Immigration levels and composition are emotive and clouded by vested interests—political, corporate and personal.
Family-reunion applicants have an understandable personal interest. Retailers, banks, and wholesalers gain from more customers, builders from more houses. Political parties may favour migrants from certain regions or skill levels for electoral advantage. These interests must be set aside. Past immigration must also be set aside. While it enriched Australia, past results do not guarantee future ones.
The sole test should be whether policy raises living standards, measured in GDP per capita, for Australian citizens.
Decisions should follow the same logic used by households and company executives: define medium- to long-term objectives, assess risks and opportunities, then act. The government has not published clear national objectives or a plan, leaving the question of immigration levels and composition without a coherent framework. That is not sensible.
We need to consider Australia’s current position and the future that awaits it. As regards the former, Australia has run fiscal deficits for most of the past two decades and debt is rising. Accepting large numbers of migrants who add to net fiscal costs is foolhardy.
As regards Australia’s foreseeable future, significant economic headwinds are forming, pointing to a probable shortage of jobs. Rapid advances in AI and robotics threaten large-scale job losses in both blue- and white-collar occupations; any offsetting opportunities in Australia remain uncertain. Higher global interest rates risk more business failures and unemployment, reducing tax revenue while raising welfare costs. Softening demand from major economies for Australia’s key exports—coal, iron ore and gas—may force mining firms to cut production and employment. Under these conditions, high-volume immigration is reckless.
Given the prospect of large-scale job losses, policy must be redesigned to accept applicants who will establish or expand businesses that employ significant numbers of Australians and reject applicants more likely to require ongoing government financial support. And an entrepreneur planning a firm that will hire 200 local workers should, for example, not be refused merely because a numerical quota has been filled.
The guiding rule is simple and decisive: design immigration to favour those who will employ many Australians and to exclude those more likely to draw on public resources. That approach best protects and improves the living standards of Australian citizens in a period of probable job shortages.
There are times to be courageous. This is not one of them. This is the time for caution, for tightening financial belts. Our survival may depend on it.
Note: Since this is a discussion of permanent immigration, seasonal workers, backpackers and international students were not covered. Although permanent, political refugees are a distinct category – so were also not covered, suffice to say that Australia should continue accepting political refugees and ensure proper support for assimilation of them and their children. Failure here has too often led to children of refugees joining criminal gangs or falling under organised crime.