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.