Lately, there has been a lot of hue and cry over the alleged flooding of Australia by migrants. It has been claimed that they overcrowd the top Australian cities; increase housing rates across the nation, especially in the major cities; and do not actually make the contributions for which they are allowed in the country and given a suitable base.
Some detractors of Australia Immigration have even gone to the extent of saying that many of the so-called skilled workers of the overseas allowed entry should not be allowed given Oz already has the required number of the local skilled workers.
But how far these allegations are true and not over the top claims made with an agenda? If we go by what some well-known Australian critics have to say on the subject, it would appear these allegations have a solid base, but if we go by the observations and claims of some of the supporters of immigration it would seem that most of the allegations are unfounded and have no base.
Let’s figure what the supporters and unbiased observers have to say on the subject!
As the demands for reducing Australian immigration becomes deafening, the figures employed to attack the skilled workers scheme get rubbishy, ranging from dubious statistical concepts and oversights to the purely silly.
In the previous class, one is questionably overstating the yearly Net Overseas Migration (NOM) by close-to 20%, they reportedly assert.
And in the latter, there’s allegedly the question “Do any of us really want to live in a city of eight million people?” Self-evidently, eight million people would, just as five million people wish to reside in Sydney presently, 14 million wish to reside in London, and 20 million wish to stay in New York.
While some critics would like to set Sydney in jelly, keep it as the sleepier town of the yore, the world has moved on with the busier, buzzier 21st century city.
While the chorus blaming immigration for all society’s problems balloons, specific figures are employed to suit the reason, while a little viewpoint and the benefits Oz has gained from strong overseas movement are deliberately overlooked.
A quick instance is the continuous repetition of the “record high immigration” saying by the critics. If one goes by absolute figures the yearly 190,000 permanent visas in addition to humanitarian cases is the highest Oz has done, as was the 250,100 NOM for the year to the end of September. However, if one talks in percentage terms – a superior guide to the professed effect of migration on the ground – Down Under is nowhere near the same.
The nation’s 250,100 NOM (the extras on top of permanent & humanitarian visas typically being international students on provisional visas trailed by 457 impermanent employees) was for a nation of 24.7 million – 1%. In 1950, a little Australia of 8.2 million had NOM of 153,685 – 1.9%. That 1950 NOM would have included valuable limited provisional migrants. The rate of permanent movement was 200% of what it is at present.
More recently, to regard the total population growth that so worries the detractors, the nation’s resident population jump averaged 1.6% per annum over the 5 years to 2016, higher than the 1.4% the nation averaged over the two decades to 2016, but lower vis-à-vis the 1.8% over the preceding 5 years. Oz managed 1.6% once more last year – and hence on an 11-year view, the population rise of Down Under has decelerated.
What’s more, it’s debatable that NOM is overstated by nearly 20%, the champions of Australia immigration reportedly add.
A migrant turning-up in the nation adds one to the Australian NOM total. In case he finally decides to go back, it’s a deduction from NOM. However, in case that migrant “leaves” Oz by dying here in, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) counts the death as a subtraction from the Australian “natural” population increase.
In 2016, 50,664 overseas-born individuals breathed their last in Oz. Not more than 339 of them were typically residents overseas, and hence an extra 50,325 migrants left the nation than are counted in the NOM. In case one removes the migrants leaving in pine boxes from the “natural” number, and take in them in NOM, the NOM and natural are approximately level pegging, instead of the 63% to 37% split that contributes an exaggerated optic to the anti-migration depiction.
Truths against Opinions
That’s a big picture argument about insights. There’s much more to discussion about in the various migration details.
For instance, a constant detractor of the Australian immigration scheme has had another crack at the skilled migration scheme which accounts for 130,000 of the nation’s yearly 190,000 non-humanitarian permanent visas. He alleges that the scheme is not required and that the recruiters would hardly notice in case it was scrapped, that it includes skills that are not in short supply and that most non-English-speaking experts end up not offering their services as specialists.
Agreed, there are some issues with the list of skills in the scheme, but his core attack using census numbers on the non-English-speaking professionals has been deflated by a former Immigration Department deputy secretary, the immigration observers reportedly continue.
As per the secretary, high-level census statistics is a poor tool for coming to conclusions regarding the efficiency of skilled migration visa classes. Many people who put ‘skilled’ in response to a census question may have gained admission into the nation under many situations, including through the humanitarian scheme, the family stream, or as secondary candidates in the skill category.