<< How can anyone justify the intake of the refugees when in Australia we have in excess of 200,000 homeless people due to very limited affordable housing. >>

A good question gypsy.

Because we SHOULD be putting a decent effort into refugee issues on the world stage.

But it would need to be done as part of a holistic national plan for the future, in which we strive for a sustainable society with net zero immigration, or else, yes, it would not make sense with reference to neglected Australian citizens.

If we had net zero immigration, which would be in the order of ~35 000 per year, of which perhaps up to ~27 000 were refugees, we’d be able to improve the lives of those 200 000 homeless people and make real improvements to all manner of services, infrastructure and other quality-of-life issues for the whole population.

If we continue to be grossly burdened with a ~300 000 annual immigration intake, we’ve got no chance, because we’ll need to keep pouring most of our public money into building ever more infrastructure and services for the ever-growing population, and thus have scant little to put into making real improvements for the existing population.

The refugees brought to this country are the most needy. Only those that really need resettlement should be brought here. But yes, we should also be mindful of the need for good assimilation, and for them to not add to cultural or religious tensions.

Australia’s refugee and aid efforts have other positive spinoffs – good international relations, trade advantages, setting a good example for the world….

So as I see it, with the right sort of future planning, it would all fit together very well: a sustainable society, steadily improving quality of life factors and a considerably increased humanitarian effort.

All this chattering about asylum seekers and the 'expert panel's solution' is rubbish. We all know Abbott when elected as P.M. will re-implement John Howards Pacific Solution and the boats will stop.

With the legislation today Labor is on a hiding to nothing.

If the boats stop it's because of Abbott's Policy ... if they don't it's because Labor hasn't implemented all of Abbotts Policy.

In the meantime we are going to see what happens to Governments who do not do the homourable thing. A government that cannot govern should honourably resign

We are about to witness why, historically, governments and PM's who cannot implement their policies simply resign.

That's what Gillard and Labor should do. Since they won't ... they will be crucified ... whenever they do or don't do anything. Worst of all it simply highlights Gillards ability to brazenly lie to the electors. And she's 'over it'... what a joke.

Look at what Abbott said yesterday.

'It's a measure of this government that it celebrates a win in the Federal Court.'

What an insult. The absolute pits.

Could anybody imagine anybody saying that about Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating or Howard, their Attorneys General or their governments?

A return to Rudd ... only makes things worse.

There seems to be a fairly high representation in this discussion of those who believe Australia accepting people escaping from intolerable situations - war, religious persecution, famine, political purges, other - is intrinsically undesirable.

Is this the case?

Just looking at the waves of refugees Australia has accepted over the centuries, since the first boat people arrived in 1788, it would appear all refugee groups have made a highly positive contribution to Australia's rich multi-cultural community:

Irish from from famines and English from poverty and overcrowding in the 1700s and 1800s; Lutherans from Prussia in the 1830s; Hungarians, Italians and Poles escaping religious and political persecution in the 1800s; Russian, Greek, Bulgarian, Armenian, Assyrian and Jewish refugees fleeing purges in the early 1900s; Jews from Nazi Germany in the 1930s; refugees from Greece, Italy and other European nations after WWII and then waves of refugees in the 1960s and 70s from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

All beneficial experiences for Australia, as well as reasonably helpful for the families involved?

No?

Alan, we still accept refugees, as we have done in the past.

There is a difference however, between doing our share and being flooded with them. More and more, does not mean better and better.

Hi Alan,

It's the numbers we are more concerned about. During all those previous mass immigrations I don't think I can identify the mass of refugees or displaced peoples totalling anywhere near 49 million.

You know I've asked Marilyn Shephard on many occassions, 'at what point are there too many refugees for Australia to accommodate?'

I'd respectfully ask you the same and then I'd further ask what measures you'd put in place once that point is reached?

Thanks, Yabby, Keith and others.

The main point of the original article was to suggest that Australia is simply not being "flooded" despite what some sections of the media and some political parties want you to believe.

Don't let them suck you in.

Australia had received only 23,434 refugees under UNHCR mandate by 2011. This is puny compared with other rich countries. And nowhere near as generous as many poor countries. Australia ranks 47th in the world.

In the same period France received 210,207 refugees – almost nine times Australia's number – in one fourteenth the land mass. Germany accepted 571,685 on terrain smaller than that of France.

Even Austria which fits into Australia 91 times received more than twice Australia's intake at 47,073. Switzerland, half the size of Austria again, accepted 50,416.

None of the above nations enjoys Australia's robust economy. None has the benefit of Australia's low population density and uninterrupted economic growth since 1992.

So Australia is only receiving a small trickle compared with other nations with a similar economic system and comprarable populations - but who have vastly less arable land and significantly less wealth.

This is courtesy your very impressive moat.

On the basis of what Australia has achieved in earlier periods and its resources now, probably between 20,000 and 40,000 each year should be manageable.

Australia last year resettled fewer refugees than did Liberia, Kenya, Tunisia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Yemen and Israel.

Are you proud of that ..?

Then, if we can only get our rich Western allies to stop invading poor Muslim countries and meddling in other peoples' affairs, the world will soon have a far less serious global problem.