Of all the public policy areas in which the views of ordinary folk are continuously trampled by the preferences of the political class and self-serving elites, immigration is surely the standout.
To be sure, there are others, but the persistent promotion of high migrant intakes, even during the depths of the pandemic, is further evidence that these interest groups are intent on getting their way. Sadly, it would seem that politicians are only too willing to oblige.
In nearly every week over the past year or so, a university administrator would urge the federal or state governments to allow in international students. Various state governments endorsed a number of pilot schemes to allow groups of students to come into their states on a preferential basis, in addition to the limited spots for returning Australian residents.
Most of these schemes came to nought, but they clearly pointed to the influence the higher education sector, in particular, wields on state governments.
Various state treasurers (including Dominic Perrottet) and state education ministers would randomly quote various billions of dollars in gross benefits that international education could generate without any reference to the costs that international education also entail.
Bizarrely, inexperienced federal Immigration Minister Alex Hawke decided the restrictions on the work rights of international students would be suspended as the pandemic continued to rage. The clear message was that granting visas to international students is less about education than about providing a plentiful and affordable supply of low-skilled workers for employers who don’t want to pay higher wages or invest in training locals.
It’s worth recalling here some of the figures. Before Covid-19 emerged and the international borders were closed, there were close to 950,000 international student enrolments in Australia. This was close to double the number of enrolments in 2012. The three main countries from which international students came were China, India and Nepal, in that order.
Just because international students have completed their studies doesn’t necessarily mean they leave the country. In fact, the number of students completing their studies and who were then granted temporary skilled graduate visas was growing strongly prior to Covid-19, more than doubling between 2015 and 2019. Those from India, China and Nepal, in that order, were most likely to stay.
At the broader level, immigration to Australia had been running at very high levels up until 2020. Net overseas migration – the difference between the arrival of long-term migrants and the departure of long-term migrants – was running at 230,000 to 250,000 annually, 2½ times the rate that had pertained early in the century.
NOM was contributing close to two-thirds of population growth, an extraordinarily high percentage. Note also that the majority of long-term migrants were piling into Sydney, Melbourne and southeast Queensland.
While the federal government had bowed to public pressure to slightly reduce the permanent migrant intake from 190,000 to 160,000 per year prior to the pandemic, it has been obvious for some time that it now wants migrants to return in the same, or greater, numbers as soon as possible. This much was made clear in the most recent budget papers.
(In a truly bizarre policy manoeuvre, the government was able to fill the 160,000 slots during the height of the pandemic by offering permanent visas to those holding temporary visas and living in Australia. What this has entailed is a significant dilution in the skill profile of the intake, with family and partner migrants preferenced by the decision. So much for the argument that migrants are needed to fill skilled job vacancies.)
We have also had the NSW Treasury suggest that the number of migrants should be increased to 2 million over the next five years, implying NOM of 400,000 per year. The self-serving business sector as represented by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry recently released a report calling for an increase in the permanent intake to 190,000 per year, with emphasis on employer-sponsored slots. The claim is made that more skilled migrants are needed to fill the skill gaps that exist across the economy.
But here’s the thing: when ordinary folk are asked if they want to see the numbers of migrants bounce back to their pre-pandemic levels or to increase even more, the response is overwhelmingly in the negative. Katharine Betts and Bob Birrell, of the Australian Population Research Institute, have recently asked a representative slice of the adult population about their preferences on future migration and population settings.
Fewer than a fifth of respondents want a return to pre-pandemic NOM; in fact, 28 per cent expressed a preference for nil net migration. As the authors note, “there has been a distinct hardening of attitudes towards immigration”. Only a small minority of those surveyed want Big Australian migration levels restored.
Even when it was pointed out that some employers are finding it difficult to find skilled workers, more than 60 per cent opted for “raising wages and improving skills training for locals” as the preferred alternative over bringing in migrants.
Most respondents also didn’t want a return to pre-pandemic international student numbers.
Of course, all politicians are aware of the views of ordinary folk about immigration and population. These trends have been apparent for some time, even if the hardening of attitudes since the pandemic is new news. But the likely outcome is that these views will be ignored given the pressure exerted by the interest groups for higher migrant intakes as well as the sugar hit to reported economic growth that will flow from a jump in migrant numbers.
Does anyone really imagine that a treasurer will willingly forgo the chance to crow about higher GDP numbers next year – of course, GDP per capita will be another matter – as well as placate the lobbyists constantly begging to get their way?
As for the argument that more migrants are needed to fill skill-job vacancies, let’s be clear on this issue. The permanent migrant program is not nearly as skill-biased as the government would have us believe. Nearly 19 per cent of the intake is employer-sponsored, where the visa applicant doesn’t really need to speak English. Only 12 per cent is “skilled independent”, but this includes secondary applicants who are significantly less qualified than the primary applicant.
The state-nominated visa categories are a mixed bag when it comes to skills and regional visa holders are much less skilled than in the other skill categories. In other words, our immigration program is not “all about bringing in Silicon Valley types”, as Immigration Minister Hawke ludicrously suggested.
In a world where there are widespread skill shortages and spikes in job resignation rates, it’s time Australia focused on paying people appropriately and training locals to fill these shortages. That message could even be a political winner.
Australia must understand the new US policy pillars
Rare earths are an essential part of new US foreign policy and Australians, including the business world, need to understand the implications of what is happening.
This is no era for the retreat of Pax Americana
The President’s claims Zelensky is a ‘dictator’ and continues the war only to keep on the American gravy train do not reflect reality – but they do reflect Trump’s frustration with allies that are more of an encumbrance than a force multiplier.