Federal election 2016: Greens refugee policy to cost $7bn, Dutton’s office says, by Rachel Baxendale.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s office has released … estimates that if the Greens proposal of taking 50,000 humanitarian refugees annually was adopted it would cost about $7 billion over four years, while Labor’s proposal to increase the intake to 27,000 would cost about $2.3 billion over the same period.
Mr Dutton told Sky News last night that many refugees “won’t be numerate or literate in their own language let alone English”.
He said that would present a difficulty for Labor and the Greens, because the refugees would be competing for jobs in industries in which affiliated unions such as the CFMEU operate.
“These people would be taking Australian jobs. There’s no question about that,” Mr Dutton said.
“And for many of them that would be unemployed they would languish in unemployment queues and on Medicare and the rest of it, so there would be a huge cost, and there’s no sense in sugar-coating that. That’s the scenario.”
Mr Dutton said it was “nonsense” for Labor and the Greens to claim that they had sufficient control over Australia’s borders to limit refugee numbers to 27,000 or 50,000.
“The UN has told us thatthere are some 58 million people who are displaced and would seek to come to a country like Australia, so the thought that you can somehow turn the tap on and off and that the people smugglers will be happy with the profit out of 50,000 but not out of 60,000 or 600,000 is complete nonsense,” Mr Dutton said.
A major blow for reality by Mr Dutton! And Mr Dutton didn’t even get to the Islam issue. The PC crew are outraged, just outraged, and have resorted to high-grade name-calling, as if that substituted for facts and logic:
The figure comes as the Greens and Labor label Mr Dutton as “xenophobic” and call for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to reject comments he made last night about refugees taking Australian jobs.
While the PC refuse to recognize this reality, they threaten to make their political parties un-electable and thus they endanger their other projects. It is an interesting conundrum for the virtue signallers, unable to control their excesses to help themselves.
Chris Kenny has an opinion piece, Federal election 2016: Labor falls for own sucker punch over migrants:
It is hard to believe the Labor Party and the broader Left could be so idiotic and irresponsible as to deliberately inflame border protection as a crucial issue for the sixth election in a row.
The “outrage” at what Peter Dutton has said must be confected because he was only stating the obvious — many refugees (although by no means all) are illiterate and unskilled and require an enormous amount of support to adjust to resettlement and become self-reliant. …
For Labor to attack Dutton, saying his comments were “deeply offensive” seems to be a desperate attempt at distraction. The opposition doesn’t want people to focus on their own pledge to double the refugee intake or do deals with the Greens to go even higher. …
But Labor can’t help themselves. The party tore itself apart at conference last year just to win support for the obvious, sensible and successful policy of turning boats back. But it still won’t support temporary protection visas and insists on criticising the government’s management of the issue. …
And today it has fallen for its own sucker punch, appealing to these compassionistas instead of common sense. It will spark an ugly debate that the nation doesn’t need. …
Apart from vanity, it is difficult to comprehend why Labor is so obtuse on these issues and why so many of its members can’t understand that orderly migration is a pillar of this nation’s success. And this success underpins a great deal, including our generous humanitarian programs. Politically, Labor should have been hoping border protection never got a mention in this campaign. Instead they are inflaming it in a wrongheaded manner. With less policy differentiation than there ought to be on economic issues, this could be a most telling issue come polling day.