Migration is desirable but only where it is manageable

More must be done to keep a lid on the number of migrants coming here. And we need to talk about international students.

A mercantilist way of thinking is no justification for policies that support the intake of international students.

The government is getting the message. Even Labor is getting the message. It’s just not acceptable to most people for immigration to be making up close to two-thirds of population growth, which, by any measure, is excessive.

Ask ordinary folk in the street, particularly in Melbourne or Sydney, what contribution net migrat­ion should be making to popu­lation growth. Tell them that the popu­lation is growing by about 380,000 a year, and that migrants ­account for 240,000 of that figure.

Most people would plumb for a much lower intake, a preference now consistently backed by opinion polls. Many people also would declare they would prefer Aust­ralia’s population never to ­exceed 30 million. Assuming the government wants to act on the public’s preferences rather than be influenced by self-interested lobby groups, the next question is: How should the government go about cutting the migrant intake?

The first response by the government has been a sleight of hand: retain the cap on permanent migration at 190,000 a year (a figure that will apply for the next three years unless the government changes its mind) and manipulate internal departmental processes to ensure the cap is not actually filled. A figure of 162,000 looks so much more benign than 190,000, even though there has been a 40,000 jump in the number of people on bridging visas. This is a smoke and mirrors response.

So here’s what the government should do. It should cut the permanent intake number to 120,000 a year, with about 80,000 in a ­revised skill category, 35,000 in the family category and the rest in the bits-and-bobs categories. It may be that given the degree of heel-dragging the Department of Home Affairs is capable of, the figure of 120,000 also may not be met.

And for those who will raise ­objections to restricting the family numbers, bear in mind that many of these entrants are the spouses of skilled entrants. Reducing the number of skilled entrants will cut the number of family entrant ­applications, at least over time.

The Home ­Affairs Department has revised the process for skilled entry slightly by altering the (dubious) list of occupations in demand. But it’s still far too easy for an ­employer to sponsor a worker for permanent residence, with the points test set way too low. The testing of skills needs to be tightened further, particularly in respect of English language competence.

Having cut the permanent ­migrant numbers, proportioned across the skill and family cat­egories, the core issue is what to do about temporary migrants. This is the area of biggest growth. There was a doubling in the number of temporary visas granted during the period from 2005 to 2015.

More than 1.6 million temporary migrants with working rights (temporary workers, international students, working holiday-makers and several other small groups) are in the country. In recent times, all the growth has been in inter­national student numbers.

The number of international higher education student commencements has grown from 187,000 in 2013 to 319,000 this year — an increase of more than 70 per cent. If you listen to the senior managers of the universities and the boosters of higher education more generally, this ­extraordinary explosion in international student numbers is an ­unalloyed good. It is routinely trotted out that higher education is Australia’s third largest export ­industry, contributing about $31 billion in export income.

Of course, this mercantilist way of thinking is no justification for policies that support the intake of international students. Any serious analysis would consider the benefits and costs of having international students and whe­ther these benefits and costs vary ­depending on what proportion of the student body is made up of international students.

It is naive to believe there are no downsides. Examples include the overcrowding of classes, the potential dilution of course standards, the explosion of excessively remunerated managers and the loss of social amenity for local students. There are too many university courses in which international students, often with poor English skills, make up excessive proportions of enrolments, with local students often bearing a burden in respect of group assignments. There is also no doubt that the rapid influx of international students with limited work rights (the limits can never be enforced, by the way) affects the youth ­labour market. But to expect a government inspectorate (or government inquiry for that matter) to have anything other than a marginal impact on the degree of ­exploitation (relative to our regulated standards) faced by temporary migrant workers is to expect the unachievable.

It is time the government gave serious consideration to how it might seek to influence international student numbers. Australian universities, funded by Australian taxpayers, are essentially there for local students. This must be the focus. The fact most international students eventually return to their country of origin is not really the point. A large number game the system by jumping from one visa category to another after graduation. They can stay for many years before leaving.

An increasing number of international student graduates also are achieving permanent residence through the family cat­egory. And a switch to a temp­orary-worker visa is an easier way to achieve permanent residence than going through the independent skill category.

The bottom line for the government is this: if there is a will to cut the migrant intake, there is a way. The government can reduce the permanent and temporary intakes if it wants to. But there are strong pressures from vested interest groups, including the misguided bureaucrats in Treasury, to resist such measures.

At least the debate has started. Let it roll on in the context of evidence-based and civil discussion. Let’s talk about the crazy grandparents’ visa category. Costing the taxpayer many multiples of the cost of the visa, the introduction of this class of visa (both permanent and temporary) was an electoral sop introduced for the benefit of a few local members. It needs to be abolished or repriced at quadruple the present figure.

Let’s also talk about how we may direct migrants to regional areas and our more sparsely populated cities. But assuming metaphorical rabbit fences are not possible, we need to be realistic that many regional migrants will simply head to Melbourne or Sydney in time. Also bear in mind the messaging involved in such programs — that it is a negative to be forced to live in a regional area. It’s an unlikely start for success.

And just take a look at the dysfunctional 190 skilled nominated visa class under which the Victorian and NSW governments sponsor migrants to achieve permanent residence, as if these states don’t have enough new migrants.

But there is a salutary lesson in the ACT government’s involvement with the 190 visa scheme. Many temporary ­migrants were lured to the ACT and duly enrolled in dodgy local ­courses (many of the migrants ­already had higher qualifications) because that was part of the deal. They have since been abandoned by the ACT government, leaving many temporary migrants high and dry. What this saga shows is that many international student graduates will try to work the system to secure permanent residence even if it involves relocating, at least temporarily, to Canberra. That tells us a lot.