They would tell you it’s the cost of keeping those boat numbers low. And maybe it is - at peak in 2013 that number was 20k. But really it is political posturing and about the previous elections that have been won or lost on those boat arrivals.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
That $580m allocated in the 2025/2026 budget is just for the offshore processing costs not the actual military operational expenses. The operational element is what keeps arrivals down, that would be no change regardless of where you process so why pick the most expensive option?
Not quite true. The operational element does very little, and hasn’t changed much through the years. Not having a path or having a very difficult path to settling to Australia keeps the boats from ever leaving their shores. There’s no product to sell by the traffickers.
my point has nothing to do with how many are getting caught, just the cost involved in processing them offshore when that money can be saved processing them onshore
the operation itself is 100% how the asylum seekers are caught. My point is the ones that are caught are being processed OS which is 14 times more expensive than onshore. It doesnt matter if its 200 or 1 person. the $580M is for OS processing, it would be a lot less if they processed them onshore
Accurate. The os indefinite detention point was a legal limbo without the protections they have within Australian soil + away from easy access of journos etc. It seems though that lately courts have largely reconsidered the legality of most of this. I’m not sure of the current status.
it def seems to have fallen off the radar the last few years with everything since covid. The allocation of so much money in the latest budget for offshore processing would indicate business as usual unfortunately
Comments