I don't have the figures for the amount of our taxes that goes into public service wages & super funds for those above $100,000pa. Considering that the public service employs about 40% of the working population one can safely assume that those on welfare are still outnumbered by the public service. I'm convinced that a pay reduction for public servants could easily fund a lot of economy stimulating work & provide much needed employment.
The high to very high income public servants need a cull in both numbers & pay?conditions. Only that will bring back a good workable economic balance. It will also reduce the incidence of poverty by a huge degree.
The present pay claim by teachers is nothing short of rude & highly inconsiderate. These are the sort of people we can't afford to influence our young.

It seems to me, we would spend less, helping the boat people to return and set up as thriving economic entities in their own right, back where they came from, or in another, if SAFE, impoverished third world country.
Where our largesse, would also flow on and on, through many other hands; and or, create many new commercial, flow on, opportunities.
And a program like that, would likely cost us less than the current "refugee" Detainment policy?
It costs as as much as an UNAVOIDABLE $140,000.00 plus PA, just to house a single asylum seeker! And sometimes that outlay caries across several years.
We could very likely set up a whole family on a relatively modest intense production under-glass market garden, or fish farm or some-such, or heading up a brand new village industry, for less than we pay to keep a single asylum seeker housed for just one year!
And if their homeland still isn't safe?
Then any number of impoverished third world countries, would welcome them, with open arms, as comparatively cashed up economic migrants?
That way, we could make our largesse do two jobs or double duty.
And if we have no other choice but spend it, then surely we can do just that, far more intelligently and productively, with win/win outcomes for many more impoverished people!
What we are doing now simply isn't working, or throwing good money after bad!
Rhrosty.

Cheryl:

At the least Cheryl you have acknowledged a serious problem, Illegal boat arrivals. Governments have every right, and Citizens have every expectation, that the huge expenses involved in this human trade will be funded from sources “Other-Than” domestic budgets. Obviously overseas aid budgets will be high on the agenda; and why not

Afraid not Dan - boat people are not 'illegals'.

If they entered Oz on a visa and overstayed their visa term they would be 'illegals'. Big dif.

A couple of people here hit the nail on the head re investment in education in Africa.

Cheryl - They are mostly ECONOMIC INVADERS.

any number of impoverished third world countries, would welcome them, with open arms, as comparatively cashed up economic migrants?
Rhrosty,
They wouldn't go there, they're not interested in that because these countries are already converted. Australia is their last frontier.