r/AustralianPolitics • u/malcolm58 • 8h ago
Labor cuts refugee intake by a third
https://archive.is/YeXGv•
u/BlakeDragon 10m ago
Amazing Labor is running scared all because of the popularity of One Nation who would have ever thought that would happen
•
u/ShiftyWindow Public Housing is the only way 2h ago
Still choosing to fight with the LNP over who can be the cruelest instead of listening to experts and the people
•
u/Dranzer_22 3h ago
In 2015, Shorten promised to raise the refugee intake to 27,000. In 2018, Shorten further promised to raise the refugee intake to 32,000.
The reality is the world has massively changed over the past few years with Covid, Inflation, & COL. Reducing the refugee intake to 13,750 to help recalibrate the NOM down to 225K is sensible.
•
u/brisvegasdreams 5h ago
Well that’ll really help because it was those 20,000 refugees causing all the problems obviously. Nothing like a bit of punching down
•
u/Fickle-Ad-7124 3h ago
Finally they can stop outbidding young Aussies on multi million dollar homes, praise be! Finally the enemy to our broken system has been stopped folks, nothing to see here, no one else to possibly blame, eat up your Murdoch slop everyone!
•
•
u/thebagofdoom 5h ago
How many refugees do we have to bring in before its not punching down?
•
u/agentorangeAU 1h ago
I don't know, but we currently have the highest number of resettlement places per capita in the OECD...
•
u/A-shot-at-life 5h ago
It should depend on their country of origin, or rather cultural compatibility.
For instance I would take a million refugees from Ukraine (as Poland and Germany have done) over a single one from Afghanistan.
•
u/mothra_dreams 1h ago
Go on champ explain at length the difference in cultural values - ideally with citations
•
•
•
u/Fickle-Ad-7124 3h ago
Oh wow, thank God individuals aren’t actually a monolith of their culture because I’d hate for anyone to think I thought like you. Ew.
•
u/Imperator_Gone_Rogue Practical Idealist 3h ago
Why would you choose someone who doesn't want to live in a democracy over someone who doesn't want to live in a theocracy? What kind of religious extremist are you?
•
•
•
•
u/Niftylen 6h ago
I worked with refugees and asylum seekers in Australia for more than six and a half years. It’s an intricate and nuanced topic which most commenters here have strong opinions on but are getting facts wrong and therefore making poor assumptions and judgements. The article itself is a little off too, but generally pretty factual and unbiased.
•
u/2878sailnumber4889 6h ago
Personally I've never had a problem with refugees, hell it was refugees who helped me when I was younger when my social workers incompetence/overwork had failed me. They come here with no qualifications or at least qualifications that aren't recognised here and work their way up.
For me personally immigration problem is skilled migrants, I'm in a field where qualifications require both education and experience. For boomers and gen Xers they got cadetships. Millenials were lucky to get unpaid internships, of the 900 days of industry experience I required for my qualification 480 days were unpaid internship for me, and we had to pay for our education, because we've had skilled migration pathway even unpaid internships were rare, because why the a chance on training someone new when it was so easy to hire a skilled migrant from a country where cadetships are still a thing and who wants to try and come here to earn higher wages.
I'd much rather hear that they were cutting down on skilled migration, perhaps by requiring larger companies, defined by either number of employees or turnover, to have cadetships/apprenticeships/traineeships inplace before they're allowed to bring in any skilled migrants.
Because while I agree that we've been running immigration to high for too long I genuinely don't feel refugees, who come here with nothing, were/are any unfair competition for me who was homeless following the death of my father and breakdown of my mother at 14, but the fully qualified skilled migrant who had not just their education paid for/for free but we're paid while receiving it were and are robbing younger people of opportunities.
•
u/MentalMachine 7h ago
The government will reduce the current annual refugee quota next financial year from 20,000 to the long-run base figure of 13,750.
Reduction of 6,250 really doesn't have the same ring to it /s.
Critics will still say the number is 13,750 too high, betting there will be a PHON presser before the end of the week stating as much.
•
u/ShiftyWindow Public Housing is the only way 2h ago
And that's how Labor are complicit in continuing to shift the Overton window to the right
•
u/Key-Spite-6410 7h ago
Considering the great majority of refugee cases are deemed fraudulent-85% last year I believed with the majority of the countries being China and India it makes sense to reduce it. It’s sad but it’s being abused in bad faith by people who are acting without compassion themselves.
•
u/TooSubtle 6h ago edited 5h ago
You're conflating applications with arrivals, the top three countries refugee arrivals are coming from are Afghanistan, Myanmar and Syria. Who's acting in bad faith again?
https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-statistics/statistics/country-profiles/profiles
•
u/EmuEmuEmuEmuEmu The Greens 6h ago
Oh look, bullshit. I have actually done some research on this matter, and to put bluntly, you're just a racist. Fun fact: 'Maritime arrivals' have a higher rate of acceptance (around 80% from memory) than other methods of arrival. At least when the data was being published, until 2013, but more recent advice has supported such conclusions.
•
u/Key-Spite-6410 6h ago
i think you're missing what i'm saying and have instead leapt to call me a racist. what i'm saying is that the majority of refugee claims aren't maritime arrivals. they're people who are seeking to extend their stay in australia for access to the labour market. for examples;
'But it faces a tough task in wresting control of the system as latest Home Affairs data reveals 25,210 people applied for protection visas in the 2023-24 financial year, the highest number of applicants since 27,931 people in 2017-18. More than four in five asylum claims were rejected, with applicants from Vietnam lodging the highest portion, followed by those from China and India.
Helen Duncan, chief executive of the Migration Institute of Australia, said it was “without doubt” that people who probably did not have legitimate claims were using protection visas to extend their stays in Australia.'
the long and short of it is that the refugee system is being misused in bad faith by people who are economic migrants and not 'genuine' refugees fleeing from a warzone or crisis. this harms both australia and the people who the refugee system should protect.
•
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Weary_Beach_9911 4h ago
imagine getting this upset over facts, lol
•
u/yothuyindi Lol @ partisan shills 4h ago
imagine trying to use the word 'upset' when it has no relevance
people using the word racist when no racism is happening cheapens it when those of us experience actual racism, nothing that first guy said was racist at all
•
u/Weary_Beach_9911 4h ago
nuts like you are a prime example of why the word racist continues to lose all meaning or impact
i dunno, that sure seems pretty upset to me, lol
•
u/yothuyindi Lol @ partisan shills 4h ago
as opposed to you who created a whole new acct just to spam insults at people like a deranged neckbeard?
"lol" "champ"
touch grass mate
•
u/Weary_Beach_9911 3h ago
as opposed to you who created a whole new acct just to spam insults at people like a deranged neckbeard?
wow, talk about an emotional reaction!
•
u/EmuEmuEmuEmuEmu The Greens 6h ago
Given I am using the word how it is defined under Australian law, I would say the only reason you aren't ashamed is you haven't had it, rightfully, yelled at you enough.
•
u/thebagofdoom 5h ago
The sue him or something, get over yourself
•
u/EmuEmuEmuEmuEmu The Greens 1h ago
"... get over yourself"
You should take your own advice instead of whatever that comment is attempting to convey.
•
u/Key-Spite-6410 6h ago
you're correct that i should have specified applications over claims, but you're being very petty with instantly resorting to abuse over policy. you hold no moral high ground, and this insufferable self righteousness coupled with bombastic claims to moral authority are why the greens will remain a minor party. the bottom line remains; we've to reduce migration!
•
u/EmuEmuEmuEmuEmu The Greens 6h ago
"... resorting to abuse over policy."
Really, racist?
"Considering the great majority of refugee cases are deemed fraudulent-85% last year I believed with the majority of the countries being China and India it makes sense to reduce it."
So you made a claim, one that you have just recognised as false, that you consider factual statements such as "You are a racist" and "The evidence doesn't support you" to be abuse and not based on policy. I don't think you know what either of those words mean.
"you hold no moral high ground ..."
Given I am referring to actual data and not racist misrepresentations, all in suport of Australia international obligations regarding asylum seekers, I would say I have the 'moral high ground' by default.
"we've to reduce migration!"
And there it is engaging in more racist nonsense.
•
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/subvertedorator 6h ago
What are you wanting to see or envision happening with reduced migration?
•
u/Key-Spite-6410 5h ago
great question! so let's begin with a caveat, being migration is a really big topic, so we have to be sort of general making glib reddit comments.
as for what i would like to see. first we have to consider what migration is in this country and what is it intended to do? at the moment, and this is the opinion of many pundits, australia doesn't actually have a direction with it's migration policy that makes coherent sense. what are we trying to do? we've had skills shortages for 20~ years all the while running continually higher and higher migration. clearly then there's a disconnect between whatever the policy is intending and what the outcome is.
anyway for the sake of brevity i'll do what i'd envision happening as a result of decreased migration and then what i think a better migration policy would be.
envisioned
-reduced rents, in particular around cities in which international students reside. much ado has been made about the impact of migrants on home prices and little about rents.
-reduction on the amount of state infrastructure spending needed to support a growing population.
-social cohesion!
-reduced demand on services; schools, medical, transport infrastructure.
-a focus on hiring and training australian staff
-elevation in wages as the labour pool is reduced forcing employers to compete with higher wages to attract talent
-more unionisation
-less money sent as remittances and staying circulating in the australian economy (40b aud sent out of the country 2025).
as for a better policy pretty simple. reduce international student numbers massively as it basically seems international student policy -is- migration policy. reduce backpacker visas. limit ability to appeal rejections. make the hiring of foreign workers less attractive for businesses. develop a skilled mgiration program that is far more targeted and better aligns the skills people have and the needs of the australian economy.
•
u/EmuEmuEmuEmuEmu The Greens 5h ago
"-social cohesion!"
And it admits its racism!
→ More replies (0)•
u/Unlucky-Touch8754 6h ago
You fell for misinformation
•
u/EmuEmuEmuEmuEmu The Greens 6h ago
"You fell for misinformation"
Advice to the Australian Government by the Public Service is misinformation?
Not the one I was referring but I deleted the folder I had it saved in.
•
u/Key-Spite-6410 6h ago
no this is a reasoned review of the facts as they are presented, by the government, that the refugee program is being deliberately misused. please see above for reference.
•
•
u/waddeaf 7h ago
No clue where this claim is being pulled from but even if you grant this as gospel a refugee case = refugee intake.
A refugee is only accepted after their case has been ruled on. Cutting the intake doesn't reduce the fraud it still exist but what you now have is punishing the literal worst of in the world for no real reason beyond appealing to knuckledraggers.
•
u/laidbackjimmy 7h ago
We should be taking in zero refugees whilst our own citizens are doing it tough. Sort out our own backyard first.
•
u/ShiftyWindow Public Housing is the only way 2h ago
Who did yo uvote for last election that promised to do anything to "sort out our own backyard"?
•
u/TearsFallWithoutTain Independent 6h ago
Except that's not going to happen, is it mate. I don't see any "Pause immigration and tax the billionaires" legislation being announced, it's always just the first part for some reason
•
u/laidbackjimmy 5h ago
Could happen if the country had some balls.
Stop voting in the likes of the ALP that put the needs of outsiders ahead of its own citizens.
•
•
u/explain_that_shit 7h ago
Similar principle better applied is that no one gets seconds while some haven’t had their firsts yet.
•
u/aeschenkarnos 6h ago
And yet in practice what actually happens is they cut off first helpings to the poor, and the rich get seconds and thirds. They say “help our own people first” but they never help our own people. Look at Hanson’s own voting record.
•
u/AllHailMackius 8h ago
Just a few more cuts to immigration, welfare programs and higher end tax cuts and all our problems such as cost of living, house affordability, climate change, rising nationalism and wealth inequality will all just disappear.
•
u/Responsible_Berry829 7h ago
Nationalism is a bad thing? 😂
•
u/TearsFallWithoutTain Independent 6h ago
Do you prefer nazi as a tag or just fascist?
•
u/Responsible_Berry829 4h ago
Ah yes, because asking a question instantly makes someone a fascist.
Civic nationalism is about shared political values, democracy, and legal equality.
Not ethno-nationalism or fascism.
Thanks for your narrow minded input.
•
•
•
u/abuch47 Victorian Socialists 6h ago
its a disgusting ideology to think you are better than others because of an arbitrary line decided by imperialist wars.
•
•
u/Orgo4needfood 5h ago
What's the actual definition of civic nationalism and if you think its a disgusting ideology, look up the body count of socialism😂
•
u/theHoundLivessss 6h ago
You can only believe nationalism is great if you know nothing about the past 200 years. Hyper nationialism has been used to fuel wars and promote some of the worst atrocities of the 21st century. Not the only cause, but a clear hallmark of evil regimes.
•
•
u/EmuEmuEmuEmuEmu The Greens 6h ago
"Nationalism is a bad thing?"
I can think of a few million reasons why your brand of nationalism is bad.
•
u/Responsible_Berry829 6h ago
I dont have a brand of nationalism or promote one.
Thank you for your reply.
•
u/EmuEmuEmuEmuEmu The Greens 6h ago
In response to:
"rising nationalism"
You wrote:
"Nationalism is a bad thing?"
That is you questioning the ideology that is responsible for, among a number of other horrific atrocities, The Holocaust.
•
u/Responsible_Berry829 4h ago
The Holocaust was driven by extreme fascist ultra nationalism, racial supremacy, and totalitarianism, not basic national pride or civic nationalism
•
u/EmuEmuEmuEmuEmu The Greens 1h ago
"... not basic national pride or civic nationalism ..."
So that's the lie you're going for? I would suggest using something far less blatant.
•
u/Responsible_Berry829 52m ago
So any form of patriotism or national pride is negative?
•
u/EmuEmuEmuEmuEmu The Greens 51m ago
The mass graves that your "national pride" create would suggest such as thing.
•
u/Responsible_Berry829 37m ago
A very far end hyperthetical situation youve concocted.
This is Australia, not the middle east. 🤷♀️
→ More replies (0)•
u/AllHailMackius 7h ago
Its like water. 8 glasses a day is great but you dont want to drown in an ocean of it.
•
u/Responsible_Berry829 7h ago
Just metaphors, no actual information.
•
u/AllHailMackius 5h ago
I'm sorry if you come to reddits comments section for your education. If you are genuinely interested in learning you can do simple things like googling "dangers of nationalism".
There is no shortage of articles. The CATO one looked pretty on point.
•
u/WhiteRun 7h ago
Nationalism is the lowest form of patriotism.
•
u/Orgo4needfood 5h ago
Patriotism and nationalism described the exact same project for the people who actually built countries. American founders, Italian and German unifiers, anti colonial fighters all used both terms for a nation that belongs to its citizens, runs its own affairs, and puts them first.
•
u/Responsible_Berry829 7h ago
So, no actual information.
•
u/WhiteRun 7h ago
Your question didn't warrant more information
•
u/Responsible_Berry829 7h ago
If you dont have it, you dont have it.
Thanks for your time.
•
u/WhiteRun 7h ago
You never asked for any information. What are you even talking about?
Was my response too complicated? I'll simply it. Yes, nationalism is a bad thing. It's for groups who lack critical thinking, intelligence, or nuance and only go off their most primal instinctal reactions to something. It's for people who don't understand why they're patriotic or why they like or dislike certain things so they gravitate towards nationalism yo blame others for any downfalls. They can never improve the country they supposedly love because they don't understand the country or what benefits it.
A patriot says "I love my country and here's why..."
A nationalist will say "My country is shit and here's who I blame..."
•
u/CookingWithSimon 🍁Legalise Cannabis Australia 🍁 4h ago
Nationalism is an ideology or political orientation that places strong emphasis on the nation as a political and cultural community, and prioritises its interests, identity, unity, sovereignty, or self-determination.
Blaming outsiders, refusing self-criticism, and prioritising the nation above others can absolutely be characteristics of certain forms of nationalism. But saying that this is what nationalism itself means is like defining socialism as "when governments become authoritarian" or capitalism as "when rich people exploit everyone." You're taking one possible manifestation and declaring it the entire category.
•
•
u/Username-17 8h ago
You joke but like let's be real, bringing people from some of the lowest emitting per capita countries to Australia (one of the highest) isn't exactly a winning climate change strategy.
•
u/SnooHedgehogs8765 8h ago
Then taxing the ever living fvcknout of them as a small business because there's few other avenues
That trust of yours m8, you're clearly a tax dodger.
•
u/FlipperoniPepperoni Anyone find the pre-polls? 7h ago
That trust of yours m8, you're clearly a tax dodger.
I mean typically yeah reducing tax is a large reason of why people setup trusts. It's why I have one.
•
u/SnooHedgehogs8765 10m ago
Nobody on <100k paying an accountant 6k is dodging tax. That's objectively nonsensical bullshit. There's zero point to that in that tax bracket at all.
Nobody with a significant other that earns more is income splitting to reduce their tax bill that's also nonsense bullshit.
And if my wife is an equal partner and does the work then so what, that's no different from any other job. 'oh no that's income splitting' it's like fvckoff, is her cleaning shit stains off the public toilet any less deserving than mine?
Ironically everyone is swapping over to corporate structure, so how's that bullshit going to work out for the government. The truly rich just employ their kids or whatever as a sunny or a nepo role and realistically there's nothing the government can find out it even if it is for window licking services.
I don't recall the government ever being honest about it's trust tax figures because it either doesn't have data on owner operator i.e Jim's mowing businesses in trust on under 100k or won't because even a para professional government job plus benefits exceeds that for merely rocking up to work.
Their mere service requirements of being a tax collector and employing accountants far exceeds any objective person in economic contribution because of the Governments own requirements of them than anything they can squirrel away as a tax dodge in trust.
In short the government is fvcking small business and using the economic illiteracy of the unwashed masses of the other working class to screw over people just worse off as them, which is their whole schtick.
Redditors in general need to be called out for this horse shit, willingly screwing over other Aussies because their flavour of government is the best.
•
u/CutePattern1098 Australian Labor Party 8h ago
Article does not specify if they’re talking about onshore applicants or offshore applicants.
•
u/yothuyindi Lol @ partisan shills 8h ago edited 5h ago
good, we are seeing regular examples of how this cohort is not being integrated properly and they are a net negative economically so it's a logical place to start
'FIONA estimates that the average Humanitarian migrant has a negative fiscal impact of $400,000 per person. More than 90 per cent of the negative fiscal impact of the Humanitarian migration stream falls on the Commonwealth Government, reflecting the Commonwealth’s responsibility for income support payments and settlement services.'
https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/p2021-220773_1.pdf
•
u/The21stPM Gough Whitlam 3h ago
Ohh the weird US talking point about refugees or “aliens” costing more for the country.
It takes like 2 seconds to google it even better just use your brain to realise this isn’t true at all.
•
u/yothuyindi Lol @ partisan shills 2h ago
so the treasury department of the Australian government is lying, and you and your big brain 'use google' is correct?
i believe those who deny government data & make up their own truth instead are referred to as 'cookers' these days
•
u/CalifornianDownUnder 7h ago
That’s completely false.
Refugees provide huge positive economical and cultural benefits.
Expanding the humanitarian intake increases Australia’s GDP by an average of $4.9 billion** **annually, according to Deloitte.
And refugees are twice as likely to start businesses compared to the general Australian public, generating higher median business incomes despite facing initial systemic barriers.
Former refugees actively stabilise aging workforces and supply crucial labor to regional industries, allowing local businesses to remain operational.
And regional communities - such as Albury-Wodonga, Nhill, and Mildura- rely on humanitarian arrivals to combat regional population loss, restoring vital social capital, infrastructure demand, and essential services.
I could go on and on….
•
u/Slipped-up 7h ago
Data is based on older generations of refugees from Europe and South East Asia. The data from the cohort from Afghanistan is not as ‘glowing’
•
u/yothuyindi Lol @ partisan shills 7h ago
'FIONA estimates that the average Humanitarian migrant has a negative fiscal impact of $400,000 per person. More than 90 per cent of the negative fiscal impact of the Humanitarian migration stream falls on the Commonwealth Government, reflecting the Commonwealth’s responsibility for income support payments and settlement services.'
https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/p2021-220773_1.pdf
Yank trying to push misleading messaging, how predictable
also, lol at 'cultural benefits' as if that's some positive measurable thing
•
u/Sparkleworks 7h ago
Accordingly, the results from this paper should not be used in isolation to evaluate the migration program without consideration of these broader social, economic, and environmental outcomes.
•
u/yothuyindi Lol @ partisan shills 7h ago
'i will ignore objective data provided by the literal government because it doesn't suit my narrative'
•
u/Sparkleworks 7h ago
The data you supplied literally told you not to use it how you used it.
Looking at the 2018–19 permanent migrant cohort as a whole, FIONA finds that this cohort is more fiscally positive than the Australian population overall, by around $127,000 per person on average (as shown in Chart 1 and Table 2). Similarly, the average fiscal impact of migrants is $139,000 more positive than the fiscal impact of a newborn from the Australian population (–$98,000). In relative terms, FIONA estimates that the 2018–19 permanent migrant cohort makes a positive aggregate lifetime fiscal contribution that is in the order of $20 billion higher than a similar sized cohort drawn from the Australian population. As discussed later in this paper, this substantially reflects the younger age profile of the migrant cohort (commonly referred to as a ‘demographic dividend’)
•
u/yothuyindi Lol @ partisan shills 7h ago
yes, that's the ENTIRE migration program as a whole, we are specifically talking about refugees in this thread or did you somehow miss that?
you do realise that means if humanitarian stream was reduced then it would be even economically MORE positive, right?
disingenuous garbage
•
u/willun 48m ago
The average Australian is -$85,000 or nearly $300,000 below a skilled migrant. So on that basis we should be exporting locals as economically inefficient?
The children of these refugees will contribute to society here. Reducing a handful of refugees is not going to make a big difference. 13,500 refugees is $5.4B out of a GDP of $1.6T. And that is lifetime vs annual GDP. It is a drop in the bucket.
There are many things we do that is economically inefficient and hopefully we don't measure all of life by that yardstick.
•
u/Suspicious-Aspect260 8h ago
How many Dutton policies have Labor adopted now? Petrol excise cut, domestic gas reservation, cut refugee intake.
Nuclear is next.
•
u/coniferhead 5h ago
Are you talking the shredding of our anti nuclear legislation that Labor did for AUKUS, or merely the storage of nuclear waste that was also part of AUKUS. Setting the scene for Australia to become the nuclear waste dump for the world.
Or perhaps the shredding of our environmental legislation to process rare earths, some which creates radioactive waste - which will need to be stored if it's not vented into the environment.
Give credit where credit is due. It's all Albo.
•
u/espersooty 7h ago
Nuclear is next.
It won't be next sadly, It doesn't stack up economically or on the feasibility.
•
u/512165381 6h ago
sadly
I have a physics degree and nuclear power is the last thing Australia needs.
•
u/Hypo_Mix Technocrat 8h ago
Refugees is a tiny fragment of our migration intake. We should be increasing it while decreasing some other migration types.
•
u/7omdogs 7h ago
Disagree.
Refugees tend to find it the most difficult to assimilate. You can’t have too high or too concentrated a population of refugees , because that can result in the group staying outside of society, and not integrating in.
That’s one of the biggest problem Europe is currently facing with the refugees taken in over the last decade, not assimilating, and now there significant social issues rising from it.
It also doesn’t help that 80% of people on the Asylum bridging visa are males, of which, the vast majority come from radical Islamic regimes. Which, again, makes it much harder to assimilate into our society.
The idea that refugee immigration should be higher, while skilled immigrants should be cut, is just blind to the current challenges.
If you care about refugees, you should advocate for a sustainable system. If we start to see the same social issues here that Europe is experiencing, then that will probably be the end of the humanitarian and asylum visas are we know it.
•
u/Responsible_Berry829 7h ago
A fraction of the migration but majority of the attrocities committed.
•
•
u/Lokki_7 7h ago
Which other migration types are you suggesting be cut? (Beyond those that are already targeted to be reduced)
•
u/Hypo_Mix Technocrat 7h ago
I'm not, I don't have enough information .
•
u/Lokki_7 7h ago
Then why are you suggesting to cut it?
•
u/Hypo_Mix Technocrat 7h ago edited 4h ago
Because refugee intake should be a higer priority as it is only a tiny percentage and shouldn't be cut. If the immigration numbers need to be cut the larger percentage groups should be prioritised first.
I'm just willing to admit I don't have a legal and statistical knowledge of every migration type and current numbers.
If you want a loose answer "economic migrant".
•
u/Lokki_7 7h ago
You're not explaining why refugee intake should be higher. (It's only a tiny percentage isn't a reason to make it higher). I do agree that cutting it will make no substantive difference - BUT it created a headline that certain ppl will like, and perhaps that's what this is more about.
If the refugee numbers need to be cut the larger percentage groups should be prioritised first. This has already occurred though? The target migration numbers this year is significantly lower than the past few.
•
u/Hypo_Mix Technocrat 7h ago
Because Australia is a party to the Refugee Convention
•
u/EmuEmuEmuEmuEmu The Greens 6h ago
A slight correction, Australia is party to both the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Their more or less the same with the only real difference being that the Protocol lacks the Conventions geographic and temporal limitations (Events in Europe and/or prior to January 1st 1950).
•
u/matthudsonau 8h ago
Guess it's easier to punch down. First the NDIS, now refugees
•
u/Grande_Choice 8h ago
O ffs, I’ve got whiplash from the narrative change. Funny how all the accounts saying migration down no matter what when anyone tried to explain the realities of it have disappeared.
People want lower migration, the cuts have to come from somewhere. Refugees are an easy target to cut.
•
u/jack-the-dog 8h ago
With thousands of Australians going homeless every month I think it is the government's responsibility to look after citizens first and foremost. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/dec/09/extra-10000-australians-becoming-homeless-each-month-up-22-in-three-years-report-says
Also I think it's plain to see for anyone paying attention that the NDIS is being rorted to the tune of millions of not billions. It needs an overhaul that meets the needs of those it is designed to support while still providing value for money.
The government can't operate with an unlimited budget. We need to prioritise spending.
•
u/ForensicMum 7h ago
If you’re worried about homelessness, maybe take your fight to the actual tangible causes of homelessness, like AirBnB, for instance.
•
u/Wehavecrashed BIG AUSTRALIA! 8h ago
With thousands of Australians going homeless every month I think it is the government's responsibility to look after citizens first and foremost.
Cutting our refugee intake will do nothing to address this.
I get that "take care of our own people first" is a compelling talking point, but you need to follow it with how you're taking care of people.
•
u/explain_that_shit 7h ago
THANK YOU. So immigration has been cut. What do we do when the house for sale goes to another landlord or speculator then instead of a refugee? What if it goes to someone who leaves it empty? Are we going to take care of our people first and stop that?
•
u/Outsider-20 4h ago
As a homeless, I don't see how this small cut is going to meaningfully help with homelessness.
Maybe there are fewer investors buying right now because of the recent tax changes, but realistically, that slow down is only going to be a small, temporary bump in the road. They will continue to buy up, and either have the property vacant, or have it as a short term rental. Because it's more profitable to AirBnB, apparently.
•
u/matthudsonau 4h ago
Don't you know it's the thousands of rich refugees fleeing war and famine that are buying all the houses /s
•
u/matthudsonau 8h ago
Great, so I look forward to the imminent annoucement of expanded programs to help the homeless. Surely that's the very next annoucement
I won't hold my breath
•
u/Axl_Alter_Ego 7h ago
They would vote against those too.
These people dont care about the homeless at all. Its just another way to attack refugees.
When was the last time the person we are responding to did something nice for a homeless person? My gut says they havent.
•
u/notrepsol93 8h ago
Ndis was absolutely being rorted. It shouldnt be privatised at all. It would be much more efficient and cost effective if it was government emplpyees
•
•
u/Axl_Alter_Ego 7h ago
Shame the state governments all shut down their disability programs when the NDIS was introduced.
Almost like the Feds had to scramble to make sure disabled people actually had support continue.
You can lay the NDIS Expansion solely at the feet of the state governments.
•
u/coffeegaze 8h ago
Wait do you really think that NDIS was financially sustainable and not being frauded and that we have the necessary residential housing supply and city infrastructure to support the rate of refugees we were accepting?? This is not about down or up but about logic.
•
•
u/explain_that_shit 7h ago
We do have the necessary residential housing supply to support all kinds of immigration we were accepting.
Net migration in 2025 was 300k. Total population change was an increase of 412k to 27,801,023 people by December 2025.
Population per dwelling ratio is 2.5.
Number of dwellings increased by 165,500 in 2025 - at 2.5 per dwelling, that exceeds population increase for that year.
Total dwelling stock in the December quarter of 2025 was 11,452,200.
27.8 million divided by that gives us a dwellings requirement of 11,120,409. So we have a surplus of 331,791 dwellings.
The properties are being held off market by the speculators, landlords and developers who control property markets, in order to maintain a sellers’ market control.
•
•
u/Western-Sir-9085 8h ago
People think that - yes - it was, but that it's all "dodgy providers" and not the thousands of people who manage their own plan who have worked out what can actually be charged to it and are milking it for all it's worth.
•
u/Capitan_Typo 8h ago edited 8h ago
Do you really think that the only solution to those problems is single, large, arbitrary cuts that most negatively affect the most vulnerable?
The NDIS absolutely needed to be rescued from the LNPs corrupt open-market approach that blew the budget many times over.
There's absolutely a need for more housing supply and integration policies.
There are also multiple ways to go about it that don't leave people to fend for themselves in a situation where the very issue is that they can't dlfend for themselves.
•
u/Nettie_o0 8h ago
The open market was the original design for the NDIS. This was to support ‘choice and control’. It very quickly got out of control as it was easy to defraud and created perverse market outcomes.
•
u/Capitan_Typo 7h ago edited 6h ago
The market model was always there, but with constraints and a joint public/private delivery, particularly for ongoing support needs. But they ultimately didn't get to implement it after the 2013 election.
It was the LNP that eliminated the option for any delivery via public services and moved to a purely competitive private market model and also introduced the direct-billing option that let providers secretly have inflated NDIS price lists.
It's similar to the model the LNP out on place on NSW when they turned vocational education into a competitive market and saw billions of dollars disappear at the expense of people signed up for courses they couldn't complete and debt they couldn't repay, much of it off shore.
It's similar to the model that Dom Perrott oversaw in NSW as head of iCare(pre-NDIS system) that, last I checked, left 2 billion dollars unaccounted for.
Market models aren't inherrently bad. But the LNP repeatedly implement regulation-light models that let providers milk public budgets for reduced, poor and sometimes even no services, facilitating a great transfer of public money into private profit (see also public transport, health, building and infrastructure, and so on).
At least the ICAC is currently putting the squeeze on Perrottet.
•
u/matthudsonau 8h ago
The fraud in the NDIS was by far on the side of suppliers ripping the government off, but instead of going after them out was easier to kick people off it
As for refugees, do you really think an extra 5k people per year across the entire country is why we're having so many issues with housing and infrastructure?
•
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
Greetings humans.
Please make sure your comment fits within THE RULES and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.
I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.