Infrastructure that is new and productive such as a northerly water harvesting system with aqueduct into the Murray Darling Catchment could be built for example, by employing refugees.

Aqueduct about 2,000 km long is envisaged together with water holding areas. Different construction camps would be required for contemporaneous works that would see the overall project operational as quickly as possible.

Having a number of construction camps could provide for different work teams from different regions and countries.

Twiggy Forest for example has been making effort for a long time to help local indigenous people get into the workforce and I think working on construction of the system proposed would be ideal.

Steel aqueduct is proposed so that would stimulate the mining and steel industries.

Something like 120,000 people worked on the Snowy Hydro project.
Earlier this year I spoke to a civil engineer about the NQ aqueduct and the immediate reply was, it should have been done straight after the Snowy project.

If refugees were to work on such aqueduct and gained skills they might return to their own homeland where whole of water ecosystem management and such aqueduct is also urgently needed.
Work on homeland water projects could turn the table on unemployment and hopelessness, unrest, civil war and citizens wanting to leave their own country.

Nothing sensible is impossible.

Att: Armchair Critic

JF Aus,

Agreed that there are large scale projects that should be given priority.

However the engineers should not be inflicted with an untrained workforce who don't want to work, don't want to be there (prefer Sydney next to Centrelink), are uneducated and have language and other problems.

It is all big equipment and motivated operators with high level skills. There are many young skilled people who fit the bill in Europe, Ireland, Canada and so on who would leap at the opportunity and enough would want to stay on. Australia also has contractors who would welcome the business opportunity.

Semi-skilled work - by all means train locals, but don't waste time and money on economic migrants whose motivation is something else entirely and with them come the NGOs and professionals who make their daily bread out of troublemaking.

onthebeach,

I cannot argue with you on any of those points.
But I think give people a chance.
If those needing a hand want to waste it then send them back where they came from.

And by the way, some of these 'refugee' people come from countries that built ancient cities and wonders of the world.
An iron blade 5,000 years old provides evidence beyond building the Pyramids.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.saimm.co.za/Journal/v088n03p073.pdf&gws_rd=cr&ei=Ud4pV7-FHILJ0gSI2p-QAQ

I think it's best to give people a chance.

Do you want to get the infrastructure built?

otb,

Yes, I would like to see Australia take a lead in developing good and sensible proper management of the water ecosystems of this planet while generating business and employment and prosperity and peace at the same time.

Now imagine what might have happened if the Snowy Mountains scheme workers were considered the same as you suggest about the Manus refugees.
The snowy system would not have been built.

Remember, most of the people who worked on the Snowy scheme were refugee/immigrants who had come to Australia at about that time.