The "Australian citizens" killed and wounded wouldn't be former "refugees" would they; fleeing a "well founded fear of persecution" in the very place to which they voluntarily returned, having gained Australian residency?
Were their travels funded by genuine employment in Australia , by Centelink benefits or by "employment" as a "human rights advocate" at the taxpayers expense?
What a joke!

Rattler
If the dead included former refugees, then their fear of persecution was indeed “well founded”

Reminds me of 2006, and the last big Hezbollah/Lebanese/ Israeli clash when huge numbers of Lebanese, who we thought we had given refuge to and billeted safely in our western suburbs (safely for them, if not necessarily safely for our selves) suddenly needed re-rescuing from Lebanon, where soon after securing their Oz meal ticket they had returned.

Well said, SPQR. The hordes evacuated from Lebanon at the taxpayers expense were asked to refund the cost of their flights back to Australia, an expense which, presumably, they'd have incurred anyway at some point. I recall Alexander Downer, as Foreign Minister, saying that virtually none did so. Parasites!

I advocate that any "refugee" who leaves Australia and returns to the place from which they "fled", not be allowed to re-enter Australia. This could easily be monitored by reference to their passports. Any claiming to have lost their passport would automatically be deemed to have returned to their place of origen.

Any refugee in receipt of unemployment benefits or disability pension should not be issued an Australian passport.

Rattler:

...And if these “Expats” (?) returning to home countries to fight in homeland conflicts as Australian citizens, are actually the adult children of the refugees, then that null and voids your argument doesn't it! (?).

Hi Diver,

I don't advocate that my proposal would apply to Australian born children of refugees. They are in no way responsible for the actions of their parents.

But what would you propose?

Cheers,

Rattler