it reportedly costs each for a berth on one of these people smuggling boats, then surely they have the bankroll to look after themselves.
But I am sure that you would rather that we just open our wallets as far wide as you and your ilk have done to our borders.
And just where in our community would you have them housed? In places such as university dorms alongside unsuspecting students going about their studies? Or in aged care facilities amongst some of societies most vulnerable people, the elderly?
Additionally, there are presently over 50 “asylum seekers” who have been detained indefinitely because ASIO have deemed them to be security risks. Security risks to us, the Australian public. What about OUR rights to be safe or don’t they matter to you?
And you want these people to be placed into the community under the rather naive assumption that they are all legitimate and all safe.
I am not assuming that all are security risks because I have no doubt that there are some legitimate cases amongst the hordes that are now turning up on a daily basis but the stats show that a number of those rocking up uninvited on our shores are not only not legitimate refugees but also deemed by our secret service to be legitimate risks to the safety of the wider community due to their links to organised crime and terrorism.
And to think you are the future of our country.
I shudder at the thought and only hope that one day you understand and take ownership for the death and misery that your so called compassionate policies have created for these wretched people and the Australian taxpayer.
On the first point cost, I am merely going by a reputable assessment from a reputable agency, the UNHCR.
On the point of safety, I resent the implication you make by using loaded terms such as “unsuspecting students” and “vulnerable people”- without any evidence, and on the basis of isolated incidents, you are implying that asylum seekers present a threat to the community. Likewise, on the matter of ASIO assessments, I am not saying that all asylum seekers should be in the community, but it is wrong to generalise from such a small number. I care about the safety of the community as much as you, the difference is I am rational enough to see that asylum seekers are no more likely to commit crimes than anyone else, and in fact given the potential for deportation etc., are probably less likely to offend. I do agree that they should first be subject to screening before being placed in the community, to not do so would be foolish, but long term detention is counter productive
And please don’t pretend so sympathise with asylum seekers, as you seem to conclude by doing. You have dedicated thousands of words to demeaning them, likely stemming from ignorance or bigotry.
Here’s a link to the article I refer to, which outlines how just 5 out the roughly 10,000 asylum seekers in the community have been charged with a crime. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/few-asylum-seekers-charged-with-crime-20130228-2f98h.html
Look over there a unicorn!
Show me where in my OP or any post for that matter where I actually talked about that “asylum seekers” would commit crime? Oh you can’t? Didn’t think so.
My central objection aside from the mountain of money this ham fisted policy is costing us taxpayers is that we DONT KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE.
We must know who is coming into our country.
There have been hundreds of people sent home to Sri Lanka and Afghanistan because they have been assessed NOT to be genuine refugees.
There are over 50 people detained by ASIO because of they have been assessed as a risk to the safety of the Australian community.
If they didn’t destroy their papers and were proved to be true refugees and not economic migrants looking to reap the welfare benefits that the government bestows on them that they appear to be then I wouldn’t have an issue with looking after them.
I actively support Australia having a humanitarian intake, in fact that’s how my own family got here but that intake needs to be determined by US, the Australian people not organised crime people smuggling rings based in Afghanistan and Indonesia.
Do you support organised crime and people smuggling?
In relation to crime, as I said, there was a very strong implication inherent in what you said about housing them with “unsuspecting students” and “vulnerable people” that we should be concerned. I’m not saying all of these asylum seekers are perfect, but even if someone is later found not to be a legitimate refugee, it makes more sense both financially and morally to house them in the community whilst we assess their bona fides. As the link I included shows, they are very unlikely to be a threat to the community. My objection is not based on the presumption that all asylum seekers are legitimate. It is that detaining them is cruel and expensive.
You are making HUGE leaps of logic that betray your inherent need to be offended at what I am saying.
I asked you where they should be housed. I did NOT say that the people that they are being housed with were directly at risk from the “asylum seekers”.
I said that students were unsuspecting of others in their midst that are not from the University community. I lived on campus and we were not even allowed to have one of our friends from outside the Uni stay in our dorms, because that was deemed to be a risk because they DIDNT KNOW WHO THEY WERE.
I said that the elderly are some of societies most vulnerable. Do you debate this as a statement of fact? Your granny might be super tuff but many are not and need to be protected, physically and mentally, because many are old and frail.
You readily admit that there HAVE been “isolated” incidents but you infer that somehow this makes the incidents less of an issue for you. One case of rape, not matter how isolated is still rape. I am sure the girl concerned doesn’t think it is less serious because it hasn’t happened 20 times to 20 other women.
There is no doubt that all of these “isolated” incidents as you describe them are unfortunate and regrettable but the fact that they have occurred indicates to me unfortunately we should err on the side of caution.
If housing them outside the community until we have determined who they are saves one person from potential harm then that is a good result. One incident is one too many.
If they are to be housed in the community then should they be placed in university accommodation? If so, should the other tenants be advised that there are people who have not been assessed living amongst them? That is not to imply that they will commit crime but rather just common courtesy that someone who is not from the University living on campus.
If they are to be housed in the community do you think it is appropriate that they be housed in aged care facilities amongst the elderly, many of whom are scared of anybody in the general community due to dementia (like my wife’s Nanna) or other debilitating diseases let alone someone who is yet to be assessed.
Such people have a moral right to feel safe in their homes, which they may not if they find themselves housed with people they dont know and that dont fit into the demographic of the hospice. If there were a group of white men living with them that they didn’t know, they would most likely be scared of them too so it has got nothing to do with their colour / race.
Mate, I dont care if they are pink, purple or indigo or what religion they practice, but what I do know is this: Until we have ascertained WHO THEY ARE and whether they are LEGITIMATE refugees, then they should not be allowed to be in the community. Full stop, end of story.
The rights of OUR community have precedence regardless of whatever the UN charter says.
I will agree with you that housing them for long periods of time behind razor wire is not a good outcome but they cannot and should not be placed into the community unless that community has agreed to have them.
However you cannot just unilaterally decide that you know better than the people in those communities and place them in what I and many others would describe as inappropriate housing. If they dont house them together with women and children in detention then why the hell are they being housed with women in the community?
Residents have more right to know who is living amongst them than the arrivals right to housing.
If Labor hadn’t changed the laws in relation to boat people in an effort to appear more “compassionate” then over ONE THOUSAND people would not have died and many more have just disappeared after trying to make the hazardous journey via unsafe vessels organised by illegal people smuggling gangs.
Why do they risk their lives? Because they know that if the do make it, then they will be afforded treatment that other refugees dont get, you know the ones that apply via the official channels via consuls and UN refugee camps around the world and are therefor denied entry because we are being overrun by people willing to pay $10,000.
Sorry mate but you’re talking crap.
The cost of looking after illegal immigrants starts from the moment the navy picks them up, to the time that the stop being a drain on the public purse. All you are talking about is how much your source claims will cost to house them, and $39 a day cost per person is a joke. Rent / board, food, power, medical etc would all cost more than $39.00 a day.
If you had bothered to actually read and comprehend my response, i specifically said that I didn’t assume that all were safety risks. here is the direct quote for you once again.
“I am not assuming that all are security risks because I have no doubt that there are some legitimate cases amongst the hordes that are now turning up on a daily basis but the stats show that a number of those rocking up uninvited on our shores are not only not legitimate refugees but also deemed by our secret service to be legitimate risks to the safety of the wider community due to their links to organised crime and terrorism.”
In relation to unsuspecting students, the case in Sydney was that the students in the Uni housing had NO IDEA that they were being housed with “asylum seekers” so that is in my mind “unsuspecting students”. They were not informed by the third party that housed these people in that accommodation , nor did the Government so I stand by that statement. You want evidence? Tell that to the young girl that was sexually assaulted FFS.
But you DID say that these people should be housed in the community. You made NO riders to your statement so I took it at face value. I am not saying that ALL asylum seekers will commit crime, if you can point to where I did say that I would be happy to retract it.
Long term detention wouldn’t be necessary if they DIDNT DESTROY their papers before they got here and as a result were easily identifiable but that wont happen because then they would be able to be traced and their stories checked out.
And as to my sympathies to refugees, I have FIRST HAND knowledge of this as MY OWN family were refugees after World War II after my Nan and Pop left Germany. My Pop was Polish and spent time in war camps and my Nan had a Nazi henchman threaten to shoot her for collaborating with the underground.
My father and his six sisters along with their parents spent time in a migrant camp for several years when they came to Australia until their identity could be ascertained, despite having the right papers.
My Pop worked on the Snowy Mountain Scheme and on the railroads as a way of paying his and his families way. They got NOTHING for free and had to WORK to prove that they were suitable for citizenship, unlike many of the illegal entrants to this country.
So, dont you tell me about where my fucking sympathies lie mate, you dont know me or my family from a pinch of shit.
And you resent the implication I make by using “loaded terms” hey? Yet you can imply that I am ignorant and bigoted?
You, my friend are a hypocrite. Perhaps you should live by the standards you propose to apply to everyone else.
Secondly, I have not demeaned anyone other than the Government’s piss poor attempts at policy in this area and the impact on us, the taxpayers who have to foot the bill.
My sincere apologies for any offence caused. I certainly intend nothing as personal and withdraw anything taken as such. To provide a conclusion, my two points are:
-As you note, we know nothing about these people. So yes, we should be wary about them. But also, we should not pre-judge them!
-From a fiscal perspective and moral perspective, I firmly believe community detention to be superior, because as we both agree, the vast majority of these people, regardless of their refugee status, are not going to commit non-migration related crimes. So, even if we end up sending them back to where they came from, whilst we decide what to do, it is cheaper and kinder to keep them in the community. The original point of your article was the expense of housing asylum seekers. I content that whilst we work out how to stop them coming, regardless of other factors, it is cheaper to house them in the community.
Again, apologies for playing the man. As a fellow passionate individual, I’m sure you can understand how feelings can run high, especially with those of a different point of view. At least unlike most people, in spite of our divergent views, we both give a damn about this country and its future. I love thoughful and passionate discussion, so please do read and comment on some of my articles whenever you like.
Thank you, I appreciate and accept your apology.
But I think the main lesson that you could take away from this is that just because someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to call them ignorant or bigoted. These are incredibly insulting terms to label someone with and cause great offence.
Nor should you assume that people who do not agree with your perspective do not care for the welfare of these people.
It is this air of moral superiority based on nothing other than your own opinions that rankles people like me. Come down from the moral high ground and stop labelling people as racists, bigots and ignorant and you may find that people may have more time to listen to your own point of view.
I am not pre-judging them to be evil, but you seemingly pre-judge them all as innocent. Until we know who they are we should err on the side of caution.
As I say, one victim is one too many and we should protect our community first and foremost.
From a fiscal perspective, it would be better if we didn’t have this problem at all but due to changes made by Labor we have this problem and it is getting worse.
There is no debating that it is an issue and there is no debating that the issue is becoming more dire. If we cannot handle the influx that has occurred over the past few year, how are we to cope now that there is over 100 per day?
When you say it is cheaper, cheaper for who? Our budget has a 7 BILLION dollar hole in it because of the complete debacle that this policy is. 7 BILLION DOLLARS. There is your NDIS mate and I could have the additional 2.5% of tax back that they are proposing to take from me to pay for the NDIS. Why? Because they have wasted all our bloody money.
Until we stop them? This government has NO intention of doing that at all and the Indonesians dont give a f$@%# about stopping them either. Why dont they care? Because Gillard has riden rough shod all over them and embarrassed them on the international stage about the live cattle issue.
They hate Gillard for that and as a result they will not help Australia until that is resolved and we give penance. This is a very complex issue and one that we cannot solve on our own. They have even told us to “take the sugar off the table”
Looking at this from a purely moral perspective, which is a completely subjective assessment, is almost useless in it’s application due to morals’ very own subjective nature.
In closing, I agree with you that we both care about our country and other people who are trying to make a better life for themselves.
But do try to stick to what is written, not what you infer or imply because reading between the lines is fraught with danger, as is ad hom attacks and assertions that people are bigots.
Peace man.
All good. I suppose I get equally worked up when people presume that I am naive/out of touch/elitist merely because I am a left wing uni student or somewhat idealistic, or indeed that because I am not yet in the workforce etc. I have less right to express an opinion. I certainly don’t believe you to be a bigot, but some of what is said on this issue by others is clearly based on racial or religious prejudice, nothing else, and I suppose that frustration came to the fore.
And so I don’t sound like to apologetic a leftie, please do note that I only said that such comments would stem from ignorance or bigotry- at most I suggested that there were elements of one or the other behind your point of view, certainly not that you were yourself.
I should also note that I myself have been rather offended, for example by your line “And to think you are the future of our country.” Even if I was completely wrong on this issue, that shouldn’t mean somehow that I am completely hopeless/ bereft of common sense.
Hey Rambles,
Sorry late response, been distracted with Mothers Day, pregnant wife and all that jazz…
Without wanting to reignite the he said, she said aspect… regardless of where the such comments stem from they are my opinions. Just because you disagree with them does not make them what you say they are. That is just your opinion of my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
While your comments could be construed as offensive, I never actually said that I personally was offended. I objected to your incorrect characterisation of my motives in no uncertain terms and explained to you what I felt were my bonafides were in relation to having a much deeper understanding of refugee migration than you could possibly imagine from just reading my blog. That’s the danger in making gross assumptions of people that you have ever met. But now you know a little more about me and why I might hold the opinions that I do.
The fact that you realised that your comments could be offensive to some people and thus apologised off your own bat does speak to your underlying good nature. We all know when we have prickled someones feelings. But in all fairness I wouldn’t have thought less of you if you didn’t apologise.
In relation to offending you with my comment, I am sorry that you are offended. To be quite honest however, I really dont care if I offended you. There is no right not to be offended. While I might be quite forceful with my opinons, I try not to get “offended” because it is quite non-sensical argument
With this in mind, my comment about “the future of our country” was aimed more at the mode of thinking that you seemingly employ, as opposed to you individually as a person. I dont think you’re hopeless, I am sure that you are not doubt a good student with a bright future but I do think your stance on this issue is bereft of common sense, clouded by ideology more than anything and lacking in real understanding of the complexities of the situation.
But we are all allowed to hold and voice opinions, and I welcome yours.
Just dont call me names and then expect me to agree with you.
Cheers… Dacka 🙂
Very well put 🙂 We are all on a long road, and I have no doubt our views will change and grow, especially in my case as I experience more and more.
Have a good one… Rambler 🙂