Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

[samran]

Do you maybe think that Joe Average also gets annoyed when he see's the hand-outs and benefits given

to a lot of these arrivals that he cannot get?

Keep it real.

I'd like for you to point out what hand outs and benefits they get that Joe Average can't.

I hear this line often, but no-one has ever been able to point this out to me..

[BookMan]

Yes I do believe a referendum is required as the refugee is issue is divisive and there is a lot of misinformation floating around. Could be utterly wrong, but I also believe Australia's compliance to its international agreements on human rights/refugees would be of concern to the majority of Australian citizens who take pride in being Australian. Will it ever happen, more than likely not, but I would love to see Australian politicians step up to the mark to find out the truth of the matter from the Australian people.

As to the myth of refugees receiving more benefits from welfare than existing Australian citizens please go to the URL below. The only extra benefit they receive is some goods to initially establish a home; if some Australians are resentful of this support just shows how small minded they are.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/98services.htm

I don't think the majority of Australians are against us accepting refugees, rather it is the manner of their arrival that concerns quite a few. I read a figure that in 2010 Australia accepted the 3rd highest number of refugees of any country.

It seems that arriving by boat is a more emotive issue for many than arriving by other means and through other channels.

Edited July 30, 2013 by BookMan

[simple1]

Yes I do believe a referendum is required as the refugee is issue is divisive and there is a lot of misinformation floating around. Could be utterly wrong, but I also believe Australia's compliance to its international agreements on human rights/refugees would be of concern to the majority of Australian citizens who take pride in being Australian. Will it ever happen, more than likely not, but I would love to see Australian politicians step up to the mark to find out the truth of the matter from the Australian people.

As to the myth of refugees receiving more benefits from welfare than existing Australian citizens please go to the URL below. The only extra benefit they receive is some goods to initially establish a home; if some Australians are resentful of this support just shows how small minded they are.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/98services.htm

I don't think the majority of Australians are against us accepting refugees, rather it is the manner of their arrival that concerns quite a few. I read a figure that in 2010 Australia accepted the 3rd highest number of refugees of any country.

It seems that arriving by boat is a more emotive issue for many than arriving by other means and through other channels.

To be accurate Australia has the third largest intake of resettled refugees (assessed under UN conventions). The country with currently the largest number of refugees is Pakistan with 1.6 million. In 2012 in absolute terms the top three resettlement countries were America (66,300), Canada (9,600) and Australia (5,900).

Edited July 30, 2013 by simple1

[BookMan]

Yes I do believe a referendum is required as the refugee is issue is divisive and there is a lot of misinformation floating around. Could be utterly wrong, but I also believe Australia's compliance to its international agreements on human rights/refugees would be of concern to the majority of Australian citizens who take pride in being Australian. Will it ever happen, more than likely not, but I would love to see Australian politicians step up to the mark to find out the truth of the matter from the Australian people.

As to the myth of refugees receiving more benefits from welfare than existing Australian citizens please go to the URL below. The only extra benefit they receive is some goods to initially establish a home; if some Australians are resentful of this support just shows how small minded they are.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/98services.htm

I don't think the majority of Australians are against us accepting refugees, rather it is the manner of their arrival that concerns quite a few. I read a figure that in 2010 Australia accepted the 3rd highest number of refugees of any country.

It seems that arriving by boat is a more emotive issue for many than arriving by other means and through other channels.

To be accurate Australia has the third largest intake of resettled refugees (assessed under UN conventions). The country with currently the largest number of refugees is Pakistan with 1.6 million.

To put matters in perspective, in 2010 with 1 refugee per 1,000 population Australia ranked 69th; Jordon ranked 1st with 72.9 refugees per 1,000 people

So the difference being the resettled ones in Australia are allowed permanent stay and the refugees accepted by Pakistan are not allowed permanent stay?

To clarify my post. What i mean is, the Pakistan refugees are given citizenship, the same as the Australian accepted refugees?

Edited July 30, 2013 by BookMan

[tw25rw]

Yes I do believe a referendum is required as the refugee is issue is divisive and there is a lot of misinformation floating around. Could be utterly wrong, but I also believe Australia's compliance to its international agreements on human rights/refugees would be of concern to the majority of Australian citizens who take pride in being Australian. Will it ever happen, more than likely not, but I would love to see Australian politicians step up to the mark to find out the truth of the matter from the Australian people.

As to the myth of refugees receiving more benefits from welfare than existing Australian citizens please go to the URL below. The only extra benefit they receive is some goods to initially establish a home; if some Australians are resentful of this support just shows how small minded they are.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/98services.htm

What would the question be?

It's too complicated a matter for a referendum..

[samran]

Yes I do believe a referendum is required as the refugee is issue is divisive and there is a lot of misinformation floating around. Could be utterly wrong, but I also believe Australia's compliance to its international agreements on human rights/refugees would be of concern to the majority of Australian citizens who take pride in being Australian. Will it ever happen, more than likely not, but I would love to see Australian politicians step up to the mark to find out the truth of the matter from the Australian people.

As to the myth of refugees receiving more benefits from welfare than existing Australian citizens please go to the URL below. The only extra benefit they receive is some goods to initially establish a home; if some Australians are resentful of this support just shows how small minded they are.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/98services.htm

I don't think the majority of Australians are against us accepting refugees, rather it is the manner of their arrival that concerns quite a few. I read a figure that in 2010 Australia accepted the 3rd highest number of refugees of any country.

It seems that arriving by boat is a more emotive issue for many than arriving by other means and through other channels.

To be accurate Australia has the third largest intake of resettled refugees (assessed under UN conventions). The country with currently the largest number of refugees is Pakistan with 1.6 million.

To put matters in perspective, in 2010 with 1 refugee per 1,000 population Australia ranked 69th; Jordon ranked 1st with 72.9 refugees per 1,000 people

So the difference being the resettled ones in Australia are allowed permanent stay and the refugees accepted by Pakistan are not allowed permanent stay?

To clarify my post. What i mean is, the Pakistan refugees are given citizenship, the same as the Australian accepted refugees?

Basically, yes. Usually stuck in camps.

In the middle east, many will be mainly Palestinian's who after 1949 and 1967 effectively remain displaced and countries in their region refuse to offer them permanent resettlement (so there goes the argument from some here they should settle 'closer to home'.) Granted, Jordon has been fairly good on that front granting citizenship to most given it used to rule most of the west bank, but nearly half a million live in Lebanon and are still denied basic rights of a resident generations down the track. Gawd knows what both countries are going to do with the Syrian influx. More miserable camps for generations possibly.

[tw25rw]

Kind of is, given they can't stay there and under threat of arrest and deportation to Myanmar, they flow through there and end up in OZ.

It becomes something we have to deal with, but that doesn't mean we have to give these people a home, just because someone else won't.

They could head north to Bangladesh where they already form part of the indigenous population, but someone has told them Australia is big, rich and empty and waiting for them.

You sound like the Burmese junta PR spokesperson.

Bangladesh refuses to recognise them, and won't give them any legal status there. It is a bit like saying, well, that most Australian's came out from Ireland or the UK back in the 19th and 20th centuries, so they should be able to go back and live in the Britain and Ireland any time they like.

And yep, someone has probably told them that if they get to Australia they won't have to put up with government harrassment despite living having lived in the same country for generations. They might even be given legal status in the country, cause they haven't had much luck in the country where they, their parents and their grand parents were born. And they won't get towed back out to sea to their likely deaths like the Thai navy does.

I have no problem with receiving asylum seekers. I simply don't want an influx of muslim immigrants. Particularly poor uneducated ones. It's that simple. We have to decide who we accept and who we don't and what we want life in Australia to be like in the future.

And the fact that no one else wants them doesn't mean we have to be extra nice.

[samran]

I have no problem with receiving asylum seekers. I simply don't want an influx of muslim immigrants. Particularly poor uneducated ones. It's that simple. We have to decide who we accept and who we don't and what we want life in Australia to be like in the future.

And the fact that no one else wants them doesn't mean we have to be extra nice.

At least you are honest about it I guess...

Frankly, I don't see any difference between the difference between poor uneducated waves of Irish, English, Chinese, Greek, Italian, Jewish, Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees and migrants. All made positive contributions. Most came with little but the clothes on their backs.

Many at the time reject the notion of them coming in the first place due do some imagined destruction of the Australian way of life. History has proven people like you wrong time and again.

Edited July 30, 2013 by samran

[simple1]

Yes I do believe a referendum is required as the refugee is issue is divisive and there is a lot of misinformation floating around. Could be utterly wrong, but I also believe Australia's compliance to its international agreements on human rights/refugees would be of concern to the majority of Australian citizens who take pride in being Australian. Will it ever happen, more than likely not, but I would love to see Australian politicians step up to the mark to find out the truth of the matter from the Australian people.

As to the myth of refugees receiving more benefits from welfare than existing Australian citizens please go to the URL below. The only extra benefit they receive is some goods to initially establish a home; if some Australians are resentful of this support just shows how small minded they are.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/98services.htm

I don't think the majority of Australians are against us accepting refugees, rather it is the manner of their arrival that concerns quite a few. I read a figure that in 2010 Australia accepted the 3rd highest number of refugees of any country.

It seems that arriving by boat is a more emotive issue for many than arriving by other means and through other channels.

To be accurate Australia has the third largest intake of resettled refugees (assessed under UN conventions). The country with currently the largest number of refugees is Pakistan with 1.6 million.

To put matters in perspective, in 2010 with 1 refugee per 1,000 population Australia ranked 69th; Jordon ranked 1st with 72.9 refugees per 1,000 people

So the difference being the resettled ones in Australia are allowed permanent stay and the refugees accepted by Pakistan are not allowed permanent stay?

Yes, that is my understanding, but Pakistan has not forcible removed refugees from its territory. Plus Pakistan has more than 700k people internally displaced citizens from the internal conflicts with extremists.

Off topic: Pakistan does not have a legal framework for asylum seekers. Since March 2002, UNHCR has facilitated the return of almost 3.8 million registered Afghans from the country. Source: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e487016.html

Once ISAF pulls out and if the Afghan Army is unable to defeat the Taliban you can expect yet again enormous numbers of refugees again fleeing the country.

[tw25rw]

At least you are honest about it I guess...

Frankly, I don't see any difference between the difference between poor uneducated waves of Irish, English, Chinese, Greek, Italian, Jewish, Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees and migrants. All made positive contributions. Most came with little but the clothes on their backs.

Many at the time reject the notion of them coming in the first place due do some imagined destruction of the Australian way of life. History has proven people like you wrong time and again.

I have no problem taking in poor uneducated migrants in general. These ones can be someone elses problem. There must be somewhere in the muslim world that takes in refugees. Edited July 30, 2013 by tw25rw

[samran]

At least you are honest about it I guess...

Frankly, I don't see any difference between the difference between poor uneducated waves of Irish, English, Chinese, Greek, Italian, Jewish, Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees and migrants. All made positive contributions. Most came with little but the clothes on their backs.

Many at the time reject the notion of them coming in the first place due do some imagined destruction of the Australian way of life. History has proven people like you wrong time and again.

I have no problem taking in poor uneducated migrants in general. These ones can be someone elses problem. There must be somewhere in the muslim world that takes in refugees.

The past 50 years would suggest otherwise. Given these are the ones that the ethnic majorities in those countries like to persecute, you aren't going to have much hope. But having said that, I have no beef with their religion, nor do I think they are on a mission to convert Australia into some sort of caliphate. If anything, after a generation, Australia is likely to convert them. I think Australia is in more danger from happy clappy Christians (see hillsong church) than refugees who happen to be muslim.

[F430murci]

I have no problem with receiving asylum seekers. I simply don't want an influx of muslim immigrants. Particularly poor uneducated ones. It's that simple. We have to decide who we accept and who we don't and what we want life in Australia to be like in the future.

And the fact that no one else wants them doesn't mean we have to be extra nice.

At least you are honest about it I guess...

Frankly, I don't see any difference between the difference between poor uneducated waves of Irish, English, Chinese, Greek, Italian, Jewish, Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees and migrants. All made positive contributions. Most came with little but the clothes on their backs.

Many at the time reject the notion of them coming in the first place due do some imagined destruction of the Australian way of life. History has proven people like you wrong time and again.

Funny your comment on history proving itself. I imagine the Swiss are disagreeing with your assessment on immigration.

---------

On May 19, 2013, immigrant riots started in Swedens capital, Stockholm, allegedly caused by the police shooting of a 69-year-old machete-wielding immigrant. In response, immigrants claimed that the Swedish people are racists and treat immigrants badly. Unemployment is the major complaint raised by immigrants, most of them from Africa and the Middle East.

During the past two decades, Sweden, known worldwide as a tolerant country, has received large numbers of Muslim émigrés. Sweden, although one of the wealthiest, stable, and permissive countries in the world, is experiencing Muslim uprisings.

In 2008, Muslim-sparked riots took place in the Swedish city of Malmo racism was the excuse. Scholars studying the Muslim population in Sweden note that rapes in that country are the highest in Northern Europe. The countrys Crime Prevention Council reported that Sweden had 46 rapes for 100,000 residents. The U.K. was a distant second with 23 rapes per 100,000 residents.

The council also found that it is four times more likely that the rapist is born abroad than native born. Another study reported that 85 percent of the Swedish rapes were by foreign-born persons.

http://www.newsmax.com/JamesWalsh/Europe-Immigration-Muslim-Obama/2013/05/29/id/506837

[F430murci]

I have no problem with receiving asylum seekers. I simply don't want an influx of muslim immigrants. Particularly poor uneducated ones. It's that simple. We have to decide who we accept and who we don't and what we want life in Australia to be like in the future.

And the fact that no one else wants them doesn't mean we have to be extra nice.

At least you are honest about it I guess...

Frankly, I don't see any difference between the difference between poor uneducated waves of Irish, English, Chinese, Greek, Italian, Jewish, Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees and migrants. All made positive contributions. Most came with little but the clothes on their backs.

Many at the time reject the notion of them coming in the first place due do some imagined destruction of the Australian way of life. History has proven people like you wrong time and again.

Perhaps Australia is starting to get the sense that all of those negative European experiences with immigration may have some validity after all.

Just curious why two guys that apparently now reside full time in Thailand are so adamant about Australia taking in floods of boat people with no jobs, money and based on statistics, very little education that also have a history of not doing so well in other countries.

------

Most Europeans also agree with the survey statement "Immigration has placed too much pressure on public services" in their country: Britain (76%), Spain (70%), Belgium (68%), Hungary (59%), Germany (58%), France (56%), Italy (56%), Sweden (40%) and Poland (27%).

The poll also shows that most Europeans believe Muslims in their countries do not want to integrate: Germany (72%), Spain (69%), France (54%) and Britain (52%).

The Pew survey shows that almost 60% of Europeans believe Muslims are "fanatical," 50% believe they are "violent" and only 22% believe they are "respectful of women." In response to the question "Which religion is most violent?" 90% of French say Islam, as do 87% of Spaniards, 79% of Germans and 75% of Britons. The poll also shows that more than two-thirds of Germans (73%), Britons (70%), French (68%) and Spanish (61%) are worried about Islamic extremists in their countries.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2349/european-concerns-muslim-immigration

[Scott]

This thread is about Australia and immigration. An academic comparison to Europe is interesting, but the posts appear to be taking a decidedly Anti-Islamic tone.

Please follow the rules when posting.

[Scott]

Some inflammatory remarks have been removed.

Some terms that will get your post deleted are: looney, wingnut etc.

Exercise care in your posts, please.

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply deleted.

[Will27]

Do you maybe think that Joe Average also gets annoyed when he see's the hand-outs and benefits given

to a lot of these arrivals that he cannot get?

Keep it real.

I'd like for you to point out what hand outs and benefits they get that Joe Average can't.

I hear this line often, but no-one has ever been able to point this out to me..

How about a one-off household formation package of up to $9850.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-truth-on-refugees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

[Will27]

They destroy all there documentation and then become violent attacking Australians and destroying Australian property if they are not streamlined to citizenship. If they kept their I.D then things would definitely move faster. When they all claim to be the same person it makes the Australian authorities just a little suspicious.

As a serving police officer I would of thought you would know who tells "them" incorrectly to destroy their ID and why others do not hold original ID in the first place. As you well know, or should know, they are not streamlined for citizenship.

I understand that any held in detention, at a minimum the ring leaders, identified as rioters are declined access to Australia.

Is that just a hunch or do you have any proof of that?

Because my information is exactly the opposite.

OK, my thoughts are based upon the previous government reaction to the Christmas Island riots below. Are you saying none were denied residency in Australia?

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said inmates who took part in the riot risked being refused residency in Australia.

"If a detainee on Christmas Island has committed a serious offence this will be taken into consideration as part of the assessment as to whether or not they are granted a visa," he told parliament.

Ok. so it's just a hunch then.

[simple1]

As a serving police officer I would of thought you would know who tells "them" incorrectly to destroy their ID and why others do not hold original ID in the first place. As you well know, or should know, they are not streamlined for citizenship.

I understand that any held in detention, at a minimum the ring leaders, identified as rioters are declined access to Australia.

Is that just a hunch or do you have any proof of that?

Because my information is exactly the opposite.

OK, my thoughts are based upon the previous government reaction to the Christmas Island riots below. Are you saying none were denied residency in Australia?

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said inmates who took part in the riot risked being refused residency in Australia.

"If a detainee on Christmas Island has committed a serious offence this will be taken into consideration as part of the assessment as to whether or not they are granted a visa," he told parliament.

Ok. so it's just a hunch then.

No, it was based upon Rudd's statement

[samran]

Do you maybe think that Joe Average also gets annoyed when he see's the hand-outs and benefits given

to a lot of these arrivals that he cannot get?

Keep it real.

I'd like for you to point out what hand outs and benefits they get that Joe Average can't.

I hear this line often, but no-one has ever been able to point this out to me..

How about a one-off household formation package of up to $9850.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-truth-on-refugees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

Fine, so a bit of establishment cash for the first time in their lives to set up a house and have a bit of dignity and a roof over their heads, which barely gets them anywhere near a level of wellbeing comprable to Joe Average. That type of money doesn't go far these days to set up a house for your family.

They've still got to learn a language, adapt to a new culture (though there will be many here who will bleat the usual mantra "THEY ALL STICK TO THEMSELVES") and find and develop skills which are marketable.

What else to they get above and beyond?

[simple1]

Do you maybe think that Joe Average also gets annoyed when he see's the hand-outs and benefits given

to a lot of these arrivals that he cannot get?

Keep it real.

I'd like for you to point out what hand outs and benefits they get that Joe Average can't.

I hear this line often, but no-one has ever been able to point this out to me..

How about a one-off household formation package of up to $9850.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-truth-on-refugees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

These people arrive have nothing when released or placed on a bridging visa, do you expect them to survive without any asistance whatsoever? I could say that I resent a portion of my taxes being paid to families who cannot afford to raise their children without welfare support. Equally I find it astounding that 7 million Australians are receiving welfare support from Centrelink. The monies being paid to assessed or waiting to be assessed refugees is a drop in the ocean of the federal welfare budget of A$132 billion

[Will27]

simple1, on 24 Jul 2013 - 09:35, said:

As a serving police officer I would of thought you would know who tells "them" incorrectly to destroy their ID and why others do not hold original ID in the first place. As you well know, or should know, they are not streamlined for citizenship.

I understand that any held in detention, at a minimum the ring leaders, identified as rioters are declined access to Australia.

Will27, on 24 Jul 2013 - 17:47, said:

Is that just a hunch or do you have any proof of that?

Because my information is exactly the opposite.

simple1, on 24 Jul 2013 - 18:22, said:

OK, my thoughts are based upon the previous government reaction to the Christmas Island riots below. Are you saying none were denied residency in Australia?

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said inmates who took part in the riot risked being refused residency in Australia.

"If a detainee on Christmas Island has committed a serious offence this will be taken into consideration as part of the assessment as to whether or not they are granted a visa," he told parliament.

Will27, Posted Today, 14:28 , said:

Ok. so it's just a hunch then.

simple1, Posted Today, said:

No, it was based upon Rudd's statement

Will27, Posted Today, 16:03 , said:

I cannot see anything in Rudd's statement that anyone was refused a visa for rioting.

So I assume you read that into it.

[Will27]

Do you maybe think that Joe Average also gets annoyed when he see's the hand-outs and benefits given

to a lot of these arrivals that he cannot get?

Keep it real.

I'd like for you to point out what hand outs and benefits they get that Joe Average can't.

I hear this line often, but no-one has ever been able to point this out to me..

How about a one-off household formation package of up to $9850.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-truth-on-refugees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

Fine, so a bit of establishment cash for the first time in their lives to set up a house and have a bit of dignity and a roof over their heads, which barely gets them anywhere near a level of wellbeing comprable to Joe Average. That type of money doesn't go far these days to set up a house for your family.

They've still got to learn a language, adapt to a new culture (though there will be many here who will bleat the usual mantra "THEY ALL STICK TO THEMSELVES") and find and develop skills which are marketable.

What else to they get above and beyond?

Samran, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over it with you mate.

You asked me to show you some benefits provided that are not available

to Joe Average, which I've done.

There's more but what would be the point?

[simple1]

simple1, on 24 Jul 2013 - 09:35, said:

As a serving police officer I would of thought you would know who tells "them" incorrectly to destroy their ID and why others do not hold original ID in the first place. As you well know, or should know, they are not streamlined for citizenship.

I understand that any held in detention, at a minimum the ring leaders, identified as rioters are declined access to Australia.

Will27, on 24 Jul 2013 - 17:47, said:

Is that just a hunch or do you have any proof of that?

Because my information is exactly the opposite.

simple1, on 24 Jul 2013 - 18:22, said:

OK, my thoughts are based upon the previous government reaction to the Christmas Island riots below. Are you saying none were denied residency in Australia?

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said inmates who took part in the riot risked being refused residency in Australia.

"If a detainee on Christmas Island has committed a serious offence this will be taken into consideration as part of the assessment as to whether or not they are granted a visa," he told parliament.

Will27, Posted Today, 14:28 , said:

Ok. so it's just a hunch then.

simple1, Posted Today, said:

No, it was based upon Rudd's statement

Will27, Posted Today, 16:03 , said:

I cannot see anything in Rudd's statement that anyone was refused a visa for rioting.

So I assume you read that into it.

Just noticed a news article "An Immigration Department spokesman confirmed that between 20 and 30 asylum-seekers had had their protection visas reconsidered on character grounds, but only half of those cases had been finalised, some resulting in visa cancellations, others being overturned on appeal"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/nauru-law-will-come-down-on-rioters-burke/story-fn9hm1gu-1226683982596

[Will27]

That link will not open for me as I do not have a digital pass. So am unable to comment on the article.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Will27

[simple1]

That link will not open for me as I do not have a digital pass. So am unable to comment on the article.

google search on "Nauru law will come down on rioters: Burke"

[harrry]

If a person who has lived in Australia since he was one year old can have his residence canceled and sent back to his parents country at age 40 because he has been convicted of an offence which could receive 1 year imprisonment it is only fair they be excluded.

[BookMan]

PNG solution Budget cost

The cost will be $1.1 billion over four years including $174 million this financial year. This includes $236 million over the next four years to support people who have arrived by boat to live in the community (which is being offset by the slow down in growth to the aid budget).

Some of the $1.1 billion will be offset by a $423 million reduction in operating costs of immigration detention in Australia.

(The government had previously said it would give Papua New Guinea an extra $420 million over the next four years as part of the asylum seeker deal.)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/the-pulse/politics-live-august-2-2013-20130802-2r3in.html#post_live_61872

[simple1]

PNG solution Budget cost

The cost will be $1.1 billion over four years including $174 million this financial year. This includes $236 million over the next four years to support people who have arrived by boat to live in the community (which is being offset by the slow down in growth to the aid budget).

Some of the $1.1 billion will be offset by a $423 million reduction in operating costs of immigration detention in Australia.

(The government had previously said it would give Papua New Guinea an extra $420 million over the next four years as part of the asylum seeker deal.)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/the-pulse/politics-live-august-2-2013-20130802-2r3in.html#post_live_61872

Seems ludicrous to me, how can the government commit to keep to the budget if they are unable to stop boat arrivals. Manus Island, current capacity 300, can only hold around 600 people, yet 1,600 have arrived by boat in the past few weeks. The government has already stated it will take up to two years to build additional facilities, so in the meantime they will need to be held in Australian detention centres; bet that cost has not been included in the PNG budget. if I remember correctly the total capability of housing refugees in PNG is around 3,000.

Nauru is being proposed by the Libs with an eventual capacity of 6,000.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3813817.htm

Edited August 2, 2013 by simple1

[chooka]

PNG solution Budget cost

The cost will be $1.1 billion over four years including $174 million this financial year. This includes $236 million over the next four years to support people who have arrived by boat to live in the community (which is being offset by the slow down in growth to the aid budget).

Some of the $1.1 billion will be offset by a $423 million reduction in operating costs of immigration detention in Australia.

(The government had previously said it would give Papua New Guinea an extra $420 million over the next four years as part of the asylum seeker deal.)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/the-pulse/politics-live-august-2-2013-20130802-2r3in.html#post_live_61872

I believe the smokers are the one who are going to pay for this with a 50% increase in cigarette taxes over the next 4 yrs. They are hoping to raise something like 3.5 billion.