Interesting analysis from Grattan Institute in Melbourne on how to improve Australia’s migration system, especially for temporary entrants.
However, although one agrees with the broad argument and sentiments, many assumptions and factors cited including the need to make more temporary residents permanent, would require raising, for now, the modest permanent cap, guaranteed to kick off a negative media campaign.
Further, one thinks it overestimates the desire for ‘temporary migrants’, caught under the ‘nebulous’ (Ian Dunt UK) NOM net overseas migration, to remain in Australia permanently after studies, travel, work etc.?
On high numbers of temporary residents in Australia it misses important dynamics including Covid, precluding departures and department budget or headcount cuts which significantly slowed immigration processing?
We have observed a generation of dog whistling all things immigration and population growth to the point where many Australians, including employers, view ‘immigrants’ and supposed ‘population growth’ as negatives to be avoided, or with antipathy?
House prices and/or rentals may not be related to ‘immigration, especially as no analysis exists apart from FIRE sector’s agitprop in media using PR factors as indicators of market health eg. ‘prices’ not ‘real value’, advertised ‘prices’, auction clearance rates, claims of ‘high immigration’ etc.; but now prices are dropping?
Capping temporary visas would be chaotic i.e. who decides, ignores multiple types and complexity of visa system, and Australian citizens also; nativists have argued for decades a strictly nativist ‘one person in, one person out’ border regime?
Warnings of employment perils for temporary migrants, but local employees share similar issues, i.e. non compliance of awards and conditions by employers, with support from unions?
Nominating a median level salary threshold for any skilled entrant ignores the need for unskilled employment gaps to be filled too?
At least this starts asking some questions and challenges long held assumptions on the benefits, or not, of immigration to Australia. By coincidence Euractiv published an article titled ‘Sisyphus’ skills shortage’ that challenges the fixed or ‘steady state’ view of employment, insights include:
‘In politics, it’s normal to think about jobs as if there were a fixed amount of potential jobs that society should aim to fill. In this mindset, labour force shortages are half-empty glasses that we need to fill.
The danger of looking at labour markets in such a way is that there is always a danger of overflowing, in which new water pushes out the water already in the glass. This is the picture politicians have in mind when they warn that migrants might steal the jobs of locals.
However, the picture is not only dangerous – it is also wrong. An economy is not static, as a glass of water, an economy is dynamic…
…Companies and governments should do all they can to invest in getting the skills they need, be it through educational programmes, making it easier for women to take part in the labour force, or through labour-friendly immigration systems, even if it is a Sisyphean task.
Labourforce shortages are a sign of a thriving economy, skills shortages point to an innovative economy. Only in a depression is there no skills shortage.
Or, as French philosopher Albert Camus put it: “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”’
The Conversation article excerpts from ‘How to improve the migration system for the good of temporary migrants – and Australia’ (Published: February 27, 2023)
‘The biggest review of Australia’s migration system in decades is due to be delivered to the federal government.
Commissioned by the Albanese government last September, its task is to identify reforms that will increase economic productivity, address challenges such as an ageing population, and make Australia a more desirable destination for highly skilled migrants.’
But perhaps its thorniest job is how to provide temporary migrants with clear pathways to permanent residency and citizenship. This won’t be easy, given how much the number of temporary migrants in Australia now outstrips the permanent visas on offer.
It’s impossible to run an uncapped temporary migration program with a capped permanent program and offer all long-term temporary visa holders a road to permanent residency.
Something has to give.’
No, as temporary entrants or residents, described as migrants is incorrect, as most are international students, and understand that long term permanence requires an application for migration, which comes under the permanent cap; many are content being temporary residents but baulk at permanent.
‘Simple arithmetic: demand exceeds supply’
No, as temporary entrants or residents under the NOM net overseas migration, being described as migrants is incorrect, as most are international students who understand that long term permanence requires an application for migration, which comes under the permanent cap (they understand this system better than Australians).
‘This is far in excess of the cap on permanent visas offered. In 2019, the Morrison government reduced the cap from 190,000 to 160,000 places a year. The Albanese government raised it to 195,000 for the 2022-23 financial year. It remains to be seen what will happen in future years.
The queue is getting longer
Not all temporary visa-holders want to stay in Australia, but many do. Most migrants are already in Australia on a temporary visa when they receive their permanent visa.
But with a greater number of temporary residents vying for permanent residency, the wait times are rising, and migrants’ prospects of success are declining.’
Contestable as temporary migration is a solution used as ‘churnover’ of ‘net financial budget contributors’ (not staying long term nor accessing social security later), slow or no processing may be ideologically driven e.g. cutting department head counts or costs and creating uncertainty for applicants i.e. ‘hostile environment’ with suboptimal employment conditions, while Covid helped in backing up both applications and temporary residents onshore.
‘Many employers are reluctant to hire international graduates on temporary visas, instead hiring applicants who already have permanent residency. This helps explain why a quarter of recent graduates (on temporary graduate visas) are either unemployed or not looking for work. Most that do work earn no more than working holiday-makers, despite being more qualified.’
Much of this confusion can be blamed on local and imported nativist agitprop inspired by the original US fossil fueled Malthusian ZPG Zero Population Growth movement viewing (locally), post 1970s ‘immigrants’ as an environmental ‘hygiene’ issue and foil to demands for carbon pricing and transition to renewable sources; most media in Australia unwittingly reflect or even encourage similar attitudes of antipathy towards immigrants.
‘What to do about it?
Offering a permanent visa to every long-term temporary migrant who wants one would require an enormous, and unpopular, increase in Australia’s permanent intake.
Even a smaller, more realistic, increase in the permanent intake would come with costs – notably more expensive housing.’
On housing, there is little compelling evidence or analysis when house prices are falling, even more so in real terms, while most real estate data are PR factors?
‘Capping temporary visas would reduce pressure on already-rising rents. But it would also make it harder for some employers and mean fewer international students paying fees to universities.’
Create chaos through more bureaucracy being applied to foreign entrants i.e. takes decision making of education institutions out of their hands, plus individual students, backpackers etc. and requires an entry approval system a la nativists’ ‘one in one out’; increasing hurdles for everyone including Australians if too many want to return in a short time?
‘So what should we do?
We should continue to give priority to younger, skilled migrants for permanent visas. Pathways to permanent residency should not be automatic nor based on how long temporary migrants have been in Australia. A guaranteed pathway to permanent residency in Australia will only encourage more people to come here on temporary visas, and those already here to stay even longer.
We should also avoid creating new temporary visa programs for less skilled workers in areas such as agriculture or the care economy, because they only add to demand for more permanent visas down the track.
We must acknowledge that not all temporary migrants can stay in Australia, even if they want to.’
Fair, but why is it about doing something about migrants versus ensuring coverage and compliance of employee wages and conditions by employers, with unions, regulators, peak employer groups and local councils for both locals and migrants?
‘Change the selection criteria
The current policy grants permanent skilled work visas on the basis of occupation. This should change to whether migrants can earn a good wage – demonstrated by a sponsoring employer being willing to pay them at least A$85,000 a year.
Another reform would be to allow temporary skilled migrants to work in any occupation, provided they earn more than A$70,000 a year, so they can build their skills and careers in Australia before securing permanent residency.’
Why the arbitrary near median salary threshold when there is a need not only for highly skilled temporary immigrants, but also low skilled below median salary, as our demographic decline does not discriminate between skilled and unskilled occupations and employees, nor does mortality?
‘Creating a better system for points-tested visas – which is how many students secure permanent residency – would also help. The current system encourages migrants to gain points through spending thousands of dollars on low-value courses, or by moving to regional areas where there are fewer job opportunities.
Instead, there should be a single points-tested visa, where points are only allocated for characteristics that point to a migrants’ future success in Australia.
The aim of the migration system should be to create clearer pathways to permanent residency in Australia. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who wants to stay can do so.’
For more related articles on Ageing democracy, Australian immigration news, Demography, Economics, International Student, NOM Net Overseas Migration, Political Strategy and Younger Generations click through or read below:
Economic Research – No Negative Relationship with Immigration and Wages, Income or Employment
Immigration Immigrants and Public Misconceptions
Immigration is not Cause of Unemployment
Immigration Population Growth Decline NOM Net Overseas Migration
Population Pyramids, Economics, Ageing, Pensions, Demography and Misunderstanding Data Sets
International Education – Experience of Students and Stakeholders
Education Training Society 