I would get at least ten customers each week into my shop, bitching about how much the refugees get in handouts, compared to our own residents.

I have heard suggestions that's its as much as $65,000 per year each.

Personally, as a tax payer, I would like to know, from the horses mouth, just what these people do receive, and for how long, whether they be invited guests or queue jumpers.

Who agrees with me.

They should be able to come and go as they please, but receive nothing - absolute 0 benefits of any kind (unless private citizens wish to support them with their own money).

The only thing in the way is this stupid refugee-convention!

It's worse than $65000 or $1250 week.
. Detaining a single asylum seeker on Manus or Nauru costs $400,000 per year. Detention in Australia costs $239,000 per year. Bill Shorten will cost $1 trillion soon. Warming the globe will be $38956
megabucks.

Refugees—that is, people who have been granted a Protection visa—do not receive higher benefits than other social security recipients.

In general, Australian Government payments are only available to people who reside in Australia and are either Australian citizens or holders of permanent visas. When an asylum seeker is granted refugee status they become permanent residents of Australia. They have the same entitlements as all other permanent residents.[22] There are no special refugee payments or special rates of payments for refugees.

Most refugees are of working age. This means that the main form of assistance provided to refugees is the Department of Human Services (DHS) Newstart Allowance (commonly known as unemployment benefits). To qualify for Newstart Allowance a refugee needs to meet the same requirements as any other resident. This includes participation in activities designed to increase one’s chances of finding work and accepting work should it become available.[23] There are no special or extra rates of Newstart Allowance for refugees.

As such, a single refugee receiving Newstart Allowance and sharing rented accommodation would currently receive $573.27 per fortnight (comprised of Newstart Allowance of $492.60 and Rent Assistance of $80.67).[24] This is precisely the same amount that would be received by any other permanent resident of Australia receiving Newstart Allowance. Similarly, any refugees receiving other Australian Government payments such as Disability Support Pension or Age Pension receive such payments at precisely the same rate as is paid to all other permanent residents.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustGovAssistRefugees

Open your eyes!

No nickname, its Kevin Rudds baby, not Bill shortens and we should never ever allow the Australian people to forget that.

Here Rudd is, on his tax payer supported lifestyle, something in the order of TEN TIMES that of our pensioners, plus all the perks, yet he has and will continue to cost us a fortune, one that we may well never recover from, yet some still worship him. He was little more than an economic vandal.

The Kevin 07 experiment may well go down in history as our worst ever choice as a voting nation. If only politicians were accountable.

The economic vandals in Iraq have forced the US to pay-up big time:
The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.
Sotherby's auctions hope to obtain a trillion dollar bank note , the new currency.

Hey Rehctub,
You get my vote.

Not sure what the average cost is, but I read a news article a few months back that spoke about bringing 50,000 Syrian refugees (I think) with a cost estimate that equated to $75,000 a head.

I want to know the total value not just their benefit but of everything they are initially given or that which is spent on them.

The information is bound to be available for those wanting to access it; we are not quite the secret state - yet. But, irrespective of what these bludging country-shoppers cost us, they will continue to coast us intil we have a government with the backbone to put a stop to the stupid care for people who are not supposed to here in the in the first place. Turn back the boats, we-do not-want-a-bar-of-you should be the only policy. For those here in detention, send them home, and to hell with what the UN says; that corrupt organisation has no control over what we do. China ignores it; so should we.

ttbn,
Do you think there should be no international law? Or do you just think Australia should be above the law?

Fortunately for refugees, most Australians are not as evil as you, and do not wish to see people sent to their deaths even though they've committed no crime.

________________________________________________________________________________

rehctub, that's some serious revisionism! Kevin Rudd shielded our economy from the GFC and you accuse him of being an economic vandal!

Like those ocassional lies that are circulated via email, it's not surprising that this sort of myth is created and perpetuated.
We heard the same stuff about aborigines and Asians, not to forget the holiday resort lifestyles of various groups of refugees in detention.

It reminds me of when I was working for a Government department that was going to employ some aborigines. Managers were worried about potential racism in the workplace so they arranged a full-day course presented by a sociologist to explain aboriginal culture and how it related to their working conditions.
During the course she dispelled the multitude of rumours that many had taken for granted about handouts and allowances and I learned quite a few things myself.
After the course there were several die-hards that changed their tack from complaining about the (phoney) handouts to the notion that the new employees had now put them a day behind in their own work.

Some people just gotta hate and this myth is just another example.

I am immensely proud of the fact that we are a signatory to the convention on refugees and that we as a nation are prepared to accept refugees albeit in modest numbers for resettlement in our comparatively wealth country.

To see the utter devastation of Syrian towns and the utter despair of so many fleeing not only violence and death but the total obliteration of their homes and the physical spaces of their upbringing plus the deaths of some many of their community means to have stood by and done nothing was not an option for a country such as ours.

Resettlement does cost money which I do not begrudge one bit. The refugees I know are just keen to get on with things. One of the doctors in my small town is an Iraqi refugee and while I'm sure his transition to a new country was easier than some it still was not without stress and strain. The more we make an effort both in terms of money and attitude the more successful will be incorporation of these deserving individuals and families into our society.

We are a big country where most of us have pretty broad shoulders and are each willing to take a little of the burden involved in helping out some of the world's most desperate peoples.

Well done Australia.

50,000 refugees times $75k?

If it was true (which it isn't), that about what we spent on getting ready for the Olympics - not to mention the $40 million we spent to resettle just a couple of them in Cambodia.

Considering how much off-shore detention is costing overall, money has never been a factor when it comes to politicians chasing votes. After all, it's not their own money.

Hey Rache,
I love it when someone challenges me when I know I'm right...
(I remember calculating it when I read the article)

Well it turns out I was wrong, but not about the $75,000 per person cost but about the number of refugees - it wasn't 50,000 it was 12,000.
Here's the article.

$900 Million divided by 12,000 - you do the maths.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-15/government-to-spend-900-million-dollars-resettling-refugees/7030866

you must be joking Aden, the guy is and was a complete dud.

mikk - Your figures are wrong, you are not taking into account what the various charities give them the cost of which comes from the taxpayer as well as the high cost of the administration of the charities, that also includes the churches.

Its truly amazing that one person can cause so much damage to an economy (K Rudd removing border controls) then carry on as if he has done nothing wrong. Whats even more unbelievable is that some still admire his failures.

In all seriousness, I don't think we will ever recover from where we are, unless of cause we make some serious changes to our tax system, and wean the freeloaders off the public tit, and I'm not just referring to refugees or illegals.

As for Rudd avoiding a recession, the fact is he was in a position to do so because of what he inherited. Although I'm still not convinced it was the right move in the end.

To me everything Rudd did was to further himself after he left politics, giving away millions of dollars as bribes to get the UN security council seat, even letting in the so called refugees all so he could try to get the top job with the UN.

rehctub, can you try writing comments based on what's actually happened instead of on what you read in the Murdoch press?

Rudd did not remove border controls. Though the immigration detention system changed, the border controls themselves were the same under Rudd as under Howard.

Australia owns the Reserve Bank, so can ALWAYS borrow money regardless of whether we've previously been running surpluses or deficits. Although I guess you could say that's a position Rudd inherited, as that's something that only became possible after Keating floated the dollar – Australia borrowed in foreign currency before that, so had limited credit.

Of course avoiding a recession was the right move – it lost us nothing but kept Australians in work, and kept our economy productive.

Aidan, by avoiding a recession we have now seen house prices in the likes of Sydney and Melbourne become unaffordable for most and even many who were born and bred there can no longer live in their cities of choice. How is this fair?

The other problem we no face is that our interest rates have no buffer left, so when we do go into recession, unavoidable in my view, how will we get out?

While I confess I am no guru with regards to borrowing and debt, I was of the opinion that to create money, you have to issue bonds to the likes of China. Is this correct, if not, how does it work.

More importantly, if we can simply print more money as we choose, why cant we give everyone enough cash to pay down their mortgage, or have a slush fund that wannabe business people can simply borrow the start up capital they need. After all, there are plenty of smart, willing people with no cash and no idea how to obtain it.

While on the subject of unlimited borrowings, your view, why don't we borrow enough to buy all our foreign owned assets back?

Another idea would be to borrow money so our pensioners can get a decent reinterment income, as opposed to the piddly little amount that dribbles down the line to them.

Sorry Aidan but your theory on unlimited borrowings just doesn't make sense to me mate, unless of cause you can provide reasons why.

rehctub,
Of course I can provide reasons why:

"Aidan, by avoiding a recession we have now seen house prices in the likes of Sydney and Melbourne become unaffordable for most and even many who were born and bred there can no longer live in their cities of choice. How is this fair?"
It isn't fair, but having declining house prices and people unable to pay the mortgages they've already got is far worse. And having a recession doesn't prevent a subsequent housing bubble anyway.

The best way to keep house prices down is with a broad based land tax, and as I've said before, I'd like to see one replace the GST. Unfortunately such a tax would have to be phased in very slowly to avoid unfairly disadvantaging those who have already bought houses.

"The other problem we no face is that our interest rates have no buffer left, so when we do go into recession, unavoidable in my view, how will we get out?"
With a fiscal stimulus of course. Though as Rudd showed, this does enable the recession to be avoided.

"While I confess I am no guru with regards to borrowing and debt, I was of the opinion that to create money, you have to issue bonds to the likes of China. Is this correct, if not, how does it work."
Creating money requires two things: firstly getting it into circulation, and secondly a way of draining excess reserves (otherwise it could collapse like the Continental Dollar). Issuing bonds is the normal procedure for draining excess reserves, mainly for historical reasons, and China may choose to buy them. But merely paying interest on reserves (as the RBA also does) is sufficient to drain excess reserves.

(TBC)

rehctub (continued)
"More importantly... why cant we give everyone enough cash to pay down their mortgage, or have a slush fund that wannabe business people can simply borrow the start up capital they need. After all, there are plenty of smart, willing people with no cash and no idea how to obtain it."
Although the debt doesn't matter, the deficit does. Just because it's currently too low for the economic conditions we're facing doesn't mean that a higher deficit is always better. Giving everyone that much cash would be far too inflationary, and would result in a huge housing bubble and a permanent fall in our dollar. And it would be a very inefficient use of government money. Just because the government can always access more money doesn't mean they should waste it!

"While on the subject of unlimited borrowings, your view, why don't we borrow enough to buy all our foreign owned assets back?"
The above answer applies to that question too. And I don't see anything wrong with having assets in foreign ownership. But there are two related things I think we should address: firstly governments are far to eager to sell assets rather than taking on debt, and secondly there's an assets imbalance, with more Aussie assets in foreign ownership than vice versa. There have been times recently when our dollar's been so overvalued that it's wrecked our manufacturing industries, and that's threatening to occur again soon. I think under these circumstances the government should create some more money, reduce our dollar's short term value a bit by selling it to buy foreign money (particularly that of the countries we export a lot to) and use it to start (or expand) a sovereign wealth fund.

"Another idea would be to borrow money so our pensioners can get a decent reinterment income, as opposed to the piddly little amount that dribbles down the line to them."
Another inefficient use of government money, so my earlier objection still stands. And anyway, I thought we had a superannuation system to address that problem?

Without doing some research, my only frame of reference for how much it costs per head is how much it cost me when I put my 2 girls (from Indonesia) through the process of migration.

1. The first thing that is required of you before you wish to travel internationally is the correct legal documentation from within your own country. And prior to migration this requirement becomes considerably more. So, at least in the case of the Australian Indonesian relationship as it was in between 2006 - 2010, the first requirement is that the applicant must have good standing within their original country.

Now, in the case of the Asylum Seekers, who may not have any documentation I could not even begin to hazard a guess as to what the guvment may spend on attempting to establish the id and history of some of these people.

2. Once you are able to evidence good standing right across the board in your own country, then you can make the application to the Australian government. There are a lot of pre-requirements, such as medical vaccinations and screening scans. I did all the paperwork myself and (including one eclectic question which required a 1 month FOI plus int. postal time) it took me the best part of 2 months working solidly at it and when printed was the best part of 2 inches thick A4.

So, in the case of a lot of the Asylum Seekers, I guess that they are not paying the fees (some thousands per applicant at my time) nor the costs of the medicals and security checks, nor the translators and interpreters as well as other specialists who are being paid to have this done for them. Not to mention a portion of every other public servant who has had some degree of involvement in their processing.

So, we haven't even started to feed and house them or provide them with the specialist medical attention that they need etc etc and the costs are already not insignificant.

How are we doing so far?

Yes we do have a super system to address retirement, however it is clearly in the cross hairs of government simply because there is nothing left to turn to. The result being that people no longer trust their savings in super because chances are we wont get it because someone else will be deemed as 'more worthy' of it, most likely being someone who was not born here or didn't contribute in the first place.

The amount Rudd and Gillard wasted can never be recovered, plus we have to cater for those they allowed in, or left in detention.

The numbers 2 and 2000 should never be forgotten. 2 being how many Howard left behind, compared with 2000 left behind by Rudd and Gillard. But at least Abbott stopped the boats, which stopped the flow.

But I put it to you all that sometimes the rules of the game need to be changed.

For example, I recall the prime minister's words when he stated something to the effect that the banks operate under a "Social License" from the people, with the sub text of that being i.m.o. that the Parliament as the elected representatives of the people can also alter this at their behest.

Hypothetically speaking, what if the rules were that you could get lawfully paid in cash at the discretion of the worker being paid? What if your wages didn't have to be paid into your bank? What if banks were required to seek your consent, and perhaps offer a financial product, instead of being allowed to play about and earn their own extra money with YOUR money, as they please, and not share it, every time money is going in and out? What if they had to work also for the people whose money it is, in this regard?

What if, the rules were such that banks couldn't gouge and slug RehTub every time he makes a sale and the proceeds go in electronically to his account? Or just 0.05c a go to maintain the network and devices with a squeak of profit on top?

In choosing your guvment you are choosing also what the rules could be, are you not?

Same applies to the issue of the cost of the Asylum Seekers, but when you have politicians who want to layer privatised outsourcing upon outsourcing,

(in an attempt to divorce themselves from personal responsibility)

with everyone making up their own inflated price on top of their over inflated opinions of themselves then you get the absurd fiscal blow out and potential black hole that we have.

But I would also put it to you that some politicians do not care in the slightest about this. They do not care how tuff you are doing it. And the more you hurt and the more anxious and hateful you become, the easier it is to reel you in by your own prejudice.

DreamOn - Labor Government years ago admitted the majority of refugees were never checked properly.

Remember cap't Emad was cleared as okay, turned out to be one of the chief people smugglers.

Simple fact is without cooperation from the country of origin which a lot lie about there is no way to really check them out.

Also remember Cuba when they opened the jails and mental asylums and sent them to America.

Also if someone is an undesirable criminal etc maybe the country of origin don't want them back so will say nothing.

Probably the only way is to accept give them the benefit of the doubt but with a ten year good behavior or instantly be deported.

I think its fair to assume that the costs associated with asylum seekers, all up costs that is, may well be the largest cost we have.

Every cent spent on this is a taxpayer cent that was never intended to be spent this way when the majority of our tax payers started paying tax, and as such has to be taken from somewhere else.

The question is, for how long and at what cost to other vital sectors. My fear is that if we don't put an immediate halt to immigration of any kind, we will never catch up. So where to then.

BTW, I'm posting from Bali at present, what an amazing world we live in and who would have thought this was possible forty odd years ago when I started paying my taxes.

You should come back by boat.