Foxy - Forgot to add that the demand for services has been significantly greater than expected so the figure was 50% out, so potentially that 460,000 could be up to 690,000 people.

This is ONE big monetary disaster accumulating.

About time the coalition showed some leadership, if at all that is possible. The labor blame is out of date, we have a govt that does not know which way is up. A disaster on our door step is all that has been accomplished so far. Albeit with no legislation necessary, only a big mouth.

Dear Philip S.,

Not one homeless refugee?

Gee whiz at a guess I'd say it's because -

they're either being kept in detention centres awaiting
to be assessed or they've been towed back (or is it
turned back) to Indonesia, no wait that's wrong isn't it -
or they've been settled in PNG. Or maybe, those that have
been allowed to stay are actually employed, and have
already bought their homes. Take your pick. You could also
ask the current government - but they'll blame it on the
carbon tax as they blame everything else (you'd know this
if you watch Question Time in Parliament).

As for rorting the system on the NDIS?
You obviously don't know many people with disabilities.
Rorters of the system
come in all shapes and physical attributes -
however most of them are not disabled -
(in the normal sense of the word).

It's interesting that you're concerned about "rorting"
that may or may not occur of the NDIS but I wonder if
you're as concerned about "handouts" that the government
makes to the rich.
This fact generally escapes attention because these benefits
take the indirect form of hidden subsidies or tax deductions
rather than the direct form of cash payments.

Foxy - approx 50,000 arrived during the Labor disaster years at the moment there are approx 4,000 in detention overseas a few thousand in Australia, some went home so around 40 or so thousand are housed in Australia.

Quote "I wonder if
you're as concerned about "handouts" that the government makes to the rich." The answer is yes but it has not come up in this thread prior to your question.

Dear Philip S.,

You were the one who asked the questions,
I merely answered you.

<<[It's] About time the coalition showed some leadership [says 579]>>

Reading the posts of those on the left is like learning a whole new language. When they say *show leadership* what they mean is the leader should make a decision that the majority of the electorate don't agree with, and probably wouldn't vote for in a millions years, but which they on the left think is a good idea.

Similarly, I was in a lecture theatre recently when a far left speaker come in to spruik candidates for a student newspapers editorial-ship election. His main reason why the assembly should vote for his candidates was "because you need to have your views challenged". The #!*% newspapers weekly content was cover-to-cover extreme left propaganda --and yet, it was everyone else who needed to have their views challenged!