What was the role of illegal immigration in Donald Trump’s decisive victory in the US election? While this is clearly an interesting question, some may argue it has little relevance to Australia as most of our immigration is perfectly legal.
My response is that voters respond to migrant numbers and the rate of change, not just their legal status. To be sure, there is heightened concern when migrants arrive without visas – often with the assistance of shady people smugglers. But any uncontrolled surge in net migration will likely lead to a loss of support for an incumbent government.
In Britain, for instance, the ongoing small boat arrivals of migrants across the Channel damaged the Conservative government. But its seeming inability to control the number of legal migrants was almost as politically harmful, with the stated numerical targets continuously missed by large margins.
The impact on the availability and affordability of housing, pressures on government services, more congestion and the potential loss of social amenity and cohesion are some of the commonly perceived consequences of high migrant intakes.
The fact living standards here, as measured by per capita GDP growth, have been going backwards in the context of surging migrant numbers is another consideration. We know from repeated surveys in Australia that a clear majority of the population wants the migrant intake to be significantly lower. This has been the case for some time, including before the pandemic.
After the Covid-induced hiatus in migrant arrivals, however, the net overseas migration numbers have vastly surpassed those that were experienced in the first part of this century.
Net overseas migration, the difference between long-term arrivals and long-term departures, has been running at more than 500,000 on an annual basis. This compares with the natural increase in the population of about 100,000 a year.
While the Albanese government committed to reducing the NOM to 395,000 last financial year, it has now been conceded that the actual figure will overshoot this target by a large margin.
The failure of temporary migrants to leave as result of visa hopping as well as an increase in the number of migrants from New Zealand are put down as key explanators. The NOM target for this financial year is 260,000, but Treasury Secretary Steven Kennedy has said this figure also will not be met. The point is sometimes made that Australia is a nation of immigrants and we should therefore simply celebrate their contribution.
Until the mid-1990s, the only migrants who were permitted to come, apart from visitors, were overwhelmingly permanent ones.
Their total numbers were restricted each year according to a specified program that included numbers for skill and family migrants. This all changed when temporary migrants were permitted to enter and to stay for the duration of their visas.
Several visa categories were established that included skilled temporary workers and international students. These have been adjusted and expanded across time. These visa categories are uncapped.
The explosion in the NOM is essentially a story of surging temporary migration with many of the arrivals seeking permanent residence in due course. And the largest category within the temporary migrants is international students. More than half of the NOM is due to international students. This is why the cabinet had no choice but to decide to restrict new international student numbers, notwithstanding the reluctance of several ministers.
It is not just international students themselves who have been contributing to the high NOM. Accompanying family members and partners of these students also have been adding to the number. It is estimated that there are 120,00 secondary student visa holders living in Australia. (Note that Britain has recently imposed a ban on accompanying family members of international students save for those undertaking doctorates and equivalent qualifications.)
Mind you, the government is dragging its feet on achieving anything in this space, with the required legislation giving effect to the new student caps still not passed. In the meantime, some education institutions have been actively ramping up their student intakes to avoid the downside of lower student numbers next year.
Ministerial Direction 107 is still in place, which restricts the granting of student visas from countries deemed to have high immigration risk, but this is having little impact on the Group of Eight universities, which mainly enrol students from China.
The University of Sydney and University of NSW have significantly increased enrolments this year, for instance. Nearly 50 per cent of all student enrolments at Sydney are international students – a percentage that is likely to alarm many ordinary voters.
The dominance of temporary migrants, as well as the ability of temporary migrants to extend their stay by switching visas, has had the effect of significantly swelling the total number of temporary migrants in the population. Close to two million temporary visa holders now reside in Australia. The number on temporary graduate visas has nearly doubled since 2022. There also has been a significant uptick in the number of student visa holders applying for humanitarian visas.
There is always the possibility that the ongoing presence of temporary migrants plays an important role in meeting skill shortages, with visa hopping a means of achieving good economic outcomes for migrants and the country.
The e61 Institute has analysed visa hopping and its impact on the skilled immigration landscape. It has noted that the share of visa hoppers has increased very sharply – from about 2.5 per cent receiving a graduate visa in 2009 to 25 per cent in 2018.
Visa hoppers are typically low-skilled migrants. They earn less than local graduates and work in relatively low-skilled occupations. Visa hoppers generally come from low-income countries such as Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The conclusion is that any ban on visa hopping would not result in a loss of high-skilled workers.
The bottom line is that the Albanese government has shown little determination to control the flow of migrants coming to the country notwithstanding the obvious political risks of failing to do so. To be sure, it was always expected that migrant numbers would surge after the Covid border restrictions were lifted. But the government has been far too slow to implement sensible measures to restrict the flow of arrivals as well as hasten the departure of temporary migrants.
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that most senior members of the government are simply not committed to cutting the migrant intake. Indeed, some on the left are essentially in favour of open borders.
Be it the pressures from the self-interested educational institutions, from the business community or from ethnic groups, there is no determination on the part of the government even to reach its self-imposed targets. The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, is also reluctant to oversee any reduction in GDP growth arising from population growth even though per capita GDP growth has been going backwards.
But the lessons of the US, Britain and several European countries is that uncontrolled migrant intakes become politically toxic over time, including with established migrants themselves.
It’s not clear that the Albanese government will wake up in time to change tack before the next election.
More Coverage
Is Chalmers living in the same country as the rest of us?
Are you better off than three years ago? More Australians, like Americans did a fortnight ago, are saying No
Mysterious departure of two key banking directors
Westpac chair Steven Gregg has some explaining to do at the AGM after noting in his annual report two of four directors would renominate – but they have now stepped down.