24 hours ago.
Updated 23 hours ago
The truth is the Home Affairs Minister is having a great deal of trouble ensuring that the target for the NOM of 245,000 this financial year is reached and 225,000 in subsequent years. Recall here that the NOM is the difference between long-term arrivals and long-term departures, where long-term is defined as at least 12 months in a 16-month period.
Changes to visa requirements can alter the number of arrivals, although they need to be quite radical to change the number to any significant degree. Hiking up visa fees, something the government has done, also can have a marginal effect on arrival numbers.
For those already in the country on temporary visas, however, the challenge is even greater as the scope for temporary visa holders, with the help of lightly regulated migration agents, to game the system to stay is considerable. The government needs to focus on both sides of the equation.
So let me help here and outline a series of sensible changes that will bring down the NOM while making sure immigration is beneficial for all of us and not just for sectional interests. It is important that the addition to the population flowing from immigration is reduced, and quickly. Not only is the pressure on housing and other resources unacceptable, the stress on social cohesion is also palpable.
Let me start with working holiday makers. Their number has exploded from 41,000 in mid-2022 to 237,000 earlier this year. This surge in numbers is principally the result of a special deal obtained by the British government, which enables British passport holders to secure three visas, each of one year’s duration. There are no requirements for them to undertake regional employment. The first obvious change is to reinstate the requirement for regional employment for all working holiday maker visa holders. Six months in a 12-month period would seem appropriate. British working holiday makers currently are working in bars in Bondi and driving Ubers in Melbourne, not picking fruit in the regions.
While the number of international student visas has levelled off in recent years, the total number is still excessive. Earlier this year, there were more than 600,000 student visa holders plus another 267,000 on graduate visas. This latter figure has more than doubled from the pre-Covid figure, with the number of secondary applicants rising more rapidly again.
There are several changes that can be made to the rules governing student visas that would cut the number of applicants as well as reduce the amount of gaming that goes on. Changes to enrolment – from a university course to a vocational course, for instance – would not be permitted, leading to cancellation of the visa. Any further visa application would need to be made offshore.
Only international students undertaking PhD level study would be allowed to bring partners and children. All other international students would have no right to attach secondary applicants to their visas. This would align Australia with several other countries that admit large numbers of international students.
There may be a case for abolishing graduate visas altogether. It is not unreasonable to expect international students to return to their home countries once they have finished their studies.
To be sure, there are some courses that require a subsequent year of internship or equivalent to qualify, so there may need to be some exceptions.
Bear in mind here that about one-third of international students undertake courses in commerce/business/management, double the proportion of local students. These courses generally do not require formal internships after graduation.
The number of skilled employment temporary residents also has exploded, with the most recent numbers recorded at 260,000. Employers can sponsor workers with skills on the skilled occupation list, with visa holders able to stay for at least four years.
The distinct impression is one of an unwillingness on the part of employers to train local workers, resorting instead to the easier option of importing already trained workers. The content of the list is difficult to understand, with more occupations simply being added over time. But it is telling that there is no accelerated pathway for imported construction workers given the clear shortage of tradies across the country. Increasing the minimum salary that migrant skilled workers must be paid also should be considered as a policy option.
Reducing the humanitarian intake to its long-term level of 13,750 a year is a sensible change. This would cut the intake from the current figure of 20,000 plus community-sponsored refugees. While this change was floated and then ruled out by the Albanese government, the sheer size of the fiscal drain associated with the refugee intake makes this a compelling adjustment. According to Treasury figures, those on humanitarian visas impose a lifetime fiscal cost of $367,000 each.
Restricting the number of new entrants is one thing; getting those on temporary visas to leave is another thing. Deducting New Zealanders who have a right to be here, there are about 2.3 million temporary visa holders living the country. Setting a target of the ratio of temporary visas to the population – 5 per cent, say – would be a good policy guide.
Australia is essentially seen as a soft touch, with temporary migrants able to legitimately string out their residence for well more than a decade. Why pay a people-smuggler when you can simply fly in? Illustrating this mess is the rapidly rising number of temporary migrants on bridging visas; the total number exceeded 400,000 this year.
There are several changes that would accelerate departures, including insisting on offshore application for visas, including for family and parents. Bridging visas would not be available to those waiting on a visa decision.
Making sure the administrative tribunal follows government policy prescriptions is also important but may require legislative change. Allowing a convicted failed asylum-seeker to stay in the country because of “visa stress” should simply not be permitted.
For all its talk, the Albanese government has done very little to fix the mess that the immigration system has become. The reluctance to offend the left of the party or take on the vested interests, including universities, parts of the business community, the states and some ethnic groups, has led to an increasingly shambolic system.
It’s a long way back to an orderly and controlled migration program that serves the national interest. Implementing the changes outlined above would be a good start.
Judith SloanContributing Economics Editor