Australian Migration Review 2023 – For Immigrants and Nation or a Nativist Trap?

The Australian Migration Review Report has been published, based on narratives and submissions, but little meaningful grass roots feedback or data to support any grounded analysis for good future reforms?

This post will focus on NOM Net Overseas Migration and major source or factor i.e. international education and students, but for now, not the other main factors including WHV Working Holiday Visas (2nd year) and temporary workers.

There are generic review report issues e.g. lack of direct support for many narratives and recommendations, does not explain budget issues of ageing i.e. more low or no tax payers in retirement as baby boomer bubble transitions vs. decline in working age cohort of PAYE taxpayers, to support more Australian retirees.

Further, barely references ‘black swan’ event Covid and the effect it had on Australia including closed borders, preceded by under-resourced and slow processing of most visa types onshore and then via the NOM education, tourism, travel etc. simply caught up?

The focus of this post is the potential reform of limiting or capping the NOM Net Overseas Migration which shows a suboptimal understanding i.e. it’s a ‘barometer’ not a visa or migration program that can controlled by any specific or exact measure, but only by capping education enrolments or Working Holiday Visas?

This would be a repeat of the Gillard government’s response to ‘wedges’ by media and right wing NGOs’ dog whistling of the NOM (quietly expanded in 2006 by the UNPD) spike, ‘Big Australia’, supposed environmental hygiene issues of modern ‘immigrants’, appointing a Minister for Sustainable Australia and giving higher education (higher value) advantage over the VET Vocational sector; but worse in the UK.

The UK also uses the same ‘nebulous’ UNPD defined NOM formula to quantify border movements, but also misrepresented as ‘immigration’, followed by media headlines and dog whistling in late ‘90s, ‘wedging’ UK Conservative PM Cameron into action on reducing ‘immigration’, from The Guardian (11 January 2010):

‘Tories would limit immigration to ‘tens of thousands’ a year, says Cameron. Conservative leader says net immigration of 200,000 people a year is ‘too much’…..”We would like to see net immigration in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands,” he told BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show.’

Cameron complained of the media ‘banging on about (EU) immigration’ then pledged to reduce the NOM dramatically, hence, immigration, but the numbers then rose and was compelled to call the European Referendum, that led to Brexit over immigration and identity, again by the media and far right; negative Brexit outcomes, not dividends, are still occurring with working age decline.

Summary through excerpts of the introduction and later focus upon NOM Net Overseas Migration:

‘REVIEW OF THE MIGRATION SYSTEM – FINAL REPORT 2023

The Reviewers

Dr Martin Parkinson AC PSM, Chair

Professor Joanna Howe

Mr John Azarias

Reviewers and the Department of Home Affairs Migration Reform Taskforce (containing 

secondees from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury, Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Jobs and Skills Australia, and Boston Consulting Group).

(inc. indirectly Prof. Peter McDonald, demographer at University of Melbourne who also made a one page submission that a media outlet, like most, misrepresented immigration and population data due to a lack of data literacy, but this has been occurring for decades?)

We identified five objectives, discussed in further detail in this report, on which to 

build the program:

1. Building Australia’s prosperity by lifting productivity, meeting labour 

supply needs and by supporting exports

2. Enabling a fair labour market, including by complementing the jobs, wages 

and conditions of domestic workers

3. Building a community of Australians

4. Protecting Australia’s interests in the world.

5. Providing a fast, efficient and fair system.

The unique complexities of migration and the gaps in our understanding of the 

effects of our migration system – on migrants and Australia – highlight the critical 

need for better data, more program evaluation and research to inform better 

program design. We can’t stay on track if we don’t know how we are going, nor can 

we drive improvement or share data with stakeholders who are trying to make a 

difference too.

Australia is not focused enough on capturing high potential international students. This chapter considers the success of the Student visa in supporting the export of Australian education, but also the missed opportunity to better support and select the best and brightest students as skilled migrants’ (motherhood statement?). 

Reform directions for Government to consider

Through the course of the Panel’s deliberations, we arrived at a set of reform 

directions that could be considered by Government as it decides on its approach to 

the migration system. These are set out below, and described in greater detail 

throughout the report.

Possible reform directions:

Redefine how  Australia determines the size and composition of the migration program

6. Plan migration based on net overseas migration (which accounts for both permanent and temporary residents), rather than simply relying on permanent migration caps (p. 8).

5. AUSTRALIA NEEDS LONG-TERM AND HOLISTIC MIGRATION PLANNING (p. 41)

Today, Australia mainly relies on the annual permanent migration cap to manage migrant numbers. This is a poor tool for driving predictability of overall migration flows. Government needs to consider the optimal size and composition of migrant intakes (temporary and permanent) over the medium to long term in the best interests of Australia.’

‘If the supply of infrastructure and housing does not keep up with demand created by migration, the quality of infrastructure and housing services may deteriorate, and prices may rise. As a result, material and non-material living standards of the local population and newly arrived migrants may be undermined (unsupported by any research evidence?)

Without appropriate policy responses, large and unanticipated increases in labour supply, or sharp falls in demand, can lead in the short run to both falling real wages and higher unemployment.

Social cohesion can also be undermined if the pace of migration is greater than the time it takes for migrants to settle, integrate and become part of the community. Costs imposed on local communities (housing, labour market impacts) can also reduce cohesion and have an impact on migrant integration and prosperity.’ (unsupported by any research evidence?)

There is no evidence provided, and apart from the media encouraging dog whistling to reinforce negative perceptions and attitudes, there isn’t any? In fact opposite, from Foster’s surveys in ‘Immigration and the Australian economy’ (2012):

‘William Foster’s surveys over 200 studies on immigration and wages. He found there was, “a marginally favourable effect on the aggregate unemployment rate, even in recession”.’

‘Migration planning needs to remain flexible to changing economic 

Environments (pp. 47-9):

‘During periods of high NOM, like 2006–09 and 2016–19 (Figure 15), there were 

increased concerns about congestion in cities, as infrastructure and other support 

did not keep pace with population growth in some areas. This led to falling support 

for the migration program (not supported by research evidence?).

This experience helps provide guidance for a recommended NOM level* relative to 

population growth, given the current levels of investment.’

Since when can the NOM be micromanaged, simply evidence of suboptimal understanding of the NOM and the multiple factors it’s derived from, acting as ‘barometer’? Neither Figures 14 or 15 etc. highlight a significant demographic event related to the NOM, i.e. UNPD’s expansion in 2006, which spiked the NOM, hence, estimated resident population. 

‘Reform directions

The Panel suggests Government consider moving beyond reliance on the permanent migration cap as the only tool for managing migration flows. Specifically, there might be value in developing ways of better managing temporary migration, alongside permanent migration. This likely means government would be attempting to manage NOM – which is the truer measure of migration’s impact on population growth, communities and the economy.’ 

On international education – indirect contribution from peak bodies or stakeholders via submissions, yet international education is the largest source of NOM captures or border movements 12/16+ months, but ignored the expansion and inflation in 2006?

Also largely ignored the impact of Covid and slow onshore visa processing by the previous LNP government, like the UK may have been to discourage those hoping for substantive residency visas.

Warning to the Australian government, be careful what you (are encouraged to) wish for, by trying to control population via the NOM they are falling into a ‘nativist trap’?

For more related post and blog on Ageing Democracy, Australian Politics, Demography, NOM Net Overseas Migration, Population Growth, Populist Politics and White Nationalism  click through:

Economic Research – No Negative Relationship with Immigration and Wages, Income or Employment

Population Pyramids, Economics, Ageing, Pensions, Demography and Misunderstanding Data Sets

Population Decline and Effects on Taxation, Benefits, Economy and Society

Malthus on Population Growth, Economy, Environment, White Nationalism and Eugenics

Immigration Population Growth Decline NOM Net Overseas Migration

NOM Net Overseas Migration – Immigration – Population Growth

EU & Anglosphere – Refugees – Border Walls vs. Working Age Decline

Australia Return to the Anglosphere – Ignoring the Australian Eurasian Society and the Asian Century

Article following from Carol Johnson in Inside Story regarding Australia ‘An intersection society no more?’ being lured or drawn back into some Anglosphere fantasy due to not just Anglo Celtic or ‘skip’ culture but how it’s been allowed to dominate in a diverse society through monocultural elites? 

“Australia turns its back on the twenty-first century, the century of Asia, for the jaded and faded Anglosphere.” (Paul Keating).

It is manifested in narratives, headlines and sound bites in media, society, business and community, while the stories and achievements of ‘immigrants’ and ‘non-skips’ have disappeared from public narratives, and urban centres are criticised for being overcrowded or ‘immigrant hell’?

This is neither organic nor coincidental, but an intentional strategy in cooperation with the media to create a ‘conservative’ voter block for the LNP and right wing fringe parties, especially in regions, why?  

For now, older population cohorts are white Anglo Irish heritage, ageing and inclined to vote conservative, more nominally ‘Christian’, less educated, declining (electoral roll populations) with youth departing regions, hence dog whistling of divisive proxy issues to spook the oldies (though most are at least partly dependent upon ‘Asian’ immigrant health medical care). 

This white nativist tactic of dog whistling focuses upon immigration, refugees, NOM net overseas migration and population growth, without credible evidence or research, supposedly causing e.g. unemployment, high property prices, load on infrastructure aka ‘carrying capacity’ etc. then blamed for wrecking the environment allowing fossil fuels to avoid scrutiny and potential constraints.  

However, it also hints at radical right libertarian socioeconomic influence by also dog whistling and white anting Labor governments, unions, universities, public service, science, education, minorities or ‘other’, women and future generations to avoid constraints of democracy, sensible regulation, informed and educated voters, plus taxes and government.

The former nativist tactics have been imported from the US via John Tanton Network linking through to and informing Sustainable Population Australia, ‘Australia’s best demographer’, media, unions, non science academics/researchers, Parliamentary committees, MPs and Ministers; ditto UK too.  

The deceased John Tanton was an admirer of the white Australia policy, described by NYT as ‘the most influential unknown man in America’, then by SPLC as ‘the racist founder and architect of the modern anti-immigration movement’, muse of Steve Bannon, groups informed the Trump White (and still inform media) had visited Australia and also described in the US as anti-semitic, anti-Catholic and proponent of ‘passive eugenics’.

This is related to Koch Network which has a strategy of implementing unpalatable socioeconomic policies, by the tactic of masking the same with Tanton’s nativism, cultural or faux environmental issue; aka Brexit. This is like Sustainable Population Australia viewing post 1970’s immigrants as an ‘environmental hygiene’ issue round population growth, to then avoid constraints on fossil fuels, auto and related industry.

Koch Network presence in Australia, via their global Atlas Network, is AIP the Australian Institute of Progress in Queensland, Taxpayers’ Alliance in Sydney, along with CIS Centre for Independent Studies and the infamous IPA Institute for Public Affairs in Melbourne who access media very easily to promote themselves with little if any scrutiny.

One assumes that underlying Howard’s tactics of spruiking the US led Anglosphere was not to simply differentiate himself from Keating and the ‘Asian Century’ but because he personally believed in it.  However, like others Australians involved with and promoting Brexit and/or Trump i.e. Abbott, Downer, NewsCorp/Murdoch, Crosby Textor, IEA (Koch think tank with then an Australian head) et al., Howard seems to look up to the UK and USA at the expense of other nations and Australia’s relationships with the Asian region especially and again masking their obsession over ‘western civilisation’.

However, demography will get them in the end as significant demographic change happens due to passing of the pre WWII oldies, then the post WWII baby boomer bubble followed by lower fertility but much diversity; Australian is not Anglo-Celtic but Eurasian.

From Inside Story:

An intersection society no more?

Australia’s retreat to the Anglosphere has implications beyond defence and trade

CAROL JOHNSON 4 OCTOBER 2021 

Not so long ago, many Australians hoped that Australia would be an intersection society linking East and West — an East not defined by China and a West not defined by the United States, although Australia hoped to play a role in reducing tensions between the two. We were to be an independent middle power, forging our own way in our region and the world, retaining old friends while strengthening relations with other powers in the region, including France, and with our Southeast Asian neighbours.

It was not to be. The creation of the AUKUS alliance shows we have been lured back into our old Anglosphere fold, prioritising relations with Britain and the United States.

Electoral considerations undoubtedly played a role. Having failed to protect us from Covid-19, Morrison is now banking on pledging to protect us from China. The Coalition has a long tradition of using fear of China to try to wedge Labor. Indeed, the 2019 election campaign showed signs that it was gearing up for an assault on Labor as too soft on China. As a result, the opposition has been treading very carefully in response to AUKUS, acknowledging legitimate fears about China while questioning aspects of the government’s approach.

The military and trade implications of the AUKUS alliance have been widely canvassed. Australians are rightly concerned about an increasingly authoritarian, assertive and aggressive China. But after the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Vietnam decades earlier, many Australians are also cautious about being too closely aligned with American military strategy. Polling suggests that most Australians want our country’s complex relationship with China to be managed carefully.

The trade implications don’t stop with our worsening relationship with China. They also involve France. Under the Turnbull government, France was to be not just a key defence ally but also a key friend in facilitating relations with the European Union now that a post-Brexit Britain could no longer play that role for us.

Nor should we forget the cultural and intellectual implications of this shift. Australia’s projected role as an intersection society involved a different conception of our national identity. The hope was that we could forge a more independent, multicultural and cosmopolitan identity while still valuing our links with Britain and the United States. It was a vision that seemed to be developing an element of bipartisan support, at least during Malcolm Turnbull’s moderate Liberal prime ministership.

But Scott Morrison (ably assisted by Peter Dutton) is increasingly sounding like John Howard–lite when it comes to issues of cultural and national identity. Howard repeatedly emphasised Australia’s Anglo-Celtic identity and its closeness to Britain and the United States, thereby distancing the Coalition from Labor’s more cosmopolitan and multicultural view under Paul Keating.

It’s true that the government’s defence policy has also embraced the Quad of India, Japan, Australia and the United States. But Morrison’s comments regarding India often depict it as an extension of the Anglosphere with common values, including a commitment to democracy and religious freedom. It’s a view that seems particularly inappropriate given prime minister Narendra Modi’s increasingly authoritarian, Hindu-nationalist India, and has echoes of John Howard’s somewhat banal highlighting of the two countries’ shared love of cricket and experience of British influence. Kevin Rudd, by contrast, had a much more nuanced understanding of India’s postcolonial history.

A shift towards the Anglosphere also has implications for our cultural institutions and academia, and not just because of the increasing scrutiny of university research on security grounds. Many academics hoped that Australia could become an intellectual intersection society — that our universities would draw on all that is best of the knowledge produced in European and North American universities and all that is best from the great universities of Asia. We argued that this would position us well in the changing geopolitics of knowledge that characterised the Asian Century and would position us differently from the European and North American universities with which we compete for international students.

Such a vision would have built on and transformed the initiatives of past governments, Labor as well as Coalition. After all, it was a Liberal foreign minister, Julie Bishop, who oversaw the development of the brilliant New Colombo Plan, whereby Australian students would be encouraged to study in Asia. Such intellectual exchanges seem far from the Morrison government’s priorities. Indeed, the Coalition has been accused of carrying out a culture war against universities, starving them of funding at a time when the pandemic’s impact on international student enrolments is wreaking havoc on their budgets.

For all these reasons, AUKUS signals more than a defence decision about submarines and sharing other technology. It also potentially signals a cultural shift that has major implications for Australia and its role in the world. We have to hope that Paul Keating is wrong when he claims that AUKUS marks the moment when “Australia turns its back on the twenty-first century, the century of Asia, for the jaded and faded Anglosphere.” Because that would not be a good move at all. 

Related articles and blogs on Australian society follow:

Anglosphere – Radical Right Libertarian Socioeconomics and Authoritarianism

Economic Research – No Negative Relationship with Immigration and Wages, Income or Employment

Population, Environment and White Nationalists in Australia – US Links

Eco-System of Libertarian Think Tanks and White Nativism in the Anglosphere

Collective Narcissism, Ageing Electorates, Pensioner Populism, White Nativism and Autocracy

Australian Brexit?

Nationalist Conservative Political Parties in the Anglosphere – Radical Right Libertarian Ideology and Populism for Votes