Of late, there has been a lot of heated debate and controversies regarding the inflow of migrants, including the skilled ones, to Australia.

While the critics of the skilled visa plans claim that Oz does not require the alleged high number of the skilled migrants as they rob the local manpower of their jobs and exert pressure on the infrastructure, the supporters of the skilled visa programmes claim skilled migrants are an asset.

Since they boost the national economy and make Australia more competitive on the global map, any move to cut down their numbers, or restrict their flow into the country, would go against the nation’s interests. The move would also stifle & cripple the growth of the national economy, which otherwise is doing fine, thanks, to a certain extent, to the presence of the skilled migrants in the country, from across the world and in the required numbers.

Significantly, the issue has divided even the government and brought the detractors and supporters on the opposite sides of the fence. Now with a government report on the subject out, the debate has further intensified or so it seems, if we go by the research report being shared here under.

The report based on a joint research by Treasury and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) reportedly says that trained migrants are adding to the wealth of the nation and not living on welfare or snatching jobs from the local manpower, as claimed by some.
The research report quells fears related to the requirement to reduce immigration illustrating migration is proving useful for the nation’s coffers.

The research paper also reportedly quotes International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates revealing Oz’s migration scheme will add a maximum of 1% to annual average GDP growth between 2020 and 2050, with the reason being the same focuses on the trained migrants of the working age, which checks the economic effects of the Kangaroo Land’s ageing populace.

The release of the research paper comes in the midst of the heated debate inside the incumbent Turnbull Government on whether to decrease the levels of immigration from the present per annum upper limit of 190,000.

Few conservatives in the administration allegedly believe that reducing the level of immigration would pay rich dividends politically & revive the fortunes of the administration in the elections.

The ex-Australian Premier Tony Abbott has reportedly urged for a decrease in the levels of immigration to nearly 110,000, even as Peter Dutton, the Home Affairs Minister, has spoken about decreasing the rate by 20,000 with his cabinet equals.

However, Scott Morrison, the treasurer, has regularly warned against shrinking the level of immigration, to improve anxieties related to joblessness or stagnant salaries, underlining the economic gains of a scheme heavily skewed towards skilled movement. Malcolm Turnbull and Morrison have reportedly made it clear they would prefer migration to continue to be near its long-run average level.

Coming back to the Treasury and home affairs report, it states that immigration boosts the GDP per person as the focus on skilled migrants of working age assist to make the nation’s productivity better.

It adds that migrants deliver an economic dividend for Oz, thanks to the present policy settings which are titled in favor of the migrants of the working age who possess abilities to make contributions to the national economy.

In general, it claims that migrants are expected to contribute more to tax revenue. It adds that Canberra should be alert about kind of migrants it admits, which are categorized as skilled migrants, family reunion, humanitarian migrants, and skilled 457 temporary migrants.

It also says that the 2014-15 cohorts of the permanent migration scheme, the humanitarian scheme and the 457 temporary skilled visa plan are likely to contribute a net fiscal value of $9.7bn over five decades. While the financial effect of the permanent scheme and temporary 457 Visa plan for that cohort would be $12.4bn, the humanitarian scheme would cost $2.7bn.

Still, the research reportedly accepts that the high rates of population increase may play spoilsport and worsen pressure on infrastructure and accommodation, and lead to overcrowding.