… Or have we already had it?
Immigration Minister Senator Chris Evans has called for a “great debate” about immigration.
Possibly because it doesn’t involve leaked emails from Malcolm Turnbull or struggling battlers on 150k losing benefits, coverage of the immigration decisions announced in the budget has been fairly sparse, with this piece by Paul Kelly something of an exception to the rule.
The long and short of it is that skilled migration and temporary working visas have been lifted to almost 300 000 a year, with more on the way. Add in international students and those on some forms of tourist visa and you have a very large boost to Australia’s workforce.
Kelly’s correct to write that Howard lifted the migration quota over his term in office, but doesn’t add that he played the politics of it through distracting attention with all sorts of “look! over there! Muslims!” scares. I’m not sure I agree with Kelly that there’s going to be a particular political risk for Labor here. I suspect that Paul Keating took the brunt of it, with his “embedding in Asia” rhetoric and his economic case for migration a long time before the perception of the need for more migration to build a skills base and competitiveness really kicked in. Opposition to the changing face of Australia washed out of the national psyche, largely, one could argue hopefully, with the receding of the Hansonite wave of protest and indignation. John Howard may have had his face turned towards the past in this regard in his last years of office.
We probably should be having a debate on the ecological consequences of increased infrastructure spending for a bigger population (among other climate change related impacts), and on the fact that while “unemployment” might be still near record lows, there are still a lot of people either underemployed or locked out of the labour market for reasons that are fairly intractable to short term policy influence, but I doubt we’ll be seeing much of either.
What we’re seeing isn’t exactly “free movement of labour across borders”, but there is no doubt that a globalising economy has - fairly gradually - led to much more labour mobility at the low end as well as at the high end. Whether we’ve seen the end of “border control” politics is another issue, though I certainly don’t think that Kevin Rudd will be running around the shop dividing us all into friends and enemies.
The fact that - for the first time in quite some time - one quarter of those resident in Australia at any given time are born overseas has changed the lived experience of our cities, at least. Not all that long ago, in the early 90s, Brisbane for instance was still a very Anglo city. That’s been changing fast, and I’m sure others would have noticed little things like the shift on city food court counters towards recent immigrants, and the fact that cab drivers aren’t all 50 something white men any more.
I’m fairly hopeful that there won’t be any sort of backlash brewing, but then who saw Hanson coming? Or Cronulla?
There are two points to be made here. First, immigration and other forms of temporary immigrant labour are perceived to be functional - and now necessary - for the needs of capitalism in a country like this one. “Baby bonuses” and fertility panics ignore the plain fact that it’s much more efficient and cost-effective to import labour. Yet the rhetoric and the reality of the skills crisis continues to ignore huge pockets of inequality, and solutions involving both immigration and temporary workers and “welfare to work” often reinforce or exacerbate those inequalities.
The second - and here I’m just speculating - is that we really may have transcended “multiculturalism” and we might need a new paradigm to understand the changing composition of our population. It might be a good thing if we thought more globally and less locally, and if governments and others stopped worrying so much about citizenship policy styles of enculturation. I suspect people in their ordinary lives are better at doing integration - understood as the everyday negotiation of differences - than state pronouncements recognise, and I think the quotidian experience of living and working and interacting with people from a very wide range of backgrounds has its own force.
Or am I being too optimistic? Is this too much of an urban-centric worldview?
Aside from the environmental questions, the economic case for increased migration perhaps isn’t as open and closed as it’s made out.
I’d like to see more evidence on the question of whether immigration increases per capita GDP.
“First, immigration and other forms of temporary immigrant labour are perceived to be functional - and now necessary - for the needs of capitalism in a country like this one. “Baby bonuses” and fertility panics ignore the plain fact that it’s much more efficient and cost-effective to import labour. Yet the rhetoric and the reality of the skills crisis continues to ignore huge pockets of inequality, and solutions involving both immigration and temporary workers and “welfare to work” often reinforce or exacerbate those inequalities.”
This is a point that I have often wondered about myself, and wondered why the lack of nuanced debate on the issue. On the one hand we have a skills crisis and on the other hand un- and underemployment, how can we, as a nation, tap into the human resources we have? Not that I have anything against immigration but there just seems to be a bit of a paradox here
There are at least two issues here.
Underemployment is largely female and among women with kids. It’s here that effective marginal tax rates, demands for instant shifts, childcare, etc. all create problems within service industries. It’s not beyond the ken of policy to fix, though complex.
The welfare to work policies are a whole other matter - in many instances, the stick approach hasn’t been working because the folks concerned face multiple barriers to labour market entry - disability and mental health, lack of training/education, literacy/numeracy problems, to name only the most obvious.
I used to believe that from the late 70’s through 2003 when I thought that Australia turned back from its xenophobic past and embraced multiculturalism. I thought that Hanson was an aberration, but how people turned away from Labor to the Coalition after the Tampa/Children Overboard incident, and how Ruddock was portrayed in the media and amongst the Liberal party faithful as a clever saviour shocked me to think otherwise. I changed my view of Australia since that point and came to believe what some were telling even during the heyday of ‘embracing Asia’ etc. in the Hawke/Keating years. That there is an undercurrent of fear of being overrun by non-white migrants that can be exploited - which Howard to his eternal shame did.
I agree this is important but we must also be careful. I remember going to a ‘Ecopolitics’ conference in the early 80’s and there were some anti-immigration groups who were latching into the ecological concerns to run a ‘respectable’ anti-immigration agenda. The fact is that having mac-mansion, the demand for low density housing and the associated demand for roads may be more of factor in environmental degradation than more migrants.
That has always been the case. I rememember when I was working for the Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission that my boss told me that immigration and emigration can have positive effects for the country of origin (getting rid of people who can’t find work and therefore can be a burden on the state) the country of destination (cheap and ready-to work labour) and the migrant himself/herself (by escaping a disadvantaged situation).
Migrants have always been doing better at integration by themselves. I always thought that multiculturalism was basically a con. A way for various governments to be seen as recognising different cultures as valid as the mainstream anglo/celtic one, while in reality it was only the mainstream that was going to be on top. Multiculturalism was OK as long as it was limited to food and dancing of people in funny costumes, but accepting real cultural differences and practices was never on.
I was interested in reading Mark’s observation that Brisbane is becoming more ‘cosmopolitan’ and what implications of that would be. I live in inner suburban Melbourne where there has been a large proportion of NESB (Non English Speaking Background) people and that is the norm. Problems seems to occur in areas which are not varied in their cultural make up. Cronulla nd Ipswitch in the early 90’s as examples.
In regard to attitudes to new migrants - we’ll probably go back to the attitude of the pre-Howard years, where the most recent nationality to arrive cops all the xenophobia and the previous nationalities settle into being dinkum Aussies. I think its the Sudanese at the moment, who have taken the place of the Iraqis and Afghans. And probably within a year, the Sudanese will be seen as dinkum Aussies, and some other nationality was in their place.
Despite Howard and Hanson, I think the Howard years were an abberation of our normally easy going tolerance. Now that nobody in authoeity is blowing the dog whistle (I hope) the racism will recede into the background. I think the Cronulla Riots and the shock over that, that we were like that, and the Apology have, temporarily at least,gutted that part of the Australian psyche?
Or am I being too idealistic?
“I’d like to see more evidence on the question of whether immigration increases per capita GDP.”
Why?? The evidence is voluminous. Immigration does not increase income per capita. There’s a wealth of research backing that up. For some recent work, have a look at the Productivity Commission report:
http://www.pc.gov.au/study/migrationandpopulation/docs/finalreport/keypoints
The West Australian Newspaper - in quite a dog-whistle way - is giving great coverage to problems that include refugees (eg if a Sudanese is involved in a crime, etc). I don’t know why they take this approach, other than that they are quite a right-wing rag, but I wonder how much more of our media is beating the drum for racism in this country.
The LDP’s policy was the simplest and most humane at the last election; though I would say that as a former candidate.
* No quotas for immigration. Instead a flat fee paid by those wishing to become permanent residents.
* Abolition of 457 visas in favour of companies being allowed to loan immigration fee money to employees coming from overseas. They wouldn’t be able to hang deportation overhead as a threatening way to garner workplace compliance.
* Increased humanitarian intake.
* All people claiming refugee status are still assessed, though given temporary resident status. If they are found to be genuine refugees they are accepted as citizens at no cost; otherwise the fee applies.
I guess if we’re worried about the faux Libertarians & followers of Milton (who are very annoyed they didn’t get a tax cut too) types using the immigration issue to beat the drums of xenophobia again, I guess we could always pump up the “do right by your allies” volume…invite in more of the Iraqis & Afghanis who have been trained by our skilled military units…considering those wars are goin’ to the sh*t anyway. And now some of those Pacific Islanders are wading in shallow water to recover coconuts I reckon we owe it to them to provide a decent home that isn’t joining the Titanic.
And I’m sure a few nervous Israelis might dig it over here.
Must be a few skilled Chinese looking for a new port of call too, since that dreadful earthquake.
Personally, i’d like to see more ethnic restaurants & shops…& more diversity on the Coalition’s front bench…& behind…and if I could find someone to help me fix my old oven i’d welcome them to Aussie w/ open arms & give ‘em a leftover XXXX Bitter as a thankyou for their troubles. Provided Rudd & Co. do a bit of common-sense planning & show off a few of our “best & brightest” (snore) migrants, then they might be able to convince the smart citizens of this GREAT SOUTHERN LAND that bringing a few more workers & their families on board might help keep the ship afloat. I mean, aren’t most of us new arrivals?…or at least related to same?
Might be a good idea to talk to the original caretakers of the LAND too.
Then construct a few more migrant centres, buy some language programs…train a bunch of teachers to talk OTHER languages…pay them half-decently…& go for it.
THE ABC is a good starting point. And SBS…for the campaign i mean. Oh, it’s already started…silly me. And sports…& art…i luv world music. The more the merrier I reckon. Lots of free festivities & holidays help too. Places to meet & greet & get tolerant.
I’m so pleased that the journos who’ve been sleeping &/or spinning for a decade & more have finally awoken to tell us the bleeding obvious & to define the NEW DAY RISING.
Is that a wedge-tailed eagle…or vulture…circling over the Rudd cabinet? Or just a lonely QLD dancing queen doing her last hurrah?
Underemployment and a skills shortage? You’re not seriously suggesting that the government of the last 10 years hasn’t encouraged people of all sorts of backgrounds to equip themselves with valuable skills to run the country, are you?
I can has university funding?
Jacques, just out of interest, is there evidence that goes on widely or is it an inference?
Kim;
There is only anecdotal evidence which various unions have gathered. Some research has been done, I believe, on the very similar H1B visa in the USA.
In any case, the possibility that your boss can get you deported easily can’t make Australia any more attractive as a destination to immigrate to.
I work with lots and lots of 457 people. They work hard; and they never complain. It’s pretty obvious to me that they will put up with almost anything to retain their employer’s backing. The alternative is a trip home, afterall.
Would really prefer to have an immigration and environment discussion, though! The 300,000 figure is unbelievable. These policies are driven by national greed. And the link to sustainability is always elided.
Jacques, yes it makes intuitive sense and it stands to reason. I just wondered if there were any studies out there.
wbb: I don’t really buy the sustainability argument. We export most of our agricultural and mining products anyway; that will go on regardless. As previously noted at length, most of our water usage is agricultural rather than residential.
There is a real concern about our best-loved pieces of nature being loved to death, I suppose, but at the moment less Australians are visiting them than used to!
At a global level, you might argue that third-world immigrants coming to Australia and going to a first-world ecological footprint is bad, but I put it to you that those people are going to get first-world ecological footprints sooner or later anyway. What we need ot do is reduce the ecological footprint of being an Australian.
“At a global level, you might argue that third-world immigrants coming to Australia and going to a first-world ecological footprint is bad, but I put it to you that those people are going to get first-world ecological footprints sooner or later anyway. What we need ot do is reduce the ecological footprint of being an Australian.”
Good point Robert. And if we do have a climate disaster then we won’t have much option than to open the gates for awhile anyway…at least to our nearest neighbors. If we can get on top of the recycled etc. water bit…& ensure enuff houses have water tanks…& some at least are feeding into the electricity greed & independent via solar (just in case of massive failures)…but the bulk are getting electricity sustainably & base load from gas, thermal, wind, cleaner coal (if possible) & solar (I like your idea of putting solar panels on larger structures…public swimming pools, malls, residential & business buildings) then we have a chance of training Aussies to also conserve & use wisely…who in turn can train the newbies.
It’s imperitive we keep heaps of fertile land & don’t denude forests/jungles & move away from cattle & beings that use too much food in the process of becoming a meal themselves. This Country w/ the help of the Aboriginal people could serve as a great example to the rest of the world. New migrants MUST be taken thru the SUSTAINABILITY & LANGUAGE processes tho.
We’ll also need a strong airforce & navy…& coast guard just in case.
And farmers w/ nouse who know how to grow from crappy soil…& turn it fertile…& stop/prevent/reverse soil erosion & salianation. Some farmers from areas like Burma, Bangladesh, China disaster areas should be brought in for their knowledge…& for compassionate reasons.
It is cheaper to ‘import’ a workforce whose costs of reproducton have been borne elsewhere, and business just loves it. A ‘just in time’ labour market is the best of all possible worlds-no nasty electoral fallout (a workforce that can’t vote is simply the best!). An expansion of the ‘guest worker’ schemes here and elsewhere is the wages policy you have when you don’t have to bargain with anybody.
Generally, ‘guest worker’ schemes are a very bad idea-for the host society especially. There is a limited labour shortage in some areas (seasonal fruit picking, some areas of construction and mining). However, the real issue here is the effect on existing economic and social arrangements of growing dependence on a workforce that can’t vote, and whose visas may be cancelled for infractions that will be surely ‘designed’ for the purpose.
This kind of ‘purpose built’ labour supply scheme breeds a sense of entitlement in a rent seeking business class who believes that the world owes them a workforce-for free.
If we need more people, ‘up’ the immigration levels, and ensure that the workforce you need, can register their views about you via the ballot box. Otherwise, pay the market rate, and if that is too high, either invest in machinery that will increase the surplus extracted from each employee, or place your capital somewhere else where the return justifes its investment. It’s called ‘capitalism’ and it works, just so long as the powerful actually have to ‘bargain’ socially and politically, with the workforce they rely on. Otherwise, what you get is very unattractive indeed.
Just ask the Chinese working class.
Good to see some effort to examine these issues in a reasoned way. I was surprised that the big pieces in The Australian on this issue hasn’t caused more debate. Although the policy direction that Labor’s Chris Evans is flagging is mostly an extension of what’s already been happening rather than a major change in direction, he is being much more upfront and honest about it, which is both welcome and potentially risky.
Sadly, if instead of a headline saying ‘migration intake rising to 300 000 a year’ it had said ‘boatload of 200 refugees arrives’, I’m sure we’d be hearing of nothing else in our media and talkback. Which is one example of why I think Australia’s history is such that it is reasonable to assume an undercurrent of apprehension will exist for some time yet regarding large numbers of arrivals - but mostly we’ve been fortunate that our political leaders, for all their faults, have chosen not to deliberately inflame such (mis)apprehensions and antagonisms towards ‘outsiders’, but when they have (be it Howard/Hanson or Hughes) it has been very destructive.
I think Chris Evans is taking a calculated decision that it is better to be up front and have an informed debate, rather than let it just continue to build and hope no one makes too much of a fuss.
As to the issue itself, I could write a book, but others here will no doubt be relieved to note that I shan’t do so just now. Just a few key points though:
- there are some risks for Labor in this. Some of the Unions are getting more and more public in their narkiness about this, re-running the ‘migrants are taking our jobs and driving down our wages’ arguments that have been used for well over a century. Some of the environmentalists are also getting more vocal again, trying to tie migration to global warming (one of the weakest environmental arguments about local population growth, but of course its the biggest environmental issue at the moment). I’ve seen more references of late to migrants being blamed for the housing affordability crisis too. These separate things can build together to create some powerful resentments if they are allowed to simmer.
- one of the main differences in what Chris Evans is saying is acknowledging we have a labour shortage, not just a skills shortage. I agree very much Kim that much more should be done to remove structural causes of underemployment, like EMTRs, but it is not going to address all of it. The Howard govenrment was moving this way as well, but doing it in a much less overt or direct way (e.g. huge hikes in Working Holiday Visa numbers as a de facto labour market program)
- Arguing about whether or not immigration increase our per capita income is a somewhat limiting debate. I don’t think there’s much doubt it did in the past, and I also don’t think there’s much doubt that - as long as we have proper protection of basic conditions and settlement support - that this current surge will also have that affect. The above mentioned labour shortage is causing major capacity constraints in the economy, and relieving them should boost productivity and thus per capita income. But per capita gains doesn’t mean everyone benefits, which is why its a limiting debate.
- Also, just because it does now, doesn’t mean it always does as a matter of course. It depends on the surrounding economic environment (e.g. less of a good idea to have big numbers coming in during a recession, although its also less likely that big numbers will want to come at such times). The Productivity Commission report that Paul linked to purportedly show that immigration does not increase income actually said that “the overall economic effect of migration appears to be positive but small” - and that’s after acknowledging they haven’t measured some of the positive externalities.
- Whatever environmental issues there are from population growth (and they are certainly real), encouraging people to have more children is worse than increasing migrant numbers. But expecting people in other countries to stay poor because we’re too profligate is not an argument that will stand up well globally.
If we need more immigrants, well and good. But a ‘labour supply’ problem is not unproblemmatic. Just what exactly, is the nature of this supply problem? Price not right? Not enough people at any price? Not the right people at the price we are prepared to pay?
Andrew, you are being naive in the extreme if you think the anouncement had nothing to do with assuaging business concerns about increased bargaining power of domestic labour as a result of the modest changes to be made to the industrial laws. Once again, at the risk of overemphasising the point-no-one I know is opposed to immigration, no-one. But the scheme announced by Evans is not just immigration at all, is it? It is a ‘guest worker’ scheme quite as much as it is increased immigration.
How absolutely connvenient. Just at the momennt that the domestic workforce might begin to shift output shares back to wages and salaries from the historic high share enjoyed by profits and dividends, the ALP gallops to the rescue, with a scheme to end world poverty! Give me a break, and don’t take people for fools. It is a big mistake to think people aren’t watching and listening, evern if they aren’t all blogging and writing to their local MP, and I have no doubt at all that the conservatives will soon be dog whistliing again, starting with the dregs on talk back radio, as employers call for more ‘flexibiliity’ on the one hand, and then call for a ‘more cohesive society’ on the other.
How absolutelly typical of the hapless ALP. Give business everything they want, when they want it, on the terms they want, and then watch as they put their hands out to ask for more, and turn on the government the minute the political going gets tough.
wbb said:
Although if there are no 457 visas at all, these same people are stuck at home often with much worse pay and conditions or no job or welfare to support them at all. I think there is a need for stronger regulation and changing the visas - perhaps they should be time limited without a restriction to a specific employer for example.
Guest worker programs to have the big advantage in that they transfer wealth from richer to poorer countries which is not just in the form of “aid” which we’re pretty stingy with. It can give these people the opportunity to earn enough capital to start up their own businesses when they return home.
Senator Bartlett: the same PC report also argued that most of the per-capita gains in income end up in the hands of the immigrants themselves, rather than those who are already here.
Yes, we could do with a serious examination of who gains and who loses, and the magnitude of such gains or losses. You might take the view, for instance, that if the economic impact to the nation is relatively small one way or the other, maybe we should take a greater proportion of family reunions, refugees, or economic migrants from less well-off countries.
Presumably they pay tax? Is this taken into account?
Kim: if I’m remembering my brief perusal right, the modelling done by the PC (not to suggest for one minute that they’re the be-all and end-all) compared scenarios with greater or lesser immigration. Their conclusion was that the average per-capita incomes of existing residents stayed pretty much the same in either scenario. There was an overall increase in per-capita income under the higher immigration, but that was the result of the immigrants having a higher-than-average income.
I would imagine that the PC took transfer payments into account when they did their modelling, but I’m not sure.
Furthermore, this hides a whole lot of complexities of the effects on individuals. Maybe high-income existing residents do well because of lower costs for labor intensive services, and the low-income existing residents get their salaries pushed down and their rents pushed up. Maybe it works the other way round. Maybe it’s different depending on what kind of work you do, what part of the country you’re in, and so on. I don’t know.
Of course, this ignores lots of other issues, a lot of them not particularly amenable to economic analysis.
But they’re important questions, and I’d like a more substantive answer on the pros and cons of changes to our immigration program beyond the “we’re short of labour, let’s bring in more migrants” approach. So, after all that, I suppose I agree with Chris Evans!
Sure, Rob, but I’m wondering what started off the debate about increases to GDP per capita - was it some sort of justification against the line that “migrants steal our jobs and impoverish us”? That’s sorta my recollection - that it was first raised to counter that perception.
Amused said: “Andrew, you are being naive in the extreme if you think the anouncement had nothing to do with assuaging business concerns about increased bargaining power of domestic labour as a result of the modest changes to be made to the industrial laws. Once again, at the risk of overemphasising the point-no-one I know is opposed to immigration, no-one. But the scheme announced by Evans is not just immigration at all, is it? It is a ‘guest worker’ scheme quite as much as it is increased immigration.”
Evans hasn’t actually announced anything yet other than a further increase in the immigration intake for next year. He has flagged what he is looking to do in the longer term, including (hopefully) a trial of a Pacific Island guest worker scheme, probably modelled on what has been done in Canada or New Zealand. This is a significant move, but it is (a) a trial, and (b) will involve small numbers of temporary workers, which will be a very small proportion of the total number of people coming here each year with work rights.
Our migration program has changed enormously in the last 5 years or so not just in the sie of the annual permanent intake, but even more so in temporary migrants with work rights (many of who then transfer to premanent residency down the track). Some of this has been deliberate choice on the part of the government, but a lot of it has reflected the changing nature of labour mobility, where people are much more likely to move from country to country than in the past. In lots of respects, migration is now a competitive market, rather than the more static one directional nation building it was in the past. Guest workers is a tiny part of this phenomenon, and I would argue much more coherent a labour market program than Working Holiday Visas.
The nature of the labour supply problem is such that in some regions and industries workers cannot be found at current rates - in many cases well above minimum wage and industry wage rates. It is not confined to Australia. I am well aware that there is a mantra being pushed by some in business and regularly repeated in The Australian that try to assert that the mild changes to Workchoices risk leading to a wages breakout - as far as I’m concered this is utter garbage which they are happy will become received ‘truth’ if they repeat it often enough, not least because in most respects there will still be more flexibility for employers under Labor’s new laws than under Howard’s pre-2004 laws and there was little whinging about it then. But that little ideological point scoring stoush doesn’t negate the fact that there is a labour and skills shortage. (not that this is the only reason to have a guest worker program or to increase our overall migration intake for that matter)
It is misleading to suggest that “no one is opposed to migration.” Plenty of people are strongly opposed to the current numbers of migrant intake, or the current composition of the migration intake. I have read repeated concerns by some trade unions in recent times. Some environmentalists are again proposing the notion of zero net migration - a ludicrous idea in my view, but concerns about climate change seem to have provided a new cloak within which to run this line. They of course have a right to put their view, but I’m not going to let the reverse political correctness that grew up in the Howard era prevent from pointing out factual, logical or ethical flaws in their arguments. That’s why Chris Evans’ call for a strong and open debate is refreshing, albeit a bit risky.
Unless people are arguing for open borders, which no one is at present (AFAIK), the debate is about how many, what for and how best to assist people when they first arrive - as well as having the laws which govern all this being fair, efficient, user-friendly and non-discriminatory.
Whilst I agree in sprit with the principle of people being able to go and work wherever I have to bring up certain unpleasant non-economic realities associated with imported workforces.
>
Anecdote: I saw this wirey looking guy, shirtless, cheap tattoos, dirty Nikes, speaking a certain gutteral ‘Strine; threatening an (Indian) chap cleaning Flinders St station. The threats were along the line of: you’re stealing our jobs.
>
Now this is and isn’t true. The Indian chap does add to the competition and considering that he’s well presented, not on drugs, disinclined to solve problems by violence (even when threatened), speaks English better than this particular native anyway - the wirey guy was right. In the job market he loses. His fault in my opinion (shithouse socio-economic environs notwithstanding) but anyway.
>
Naturally increased immigration does boost the economy creating more jobs.
>
However if you have an emergent large ‘underclass’ of people who’re virtually unemployable you will inevitably get racially based tension which can spill over if the economic thumbscrews are on too tight. There’s also the question of what happens when the economy goes south. I hate to bring this up cause it’s usually the province of covertly-bigoted uberConservatives but anyway…
In my view, most of the economic studies of this stuff undervalue or ignore some of the wider social positives, as well as some of the potential long-term economic positives, that can come from family reunion and refugees (because it can’t be measured directly in dollar terms), but I don’t think there’s much doubt that there is a better outcome in straight up short-term economic impact with migrants who are work-ready - one of the reasons our migration system discriminates on the basis of age.
That’s why it’s not just the “we’re short of labour, let’s bring in more migrants” argument - that would basically be open door, which I don’t think we’re ready for on a regional scale (although it is what we have had with New Zealanders for some time). Most of the European Union is now broadly free internal movement with work rights (although not welfare entitlements), which is producing some interesting results worthy of more study. There may be other reasons for bringing in migrants (such as family reunion or humanitarian - and many of those people can work (indeed quite a few are highly skilled) or be brought up to work capacity, but if they’re not work reading or even work seeking, you don’t bring them in to fill labour shortages.)
Its also one of the reasons why a lot of the increase has been in temporary skilled and semi-skilled workers (and the guest worker model is now being considered) - on the basis that shortages can be filled short-term while the local workforce is brought up to speed. But it does seem there’s only so much spare capacity to be gained through better training and work-readiness stuff (which we should keep at of course, as well removing disincentives like high EMTRs), so I think high intakes will be with us for a while yet unless we hit a recession.
But hopefully the more debate there is about the reasons for this, the more chance there is of retaining high levels of public support for the migration program. ALong with better settlement support for new arrivals, maintaining support for multicultural programs to ensure better integration, etc.
Evans seems to assume that there has been no debate on this issue, that such a debate can only be instigated by a minister such as himself, and that at some point a debate will be closed and decisions made on the basis of that. Wrong on all counts, which augurs poorly for policy in this area.
Immigration is an excuse to talk about class. If that guy at Flinders Street Station had been expressing those sentiments at a hedge fund analyst - assuming said persons are instantly identifiable - it would cut across the whole classless Aussie society paradigm. Too hard! Pauline Hanson gave those of us who disagree with her politics a kind of permission to label her as a kind of Bogan Queen, a label Jackie Kelly escaped until her leaflets helped cost John Howard his job. When you hear a hotted-up car hooning along, do you see a noisy Leb or a workin’ class Aussie rejoicing? When you talk immigration, are you talking about thousands of unskilled oafs being idle and making mischief and not respecting Our Way Of Life - or are you talking about $300k p.a. software developers jetting in and depressing incentives for Australians to work toward such jobs, who keep to themselves and don’t engage in Our Way Of Life?
It also brings up the question of what work has to be done in Australia, and how much we’re prepared to pay for it. It’s unbelieveably silly to have people from third-world countries emigrate here to do certain work (e.g. piecework on textiles/clothing/footwear) which pays too little to sustain a person in Australia but which might be perfectly adequate if that job were exported. On the other hand, breaking down rackets where foreigners are imported in near-slavery to do certain work (e.g. unskilled building or sex work) removes elements that depress the price of labour in certain areas for those jobs that can’t be exported. The labour movement shows no evidence of having touched those issues, to their collective discredit.
That, right there, is your alternative paradigm to multiculturalism. A bugger to codify and evaluate grant applications against, let alone choreograph for one of said grants, but one which might be sustained by buying something from a street stall on Eid-ul-Fitr or whatever.
Kim: why I raised “GDP per capita” is that the argument “migrants increase economic growth” is even more simplistic, and is often used to justify the immigration program.
Yes, I agree, Rob, which is why I don’t think they’re particularly helpful in deciding on the size and composition of our migration intake.
Andrew Bartlett is well known to me and I am well know to him. I believe that he has in general paid a very positive role in Australian politics and have said so on many past occasions, for example Australian Democrat Leader Reaffirms Opposition to Telstra Sale. I also note that in the past Andrew Bartlett has been targeted by the Murdoch press just as Doug Cameron is being targeted now.
I phoned Andrew Bartlett’s office to point out to him that although I have an Honours Degree, my paid work for the past four years has been in unskilled occupations. I did not talk to Andrew, but left a message with his personal assistant and am awaiting a response. I think, before Andrew Bartlett continues add to has voice to the clamour for further skilled immigration, he should contemplate what happened as a result of the beat-up about a supposed computer skills shortage in 1999.
I recommend that people view this Youtube broadcast from the US programmers guild of a seminar about how US immigration attorneys are being instructed on how to disqualify US job applicants so that jobs could be given to people from overseas.
There is an enormous amount of anecdotal evidence that Australian IT employers have a similar attitude to Australian programmers.
In most cases you really don’t need to be in Australia to compete against Australian programmers though. Its one industry where keeping the competitors out of the country is going to make very little difference. The jobs will just move overseas to where the people are.
A few comments on the recent immigration surge. It would be nice if such a debate was able to be had without the cheap ‘racist’ taunts, oft used in place of reasoned argument.
WE do not need immigration to stop our population from falling. Births exceeded deaths last year by about 139,000.
It all seems to be predicated on the necessity of continuous growth. The rationale seems to be that we must keep growing until forced to stop, presumably by collapsing ecosystems. Why can’t we stop growing before we reach such a dire state? Be very clear about this; there is no such thing as sustainable growth in a finite system.
The poorer the lifestyle that an immigrant is leaving behind, the greater the increase in environmental impact caused by adopting an Australian living standard. The suggestion that a Sudanese, say, would eventually have a first world living standard is rather bizarre given the massive environmental problems besetting the third world particularly and the peaking of so many natural resources that would otherwise have provided the basis for such a double order of magnitude increase in living standard.
What right have we to poach trained workers from countries already critically short of such skills?
To admit some more migrants from impoverished countries because it will improve their lot does nothing for those left behind (3 to 4 billion to our north and west), so who decides just who the ‘lucky few’ are? I sometimes feel that advocates of such programmes do so because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy to see a few happy immigrant faces.
If we are short of skills in some areas, then why don’t we do something about the insidious ageism which pervades Australian industry? Take a look at the army of underemployed or prematurely retired folks who underpin our volunteer organisations, many of whom would gladly move back into the workforce.
By any measure, Australia is currently using natural resources unsustainably. It is about time that we recognised that the economy must accommodate the environment, not vice versa. For this reason, big business and other vested interests (driven by greed and self-interest) should be barred from the debate.
We have an enormous challenge ahead of us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the levels advocated by Stern, Garnaut and Gore, so why double the burden by adding to the emitters?
Australian is almost certainly becoming hotter and drier, as a long term trend, our main agricultural region is rapidly becoming less productive, our subsurface water resources are being extracted unsustainably, many of our inland rivers are in a desperate state, dryland salinity has ripped huge areas of farm land from productive use, our marine fisheries are under threat, we have an abominable record in species extinction, our record of land clearing is amongst the worst in the world and exacerbates loss of top soil by wind and water erosion, and our cities are progressively covering much of the most productive farmland in the country. Since many of the world’s small countries have the highest living standards, and there is a high positive correlation between high birth rates, high civil unrest and low standards of living, can someone explain the reason for this insane urge for continuous growth. Now add in the economic tsumani that will ravage the planet as global oil production starts on its increasingly rapid descent, being aware that our broad acre farming and fabulous mining boom will turn to dust in a petroleum-depleted world, and then tell me why growth is better than a sustainable steady state existence.
It would also be nice if the reverse political correctness which the Hanson/Howard era ushered in was put to an end. It is amazing how often this sort of plaintive cry about alleged racist taunts is put up even when no one has made any such ‘taunts’ at all. And why is it always ‘cheap’ to label something as racist? Racism is a serious and destructive problem and has been very detrimental to many migrants and to an informed debate about migration over many decades. It derails reasoned argument when a very relevant factor is prevented from being uttered in the debate.
Not that anyone is talking about making Sudanese a high proportion of our migration program anyway, but it’s strange how some environmentalists talk about ‘thinking globally, acting globally’, except when it comes to migration, when it suddently becomes ‘us versus them’. This comment also simultaneously suggests it creates an increased environmental impact bringing a Sudanese person here, while also saying there are massive environmental problems there which will only get worse if people there get a better living standard.
People being better off and living longer can have an environmental impact, but rich countries arguing that this means poor countries should stay poor for the sake of the planet isn’t going to go down very well with them. We have to reduce our individual environmental footprint and look for ways to make global population growth continue to slow (and ideally to stop all together). It is not a coincidence that the countries and regions that have the highest birth rates are also amongst the poorest, and amongst those with the lowest per capita greenhouse emissions. But being poor and desperate - let alone inefficient technologies and economies - also play a key role in the above mentioned ‘massive environmental problems’.
This is not to suggest that it would reduce all environmental problems by bringing more people from poor countries to wealthy countries (although for those concerned about ‘continuous growth’, in general the more people move out of absolute poverty the more it would help reduce global population growth).
Of course there are environmental impacts from having more people in Australia, but we do need to remember than when it comes to the environment - especially greenhouse emissions, we’re all in this together.
Andrew, if we didn’t poach the most skilled people from poorer countries, their ascent from poverty would be faster. We don’t poach the most skilled from poorer countries for those countries benefit. We do it for a very explicitly defined reason. Australia’s national interest. And it’s wrong.
Enhancing skilled immigration is good for Australia. But bad for the world.
Let’s concentrate on humanitarian visas and family visas. Let’s learn to live within our means when it comes to skills.
An immigration news blackout in the Courier Mail?
I have looked and looked but I have not been able to find one story in the Courier Mail concerning immigration since last Friday 16 May, when an opinion price in favour of the Pacific Island Guest workers program by Steve Lewis was printed. I wrote a letter in response to that but it was not printed, nor was any other letter printed. The newsletter sub-editor on Sunday insisted that no-one else had sent in any letters concerning the Guest worker issue. Ny own letter can be found here. I can;t even find where Evans’ announcement of raising the immigration program to 300,000 was reported. Have I missed something? Can any other Brisbane resident tell me where they have seen any news about immigration reported in the Courier Mail.
This is in stark contrast to that other Murdoch-owned newspaper The Australian which has been full of reporting about immigration all week and biased reporting at that.
Daggett’s last comment is an example of why I think Andrew E’s comment @ 28 isn’t really accurate. I have long been surprised at how little real debate (or even awareness) there is about immigration issues as a whole, given how contentious it can be and how pivotal it is to our economy and our future as a nation.
I’m not suggesting something has to be on the front pages of the newspaper every day for there to be a debate - headline media coverage can be a killer of informed debate. But it amazing how even in political circles how little real attention the broad issue gets. We’ve had massive skirmishes over a tiny number of asylum seekers, as though the integrity of our nation’s soul was at stake, yet the size shape and complexity of our immigration intake changed dramatically with barely a blink, while the laws and administration in the area get ever more inefficient and often unjust.
That’s why we need more of a debate, or at least more of the facts being put out there so people who are interested can have an informed debate. The many who don’t want to know can continue to leave things to those who do.
[I’ve fixed a few typos, Andrew. Hopes it’s OK. - Admin]
I have cross-posted this to my own blog with the title The fraudulent case for immigration and population growth. (I am not sure if it will all be rendered properly here, so please go there if it seems not to make sense here.).
Here’s some articles which show how the increase in population of recent years has measurably degraded the quality of life of most Australians (and also residents of some overseas countries) in recent years:
In regard to the supposed economic benefits of immigration, a House of Lords Committee recently demolished the economic case for immigration (see House of lords tells UK government to limit immigration). The British Optimum Population Trust, whilst welcoming the stance by the House of Lords committee, pointed out that the report understated the environmental damage caused by immigration-driven population growth (See House of Lords’ immigration report ‘forgets environment’).
In Australia in January 2006 the Productivity Commission found very little economic benefit from immigration. In fact, it actually showed that that GDP would rise slightly whilst average hours worked would rise proportionally even more. So, in most peoples’ understanding, even defined in extremely narrow economic terms, we would be worse off rather than marginally better off as a result of immigration. And then, let’s not forget that GDP is an utterly stupid way to measure our prosperity in the first place. As anyone, more economically literate than the Productivity Commission should know, and as John Coulter, National President of Sustainable Population Australiareminded us in a media release of 19 January 2006:
Incidentally, this Productivity Commission Report is the straw that the Australian deceptively seized upon in order to dismiss objections to the increase in immigration in its editorial More workers are a positive force of 19 May:
Does anyone here still seriously maintain that having millions more people here to help us dig up and export more of our non-renewable mineral resources in order to help China further pollute its own environment and melt the polar ice caps, will help make this country a better place to live, even in the short term?
In 1942 with a population of only 7 million, Australia was one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth as Andrew Ross showed in Armed and Ready - The Industrial Development and Defence of Australia 1900-1945, 1995, Turton and Armstrong (see The myth of the Howard Government’s defence competence). Increasing our population has directly correlated with this country losing its technological edge over other countries So, let’s, for once and for all bury the lie that population growth is necessary for economic prosperity.
Because we have surpassed what is this country’s optimum population size, increasing population actually results in dis-economies of scale rather than the economies of scale that pro-growth economists promised us. As the population density becomes greater it actually costs more per person to build all the necessary roads, footpaths, traffic lights, noise barriers, electricity substations, power lines, water pipes, hospitals, schools, etc., etc. That is one reason why our water rates, counil rates and electricity charges are exceeding the reason inflation. Has anyone contemplated that this may be one reason why it is so difficult for governments to fund road building these days without resort to tolls?
What population growth does―and what common sense and intuition should have long ago warned us in spite of the claptrap peddled by economists in the pay of land speculators and prpertydevelopers―is it decreases the amount of natural resources available to each of us. Consequently, the demands that each of us make on this largely arid and infertile land is increased. That is the principle driver of soil salinity, land erosion, and the threatened loss of the Murray Darling river system. To an increase the demands upon this continent that would be caused by adding more human inhabitants, before the existing problems are solved, is an act of environmental recklessness.
My last comment seemed to vanish after it had been posted. I have e-mailed the administrator to see if he/she has any idea what happened. In the meantime, in case anyone is interested, I cross-posted it to my own blog.
But we’re not kidnapping them and forcing them to come to Australia against their will. There are many skilled people who want to come to this country and we allow some of them to do so.
To tell those from poorer countries that they are not allowed to because they should instead stay in their own countries seems rather unreasonable and isolationist. Would you try to force people who come from disadvantaged communities in Australia to live there for the rest of their lives?
Peter Salonius, who works as a soil microbiologist for the Canadian Forestry Service in response to Andrew’s previous comment:
wrote
A useful articles written by Peter is A 10,000-year misunderstanding about how even agricultural society, let alone industrialised society, may be unsustainable in the longer term. The cycles of rises and subsequent collapses of ancient agricultural civilisations would tend to lend weight to that view. I personally hope he is wrong about both industrialised society and agricultural society, but I certainly won’t be betting on it.
One thing that is not sustainable is the mad growth economy of Queensland, where we are literally increasing population in order to be able to our construction industry going! If anyone doesn’t believe, me read the words of Premier Premier Anna Bligh herself:
So, to follow Bligh’s logic, we will need to import more people tomorrow in order provide work for those we imported today to provide work for those we imported yesterday. And then further along, we will be importing yet more people to keep employed those we have imported today …
How stupid are we going to look to our children and grandchildren when all those buildings which are now disfiguring South East Queensland’s skyline, and which are apparently built to last only thirty or forty years, start falling down?
But that is exactly what we do. Except in the exceptional case where we think the individual will increase the economic wealth of Australia.
The skilled migration program only allows the most skilled people to enter Australia. This is to the natural detriment of the country those people leave.
Australia’s skilled migration policy is explicit about this. We do not allow migration for the benefit of the immigrant. We seek it where it is in our direct benefit.
Do not confuse the very distinct categories of migration. Skilled, family reunion and humanitarian. Different beasts entirely, Chris.
“In 1942 with a population of only 7 million, Australia was one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth”
And so we went to WAR. Obviously not one of the smartest.
Nasking,
Whilst I wouldn’t go as far as to argue that Australia’s role in world politics has been 100% virtuous, either before or since the Second World War, Australia’s war against against Japan from 1941 until 1945 was clearly a defensive war and one this country did not seek. Australia’s leaders were absolutely justified in having prepared this country to defeat that threatened invasion since at least the start of twentieth century.
My purpose in raising this is to point out that we did not need a high population to become technologically advanced and able to defend this continent. It is a myth, BTW, that only the Battle of the Coral Sea saved Australia from certain invasion. This country’s proud record of industrial and scientific development, that made possible the defeat of the Japanese threat, has been largely buried. I believe that this has been done for political and ideological reasons, to suit the selfish purposes of Australia’s growth lobby in order to perpetuate the lie that only through continuous population growth can Australia become an advanced nation.
Oh, dear. No. I am not going to get into a debate about the non-invasion by the Japanese of Australia during WW2. It would be totally OT.
Paul Burns,
I suggest you read my posts again, and explain why the issues I raised are not relevant to the question of Australia’s population and, hence, immigration. Please try to understand the points being made before taking further cheap shots.
daggett @ 46
It wasn’t meant as a cheap shot, and no offence was meant. I’m sorry you read it that way. Rather it was an OT reference to the historical debate as to whether there was ever any danger of a Japaqnese invasion of Oz during WW2. I did get what you said in 44.
Paul Burns,
My apologies for being rude when it should have been obvious that there were some grounds for doubt.
In fact, the discussion had been somewhat side-tracked as you correctly pointed out.
To OT for a few words more, I had accepted the myth about Australia’s role in WW2 until about a year ago when I read “National Insecurity” by Mathews et al and, after that, the abovementioned “Armed and Ready”. I have written about it here, here and here.
SANDY: Is anyone else coming to stay?
JUDITH: Anyone else! You don’t know — you just don’t know. Give me my hat.
SANDY: You said it would be quite quiet, with nobody at all.
JUDITH: I was wrong. It’s going to be very noisy, with herds of angry people stamping about.
– Noel Coward, “Hay Fever” (act one)
I am sure Australian companies are using the same practices as US companies to hire foreign workers instead of qualified experienced locals.
On a visit to the US in 1996 I met some very articulate, educated mature, white panhandlers at San Francisco’s Pier 31. I noticed the workers in Silicon Valley were of Chinese descent and believe Microsoft favours Indians.
It would be nice if the universities published the emeployment rates of IT graduates. The federal government lumps IT graduates in with science, engineering or business graduates. In some years universities have had a very low number of graduates hired eg about 20% of IT graduates get to work in IT.
In 2004 Telstra hired 5 IT graduates from the whole of Australia, a decade earlier they would have hired 100 graduates per year.
In 2005 or 2006 Telstra was looking for 135 Cobol programmers to maintain CABA the programs that send out