I have been saying for a long time the charities are used by Government to hide the real cost of the refugees.

The costs to taxpayers also then includes a large proportion of the high executive salary of the bosses of the charities all at taxpayer expense.

Year or so ago the Government announced more refugees would need to go into the community, the charities wanted this but one said Quote " we will need a lot of money to do it"

Also divide the rent they are paying by the number of refugees living in a house, proportionally some are paying less than I pay (some 6 in 1 house).
Also do they get rental assistance if so the government needs to add that to what they claim to be giving them.

Australia has not 1 homeless refugee but thousands of homeless Australian citizens.

Philip S
The costs to taxpayers also then includes a large proportion of the high executive salary of the bosses of the charities all at taxpayer expense.

Ah yes, mind you its not only the charities involved specifically with boat people who have grossly overpaid fatcats at the top of the pile. I'm certain that a check of most if not all supposedly 'charitable institutions' would reveal a few facts the organizations in question would rather not be known. What really gets my blood boiling is entities which exploit an army of unpaid volunteers to do all the hack work whilst a small number of parasites get 90% of the organizational income. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

When anyone approaches me for donations to whatever ostensibly worthy cause, they had better have immediate access to an audited version of the exact distribution of funds or they will be departing empty handed.

thanks Mr Rudd/Ms Gillard for a total mess. How foolish was Australia to vote Labour/Greens in 2007.

praxidice - You are right the more volunteers the higher the top people can pay them self.

They can say the expenditure on salary is over X amount of employees without saying Y are volunteers or very low paid.

$75 million for the Manus & Nauru contract someone needs to be fired for that or made to specifically tell us what we got for that money.

Personally, I wouldn't give you two bob for the Salvation Army !

My view of them is they're a morally corrupt organisation who've forgotten exactly what their original remit is in terms of real charity.

If ever a Judicial Inquiry was needed, it's into the role, the operation, and the distribution of funds raised by all these so called charities, commencing with the Salvation Army and it's cohorts !

When I was with the coppers I had occasion to attend premises (in outer Sydney) occupied by a bed ridden elderly lady, who lived temporally alone. Her elderly husband was in an inner city Hospital, and had been for some time. As it was Christmas Eve, I contacted the local Salvation Army centre and asked if it was possible someone could pay the lady a brief visit on Christmas Day ?

I was promptly and curtly informed they don't work on Christmas Day ! Nor could he or would he assist with providing me with any other alternative suggestion, in this matter ?

I later ascertained by 'phone, the lady concerned spent Christmas and Boxing Day on her own, and without any special culinary arrangements consistent with the 'festive' importance of the Day.

In my opinion, the Salvation Army failed miserably in their most basic duty, even a phone call from them would've brightened her Day I believe ? The only call she received over those two days, was from a cranky, cynical copper !

To hell with the Salvation Army !

o sung wu- If ever a Judicial Inquiry was needed, it's into the role, the operation, and the distribution of funds raised by all these so called charities, commencing with the Salvation Army and it's cohorts !

I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the judiciary are already on the take in order to defect any potential investigations, probably via 'lack of evidence' or 'lack of jurisdiction' or whatever