The Gillard Government

[Mofra]

I think that's right. However, they're housed, frequently in motels, given medical and dental care. There is some reasonably understandable resentment in the community that our own homeless people don't have access to the same resources.

There are many groups that do try to support the homeless.
I don't believe the "homeless get nothing" argument is quite as transparent when the costs of public housing, social welfare, non-means tested healthcare, tax deductability of charitable groups and financial support of charity groups is included.

Should we do more? Probably. Does this therefore absolve our responsibilities to abide by Australian and International law in relation to other groups of people? No, I don't think so.

 

[sails]

I'm very sure it is not factual. Alan Jones got busted airing the same stuff last year. Seems to be part of the same crap where the government name is changed to match the country.

Visit http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/settle_pay_humrefugee.htm and it may give more details for what you seek.

Thanks boofhead. Yes, looks like it is untrue.

Nope, but it seems enough people believe this stuff to make demonising "boat people" a vote winner.

As I understand it until refugee status is granted they get nothing in allowances/support.

It does seems rather silly to exaggerate the situation with this sort of email. However, with this government spending like there is no tomorrow, it seemed quite plausible and I'm sure there will be many who will take that email at face value.

There is quite enough concern with the amount of people who arrive without papers and, as such, have no known background and are being given resident status here without untruthful emails to exaggerate the situation any further.

It's certainly not skin colour or nationality that worries me - it's those that may have criminal histories or, worse still, may have intent to hurt the Aussie people in the future or try to introduce laws to enforce their minority ideas. The greens are a good example of how this can be achieved.

 

[sails]

There are many groups that do try to support the homeless.
I don't believe the "homeless get nothing" argument is quite as transparent when the costs of public housing, social welfare, non-means tested healthcare, tax deductability of charitable groups and financial support of charity groups is included.

Should we do more? Probably. Does this therefore absolve our responsibilities to abide by Australian and International law in relation to other groups of people? No, I don't think so.

Mofra, with Australia going deeper and deeper into debt, how long can we continue to support other people - especially those that arrive at their own whim and where there is no history and we don't know how genuinely needy either? There are needs in our own communities that are not being met. I'm not talking about wants - but genuine needs.

I do know that our own homeless struggle to get somewhere to live. A couple of years ago, I was in contact with various charity groups and others who were in the know regarding the plight of our homeless. There was a general frustration that migrants (apparently seen with wads of money) were being given houses while our own needy families living in cars, etc. were made to wait.

 

[derty]

Mofra, with Australia going deeper and deeper into debt, how long can we continue to support other people -

Relative to most of the rest of the world our debt levels with respect to GDP are surprisingly very low. Even with the stimulus packages and other enterprises the Labor govt has thrown money at.

 

[sails]

Relative to most of the rest of the world our debt levels with respect to GDP are surprisingly very low. Even with the stimulus packages and other enterprises the Labor govt has thrown money at.

Derty, that doesn't alter the fact that money is being dished out when things at home are not right. But, obviously we see things differently.

And to make a comparison to other countries where some are in financial distress doesn't seem a good benchmark. It's a bit like fund managers saying the market lost 20% and we only lost 15%. Investors still lose money.

It does appear that email I posted earlier is a hoax. Someone suggested checking the hoax-slayer and found it there: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/refugee-payment-hoax.shtml

 

[wayneL]

Relative to most of the rest of the world our debt levels with respect to GDP are surprisingly very low. Even with the stimulus packages and other enterprises the Labor govt has thrown money at.

A lot of gu'mint debt is hidden in the private sector via PPPs etc.

You need to look at total external debt.

 

[moXJO]

Relative to most of the rest of the world our debt levels with respect to GDP are surprisingly very low. Even with the stimulus packages and other enterprises the Labor govt has thrown money at.

That doesn't make it any better.

 

[derty]

A lot of gu'mint debt is hidden in the private sector via PPPs etc.

You need to look at total external debt.

Are PPP debts and other govt liabilities collated somewhere or is it a figure that is only speculated on? Would be interesting to see how that alters the standings and how healthy we are relatively.

Though is external debt (all public and private debt) a valid way of assessing a govt's fiscal health? List of Global External Debt: Aust = 92% GDP

Also found this :Why Total Debt/GDP Hides West's Sick Finances

 

[Julia]

There are many groups that do try to support the homeless.

Yes, usually church based and private not-for-profit groups.
Why should they be doing the job that governments should be doing?

Let's agree that there are only so many taxpayer dollars available.
Why do you think it's more appropriate that these funds are being spent on asylum seekers being accommodated e.g. in motels, (in one notable instance with a personal trainer thrown in to keep them healthy!), before we care for Australian citizens, many of whom have probably contributed to the taxation system before perhaps becoming mentally and subsequently homeless?

Just a very simple explanation of why you prioritise people coming here who are not prepared to apply via UNHCR over Australians who are disadvantaged and in genuine need would be appreciated.

 

[Mofra]

Mofra, with Australia going deeper and deeper into debt, how long can we continue to support other people - especially those that arrive at their own whim and where there is no history and we don't know how genuinely needy either? There are needs in our own communities that are not being met. I'm not talking about wants - but genuine needs.

Our debt is miniscule comparitively speaking, on a total and a per capita basis.

We spend only a tiny proportion of our GDP on refugees, and the money spent is done so in the most inefficient manner possible as successive governments needs to be seen as being harsh on refugees as both have indulged in turning what is a tiny problem for Australia into a major issue (blatant vote buying).

~90% of asylum seekers are granted refugee status, so is sending the bulk of them to offshore processing centres, spending $$$ on huge allowances and capital works in remote/island locations (my cousin has had successive contracts at Christmas Island as a guard, earns more than in the mining sector) is poor economics.

 

[Mofra]

Yes, usually church based and private not-for-profit groups.
Why should they be doing the job that governments should be doing?

Let's agree that there are only so many taxpayer dollars available.
Why do you think it's more appropriate that these funds are being spent on asylum seekers being accommodated e.g. in motels, (in one notable instance with a personal trainer thrown in to keep them healthy!), before we care for Australian citizens, many of whom have probably contributed to the taxation system before perhaps becoming mentally and subsequently homeless?

Just a very simple explanation of why you prioritise people coming here who are not prepared to apply via UNHCR over Australians who are disadvantaged and in genuine need would be appreciated.

Julia, it's very unfair to make untrue accusations such as "prioritising" refugees over those who are here. I don't, and if anyone else was making the same accusation I'd hope they'd be called to account.

We already prioritise homeless or needy Australians in spending - the cost of public housing is enormous, and no financial support is granted to asylum seekers until residency is granted - at that point, they are then just catching up to what people born here have access to.

As you have noted, there are community groups that do much of the legwork for the homeless - just as they do in the refugee sector. Again, no difference.

I do find it amusing that the assumption seems to be that refugees are merely a drain on taxpayers (as you have alluded to in your "taxpayer dollars available" sentence above). Given a Czech refugee is currently Australia's richest man, one wonders if Australia is actually increasing it's tax revenue on a lifetime basis merely by (barely) meeting it's UNHCR obligations. It seems to make economic sense to allow genuine refugees to set themselves up to become net taxpayers in society.

 

[sails]

Julia, it's very unfair to make untrue accusations such as "prioritising" refugees over those who are here. I don't, and if anyone else was making the same accusation I'd hope they'd be called to account...

Is it noble or gullible to call the illegal boat arrivals "refugees"? How do we know they are genuine refugees when they arrive without ID or papers? Are they really in need to be worthy of Aussie tax payer's handouts?

Quite possibly some are genuine, but I still have trouble justifying the price required to pay a smuggler in the first place to book a ticket on a rickity boat. They seem to have money.

Another 100+ have arrived bringing the total to over 5,500 so far just this year. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/mp/8335577/asylum-boat-carrying-118-stopped/

 

[moXJO]

Relative to most of the rest of the world our debt levels with respect to GDP are surprisingly very low. Even with the stimulus packages and other enterprises the Labor govt has thrown money at.

Is that debt just in the last 3 years?

 

[IFocus]

Julia, it's very unfair to make untrue accusations such as "prioritising" refugees over those who are here. I don't, and if anyone else was making the same accusation I'd hope they'd be called to account.

We already prioritise homeless or needy Australians in spending - the cost of public housing is enormous, and no financial support is granted to asylum seekers until residency is granted - at that point, they are then just catching up to what people born here have access to.

As you have noted, there are community groups that do much of the legwork for the homeless - just as they do in the refugee sector. Again, no difference.

I do find it amusing that the assumption seems to be that refugees are merely a drain on taxpayers (as you have alluded to in your "taxpayer dollars available" sentence above). Given a Czech refugee is currently Australia's richest man, one wonders if Australia is actually increasing it's tax revenue on a lifetime basis merely by (barely) meeting it's UNHCR obligations. It seems to make economic sense to allow genuine refugees to set themselves up to become net taxpayers in society.

For the life of me I cannot find the research but have seen some that shows boat people being more successful / lower crime rate than other migrants groups.

 

[Julia]

Julia, it's very unfair to make untrue accusations such as "prioritising" refugees over those who are here. I don't, and if anyone else was making the same accusation I'd hope they'd be called to account

I'm not suggesting you are in any position to prioritise anything that happens regarding the care of our own homeless Australian citizens and asylum seekers.
I'm simply saying that there are only so many funds to cater for all needs, and once we have accounted for probably about half the total which are completely wasted (eg pink batts, BER, etc), the remaining tax take has to be spread amongst various humanitarian programmes.

Of course you can choose to think we should build more detention centres, pay for motels on the mainland, complete with personal trainers, provide complete medical and dental care to people who are not at that stage proven to be refugees at all, just as I can consider that I'd rather that amount of the tax take should go to treating our own mentally ill people, e.g. who are homeless as a result of inadequate care being available for them.

Or even perhaps those Australian tax payers who have been retrenched in the downturn, through no lack of work ethic on their part, and are on the dole at a bit over $200 per week, from which quite obviously they can meet neither mortgage nor rent payments. Who cares if they have contributed to the tax system for thirty years? No one, it seems.

It's all good, as long as we show caring and sympathy to asylum seekers, many of whom I'd have to think should be fighting for their own country in Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than allowing our Australian soldiers to do so.

The last figures I read, I think from Chris Bowen's office but not sure, are that around 50% of arrivals are shown not to be genuine refugees and are in detention centres awaiting removal back to their home country.
I suspect all these quoted figures are a bit rubbery in both directions.

Just as one example, the Iraqi man who hanged himself a couple of days ago at Villawood. His initial application for refugee status was rejected. He went on through the appeal process and was again found not to be a genuine refugee.
He volunteered at that stage to return home, but when arrangements were made for him to do so, he reneged on this and decided he would insist on staying.
He changed his mind again, again saying he would return home, and the same roundabout occurred.
This is as I heard the story on Radio National this morning

I suppose few of our individual opinions are ever actually considered in Canberra, so the fact that some of us would like to see our own citizens cared for before we spend hundreds of millions on people who refuse to apply to come to this country via the routine UNHCR avenues is largely irrelevant.

We already prioritise homeless or needy Australians in spending - the cost of public housing is enormous,

I disagree. We do not prioritise homeless or needy Australians at all.
May I respectfully ask if you've ever worked in the welfare sector, Mofra?

The amount spent on public housing is way, way less than it should be.
Once upon a time, governments did build a reasonable amount of public housing for people on low incomes. Then they decreed that was no longer practical and instead of disadvantaged people being offered low rent accommodation, subsidised by governments, a new system of 'rent assistance' was put in place.

This is still in place these days. Instead of spending the money on building low rent housing, people on Centrelink benefits are eligible if they are renting, and have below a certain level of income, to obtain "Rent Assistance".
Then they have to go out and find their own accommodation on the general market, armed with their massive rent assistance subsidy.
The last time I looked, this ran out at about $210 per fortnight, so hardly enough to pay for even one week's rent, let alone two.

It's a policy which has been about as successful as the "close down the psychiatric institutions and we will care for the mentally ill in the community" nonsense.
They certainly cut off the institutionalised care, or provision of public housing, but absolutely did not adequately fund the proper care of people who had these needs within the community.

Maybe take a walk through one or two of the squalid caravan parks that exist in most areas. That's where you'll find the dregs of Australian society who are unable to care for themselves. Hang around a bit and you'll see them beaten, robbed, and abused in many other ways.

So, perhaps, before our hearts bleed too much for people who are not prepared to seek admission to Australia by UNHCR channels, just consider some of the abject misery which constitutes the lives of many Australians.

As you have noted, there are community groups that do much of the legwork for the homeless - just as they do in the refugee sector. Again, no difference.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but it should be the responsibility of governments to care for our own citizens. The government does provide full housing, meals, medical and dental care to asylum seekers while they are being assessed.
They simply do not provide a similar level of care to our own people and that is what I and many others are so resentful about.

 

[nioka]

Relative to most of the rest of the world our debt levels with respect to GDP are surprisingly very low. Even with the stimulus packages and other enterprises the Labor govt has thrown money at.

The only reason our debt level is low is because we have sold the farm to pay the debt. We are selling out Australian businesses, land, water, mineral rights, public infrastructure etc to a point that we are left with only the air around us left to sell and that is on the list as the next to go.

Wake up Australians. We are being conned and scammed by the system. Wake up before it is too late or is it allready too late to wake up?

 

[Mofra]

Is it noble or gullible to call the illegal boat arrivals "refugees"? How do we know they are genuine refugees when they arrive without ID or papers? Are they really in need to be worthy of Aussie tax payer's handouts?

Refugees and Asylum Seekers are two different groups. If we are talking about support given to each respective groups, refugees are supported, asylum seekers are locked up. Different scenarios.

 

[sails]

Our debt is miniscule comparitively speaking, on a total and a per capita basis.

We spend only a tiny proportion of our GDP on refugees, and the money spent is done so in the most inefficient manner possible as successive governments needs to be seen as being harsh on refugees as both have indulged in turning what is a tiny problem for Australia into a major issue (blatant vote buying). ...

lol Mofra - sounds like the sort of spin coming from Swan or Gillard. It doesn't go down well and these sort of statements are becoming more difficult to believe as the apparent spin and pollywaffle get worse.

How can continued and rising debt be brushed off so glibly?

Why is it that history generally shows labor spends like there is no tomorrow and then the libs eventually get us back on track? The libs are not perfect, but their fiscal policies are a lot less risky for this country, IMO of course...

Oh, and on the subject of blatant vote buying - the PM is ducking scrutiny again on the very thing that got her into power courtesy of the independents. Gillard snubs Senate order on NBN

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is defying a Senate order for the government to immediately release the business case for the $43 billion national broadband network (NBN).

The coalition, Greens and independent senator Nick Xenophon voted together in the upper house on Wednesday demanding the 400-page document

 

[Mofra]

lol Mofra - sounds like the sort of spin coming from Swan or Gillard. It doesn't go down well and these sort of statements are becoming more difficult to believe as the apparent spin and pollywaffle get worse.

I think both parties are as bad as each other in the spin stakes.

How can continued and rising debt be brushed off so glibly?

Why is it that history generally shows labor spends like there is no tomorrow and then the libs eventually get us back on track? The libs are not perfect, but their fiscal policies are a lot less risky for this country, IMO of course...

I'll respectfully disagree - simply selling state assets is not a long term strategy of fiscal responsibility unless the funds are put to productive use. Howard's era was a missed opportunity in terms of infrastructure spending in the areas that would provide the most productive economic use (there was the Adelaide/Darwin trainline but I would preferred Pilbarra/FNQ infrastructure personally).

Oh, and on the subject of blatant vote buying - the PM is ducking scrutiny again on the very thing that got her into power courtesy of the independents. Gillard snubs Senate order on NBN

I think the NBN plan should be scrutinised, no argument from me.

 

[Mofra]

I'm not suggesting...

Hi Julia,

Thank you for your long, thought-out and detailed response. I won't quote the whole post save the thread becomes unreadable, so I'll just adress a couple of points so we can get an idea of where we stand.

Firstly, I commend your concern for the homeless (and, I suspect, your empathy for the working poor in this country). I'm certainly not going to argue against helping the needy, and I don't beleive that funds used to help the less fortunate in society are a waste of funds or a pure expense in budgetary terms (taking a longer term view) because some people who are helped will become taxpayers contributing to the nation pool of funds.

Where I believe we differ is in the comparison of refugees/asylum seekers and the homeless. I don't think it is fair nor accurate to simply state there is a limited pool of funds available to both, and the issue is merely one of determining fractions of funds to each group. Each have seperate issues - as you have rightly pointed out, mental health is a large issue in homelessness. Rudd made an attempt at addressing this on a national level, but failed. People I know in the field are adament that it is not a funding issue but an allocation of resources/management issue, which indicates an overhaul of the beaurocracy would of far more good than just increasing funding, but I digress.

The asylum seeker & refugee issue has a different set of pressures. One is meeting our international obligations under various UN charters, as is meeting our obligations as a responsible regional partner. Whether we meet either of those currently is moot, as we do have a responsibility to do so and we should consider this issue in this context. Other issues that impact are our low proportion of refugee intake by world's standards (although this is as much an issue of geography as it is any other factor), our offshore processing of those who apply from neighbouring countries vs those who arrive by boat and apply from Australian soil, those who have family here, etc.

As for the issue of levels of care provided to people - as a nation we are required to provide a basic level of care to people who are incarcerated, be it asylum seekers or prisoners. It does create a perception of different people gaining some priority over others, but I don't think a simple link is accurate. The cost of detaining people can be lowered and unfortunately our governments have taken the view that the most expensive soplutions are the most politically palatable (eg. my cousin has spent two concurrent contracts on Christmas Island as a guard, getting paid more than he would in the mining sector), but again that does not change our international or domestic obligations.