JF, I understand your sentiments on refugees, the idea that;

"50,000 refugees from refugee camps in Jordan to work here in infrastructure construction camps.
They could learn and take back skills and build water infrastructure in Middle East countries to grow more affordable food supply.
It could be all about sustainable business and employment toward prosperity and peace."

Ever how noble a thought it is, I must question the practicability of the idea. Someone mentioned the 'Snowy Mountains Scheme' post WWII, I think it was you, Australia took large numbers of European refugees/migrants at the time, most were unskilled, many were single men, some went to the Snowy, others found unskilled or semi-skilled work in city factories, some actually were extremely skilled, one of my fathers best tool-makers was a Hungarian who started here as a factory labourer. We had the right projects at the right time, but that was 60 years ago.

Today things are different, the demand for large numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled people, even in infrastructure projects is not that great, can we train and construct at the same time, do we have the capacity to do so. I wish we had, but I'm not sure we do. Take this submarine project,despite the political interference, its $50 billion of investment for about 2800 jobs. Cost per job is very high, I know there is a large technology cost in this, but even at the rule of thumb of $1 million of investment per job created its still $50 billion without the training costs on top.
I think the first generation of unskilled refugees to Australia will be mostly an economic burden, and it will only be subsequent generations that can make a positive economic contribution to Australia.

The OP was deliberately misleading to score a political point. Australia did nothing 'illegal'. It entered into an agreement with the PNG government. There is nothing wrong with that.

While well-intentioned and trying to do the best for its economy, it was the PNG government that was unaware that a black letter interpretation of its constitution might find a legal impediment.

One has to grin at Labor and Greens who are now play-acting aghast at that. Weren't they the ones who tried to poison the well against Australia's Trade Union Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon, through alleging him to be a 'black letter interpreter of the law'?

That's politics. LOL

Paul,

As you pointed out, the migrants are generally a permanent drain on the economy. Given that 18000 is one of the most generous policies in the world, perhaps you can explain Dinner Tally's decision to up this to 50 000 p.a.

Paul1405,

Apparently you have not seen any of my comments suggesting a water harvesting and aqueduct system from northern Queensland to the Murray Darling catchment.
The MDB catchment starts inland from Fraser Island and flows all the way to South Australia and the water starved Coorong, passing water starved farmers and towns along the way. Menindee Lakes and Broke Hill included.

At least 50,000 -100,000 workers may be required to build the system and refugees with various skills and labour ability from whatever country would fit in nicely. If they bludge they go home and don’t come back. Three strikes out.

I defy anyone to provide evidence the system is not feasible and viable if it has indigenous and other landholder consent/approval.

Insight to the system can be found within the Australian government, Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper, Supporting Information Green Paper, Index ‘F’ - Fairfax.

Steel aqueduct is proposed, providing stimulus for the mining and steel industries. Most countries need water ecosystem management, worldwide there would be significant benefit from use of steel similar to how new railways helped strengthen economies.

It is extraordinary the Australian government funded ABC has not investigated and reported feasibility and potential of this water harvesting and aqueduct project.
Neither is the ABC investigating and reporting world ocean ecosystem and fish devastation and impact that led to understanding need for water ecosystem rehabilitation and conception of this aqueduct system linked to the Coorong.

The aqueduct system is intended to provide mass employment for people from the bottom of the economy.
Seafood dependent SW Pacific Islands and even Australian indigenous people suffer disease and early death due to seafood protein deficiency malnutrition.

With traditional staple seafood protein supply now inadequate or unaffordable at the bottom of the economy, impacted people need employment and income to buy alternative food

JF Aus: I defy anyone to provide evidence the system is not feasible and viable if it has indigenous and other landholder consent/approval.

I doubt the Greenies would go for it. They would object just for the sake of objecting.

Just like, 15 years ago they were all for Wind Power, now they're against it. I believe some are even now against Solar. No to Coal, No to Nuclear, No to Hydro(Dams), No to Wind, No to Solar, Yes to Alternate Power Sources. ;-)

JF, I am not opposed to infrastructure projects per se, those ones you mention may or may not be economically feasible, just as a refugee input may or may not be viable. I'm not knocking your ideas, I simply don't have enough information to draw conclusions.

Shadow, as a population ratio 50,000 is about 0.2% it is not a huge number.