0%
Reports
The changes announced in April 2017 to the 457 visa program are far reaching and affect not only the temporary skilled work visa program but also successful permanent migration programs.
This report outlines the impacts the changes have had in a short-term period as well as the likely long-term implications.
For too long the economic contribution of migration to Australia has been significantly undervalued.
This report documents the first comprehensive analysis in almost a decade of the impact of migration on our key economic indicators and the verdict is conclusive: migration is central to Australia’s future prosperity.
Over the past decade, Australia’s migration program has evolved. It has transformed from a program to source labour into a tool which supplements our skill base and imports knowledge. It has become less permanent but more responsive; less centrally set and more demand driven. At the heart of this transformation is the growth of temporary skilled migration.
This report outlines this evolution and explores the attitudes of both visa holders and employers under the program.
The proportion of Australians born overseas is now at the highest point in 120 years.
Approximately 6.6 million people, or 28 per cent of our population is comprised of migrants. Indeed, since 2005-2006, migration has been the main driver of Australia’s population growth, contributing approximately 60 per cent to total growth. Migration is a significant player in our future national story and a critical factor underwriting our economic prospects.
This paper analyses the latest statistical information to gain an in-depth picture of how our migration program is performing. It provides an overview of the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of recent Australian immigrants and asks how our new arrivals are fairing in the labour market.
The analysis in this paper is based on newly released data from the Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS), namely the Australian Census and Migrants Integrated Dataset (ACMID). This new dataset allows for a detailed examination of recent permanent migrants by visa type and enables a comparison between two distinct periods of migration policy in Australia.
Over 50 per cent of lifetime income is determined by one factor: the country we live in (Milanovic 2012). When combined with the fact over 96 per cent of people live in the country they are born in, citizenship and the lottery of birth play a determinative role for earning capacity and well-being. However migration also creates opportunities for origin and destination countries. In this sense, there is a triple win: for the migrant, for the origin and for the destination.
Migration barriers are one of the largest structural costs for the global economy. For example, if five per cent of those living in the developing world moved to developed countries, the economy gains would exceed the gains from removing all remaining trade and capital barriers (Clemens 2011).
While the global community spends significant political capital on negotiating these trade barriers, there is very little focus on migration barriers. Leadership on this important topic is critical, particularly in Australia’s region. On immigration, Australia is generally a global outlier. 28 per cent of Australians were born overseas, well above the OECD average.
A generous migration framework has seen the Australian population expand from 7.3 million at the end of World War Two to over 23 million in 2015. This has brought people from all over the world, in some cases out of abject poverty.
But as a country, there are greater opportunities to help. For the past two decades, migration policy has prioritised those with skills or family already in Australia. As international students pay their own way, many are unable to migrate. Overall, this policy stance has been an economic boon for Australia and those migrants who have arrived. Due to this immigration policy framework, by 2050, migration will contribute $1.6 trillion to our economy and see labour participation improve by 15 per cent.
Yet there exists an opportunity to do more for those less fortunate by the lottery of birth. Skilled migration is not available to many who live in poorer countries. Family migration is too expensive. While skilled and family migration will rightly remain the bedrock of Australia’s immigration policy framework, the opportunity to be more inclusive of those isolated from increasing global mobility is important.
Migration is not zero-sum. There are opportunities where Australia, home countries and the migrants themselves can each benefit from the act of migration to Australia. Our close neighbours in the Pacific are not economic powerhouses. They are sparsely populated, geographically isolated and lack natural resources. These factors lock Pacific countries out of the global environment, hurting trade links and labour mobility. Australia has a responsibility to these countries, to help them and their citizens drive economic development. This is the rationale for much of our aid budget, seeking to prevent poverty in the Pacific.
Migration is an opportunity that can complement domestic efforts in Pacific countries to reduce poverty and foster human development. But for emigration to occur, migrants need a place to go, to work and to thrive. This short paper outlines a number of ways to increase Australia’s commitment to Pacific development by migration: Removing the barriers preventing a larger Seasonal Worker Program, new visa pathways for Pacific emigrants to Australia, and a formal target to reduce the cost of remittances.
Each of these proposals would help migrants, their country of origin while making a small contribution to the Australian economy, a rare ‘win-win-win’. Australia is uniquely placed to do more for the Pacific through migration. We already have a sophisticated migration framework, a culturally diverse population and labour demand in poorly populated areas. History also says migration will not hurt local workers but create opportunities.
People are the single most important factor for an innovative economy. As Prime Minister Turnbull said recently, “Our greatest asset is not the rocks under the ground but it’s the people that walk on top”. Knowledge and skills circulating through a network of people builds to a critical mass where innovation can prosper. Silicon Valley didn’t pop up overnight, it took 60 years to build. People were and continue to be the essential component. Immigration is not the first thing that springs to mind when considering innovation policy.
A university with a singular focus on technology and access to capital are often raised as the first priorities. Yet immigration acts to fill skills and knowledge gaps when the creation of new companies can occur with little more than a new idea.
Australia has a proud modern immigration history. Support for immigration is the highest in the developed world. Government discrimination has been banished, replaced by a skills‐based system generating unparalleled economic gain for Australia. Yet targeting innovation through Australian immigration has to date been difficult and subject to failure.
This in itself is not a bad thing. A willingness to experiment and see what works is positive for what can be a risk‐adverse and incremental policy environment. But it is increasingly clear: Australia’s current immigration innovation policies are not up to scratch. Migration is working on the whole but failing this critical part of the economy that has the potential to amplify growth.
The response from immigration to date has been too small. The one existing visa program is caught up on process instead of outcomes. Ideas are getting lost in administration. So while no immigration idea or policy by itself can create innovation, migration becomes a key component, complementing factors like access to finance.
This short paper provides a brief overview of existing approaches to migration and innovation and suggests three new ideas for Australian policy‐makers. They are: A pragmatic approach to startup sponsorship, a global approach for accelerators and incubators and supercharging the attraction of talent.
These ideas are designed to allow testing and modification as required for a dynamic environment where ideas can scale into opportunity. Migration policy itself can be innovative if we think big and take chances.
Reviews
Gendered dynamics in migration flows to Australia have evolved alongside policy in the last two decades. Australia’s policy concentration on highly skilled workers and family reunification represents a shift away from an historical focus on filling labour demand and has lead to an increase in the number of highly skilled migrants and women migrants in general. This migration trend is also evident amongst OECD countries, as female migration appears to be almost universally increasing and migration by gender is now more or less balanced. This is a departure from established trends of male dominated migration and reflects the rise in female education, changing economic structures, growing family reunification and selective migration policies.
Education and deskilling
Existing policy and immigration programmes in Australia are gender neutral in theory but discriminatory in effect. There is a need for gendered policy considerations that recognises the challenges women migrant workers face when settling in Australia. Addressing these issues can help to realise the great potential for economic contribution women migrant workers have.
by Annie Colquhoun
Australia’s history of migration is relevant across academic disciplines, and constitutes a large part of contemporary society. Given its relevance, there appears to be little undergraduate coursework offered at Australian universities concerning topics of migration. Migration is considered briefly in a variety of subjects, including economics and law, giving students an overview of its relevance to their field. Two universities offer Australian migration history courses, which provide a good example for other institutions. Further, there is an emphasis on global migration and movements within the field of international relations. There is a great capacity for universities to facilitate coursework centered upon Australian migration, increasing the conversation about migration at a university level.
By Nicole Sims
Research and literature exploring Australia’s diaspora communities have focused significantly on the differing waves of migration. However, much less attention has been provided to the cultural and social differences between these groups. The discrepancies between migrant communities and Australia’s general population have particular relevance in regard to several areas within the interest of Australia’s political policy. These areas include the ageing trend of migrant groups, their settlement within Australian society, and their religious identification.
Australia’s discretionary migration policies suggest that significant attention has been provided to the religious identification of migrants. The cohesiveness of diaspora communities within Australia is further jeopardised by the socio-economic burden imposed by ageing non-English speaking diaspora communities. Similar concerns arise regarding the concentration of such groups within suburban New South Wales and Victoria.
by Greg McLellan
THE MIGRATION ACT: SECTION 501 CHARACTER REQUIREMENTS AND NEW ZEALAND CITIZENS
by Ella Pyman November 2015
In 2014 the incidence of New Zealand citizens in Australian immigration detention centres was so irregular that they were listed under the “other” category. Yet by July of 2015 experts predicted that one in ten immigration detainees were New Zealanders, around 1,500 people currently, with an expected increase to 5,000 (Greg Barns, National President of Australian Lawyers Alliance). The recent changes to Australian immigration law, which prompted this demographic shift, did not explicitly discriminate against New Zealanders nor did they intend to. The operational bias has resulted from the fact that the Minister assessing their deportation can no longer consider their length of residency in Australia or family ties.
Legislative Changes from 1998
1998 Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Act 1998: Created a new power. The Immigration Minister was granted the power to consider the applicant’s character in assessing whether to grant a visa or cancel a valid entry permit (the ‘character test’). This included consideration of prison sentences totalling 12 months or more and associations with known criminals.
2011 Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test and Other Provisions) Act 2011 [Clarified that Minister’s power included considering concurrent sentences totalling 24 months or more regardless of the time and place in which they were served.]
2014 Migration Legislation Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014 [Minister’s powers under went a major change. Now the Minister must refuse entry or cancel a valid visa for any individuals who had served one term in prison totalling 12 months or a cumulative 24 months or more.]
Underlying Policy Considerations and Government Rationale
The stated policy intent underpinning the 2011 amendment was to punish and deter criminal behaviour of the kind seen in the Christmas Island Immigration Centre in March 2011 and the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre in April 2011. The clarification that cumulative prison sentences ought to be considered by the Minister was intended to maintain order within the detention centres, not to apply to individuals living within the community.
The Government, on the other hand, justified the major changes in 2014 on the basis that the character test ‘remained largely unchanged’ since 1998 despite dramatic changes in the length of stay and purposes of temporary visa holders. The 2013 Review of the Character and General Visa Cancellation Framework highlighted the issue that ‘there remained a small number of non-citizens who were not effectively and objectively being captured for ‘consideration’ under the character test as it then was. The ANU Migration Law Program notably commented that this logic may indeed justify expansion of the Minister’s power to consider the small group of individuals previously absent but it ‘did not in any way explain why there should be greater powers or greater ease to cancel’ all visas. Concluding that the legislative changes were ‘a case of a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut’.
Operational Bias against New Zealanders
The changes to Australian immigration law do not explicitly discriminate against New Zealand citizens. It has resulted from the fact that they are the largest category of people residing in Australia for extended periods on visas rather than as citizens.
New Zealand citizens residing in Australia are issued Special Category Visas (SCV). As such, New Zealanders fall within the Minster’s power to deport until they are granted citizenship status. Many people who were issued a SCV before 26 February 2001 have a pathway to citizenship. However due to legislative changes, SCV issued after 26 February 2001 do not have access to this exceptional pathway, rather they must satisfy the requirements of a separate visa such as spousal visa or skilled work. Estimates vary however up to 250,000 New Zealand citizens who live in Australia may be ineligible for Australian citizenship, as they do not qualify for a permanent visa.
Indeed this was the case prior to the 2014 changes. So why then did the change to mandatory deportation increase only after this most recent change? Informal ministerial directions relating to the character test previously allowed the minister to further consider: (a) Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; (b) The strength, duration and nature of the person’s ties to Australia; (c) The best interests of minor children in Australia.
But under the 2014 changes the Minister can no longer take any other matters into account, other than the length of the visa holder’s imprisonment.
For example, under the first directive, a minor offence such as petty theft, which may receive a 12month sentence in the heavy sentencing regimes of NSW and Queensland, would not be viewed as warranting deportation. Under the new legislation, however, the Minister cannot consider the seriousness of the crime, its violent nature and the overall threat the individual poses to the Australian community. Moreover, where the Minister is considering past offences they could previously take into account the individual’s personal development from their youthful days; having shown remorse and now living as an upright member of society. As such an individual having served 12 months for a minor offence would face deportation when they otherwise wouldn’t have.
The second directive was imported from the Senate Committee recommendations, which stated that the character test ‘should not be applied to people who arrived as minors and have stayed for more than ten years’. This highlights that the individual’s friends and family are predominantly located in Australia almost to the exclusion of ties in the country of citizenship, similar to the stories of many New Zealanders living in Australia. Secondly, there are instances where a New Zealand citizen has lived the vast majority of their life in Australia. The Australian Federal Court confirmed this interpretation in the case of Mr Nystrom, a Swedish citizen who had lived in Australia from 25 days old for 31 years. Justices Moore and Gyles argued that his conduct was ‘no worse than many of his age who have also lived as members of the Australian community all their lives but who happen to be citizens… it presumes that Australia can export its problems elsewhere.’ Such considerations, when raised in connection to the deportation of a New Zealander, generally were resolved in the favour of that applicant because many now have extensive community ties in Australia to the exclusion of ones in New Zealand. But under the 2014 changes these are no longer being considered.
The third directive placed greater emphasis on maintaining the integrity of the family unit. Many New Zealanders currently facing deportation have parented children who are Australian citizens by birth. The 2014 changes no longer require the Minister to consider the consequences for the children of deporting one of their primary care givers. Avoiding the break up of families is considered an international norm that ought to operate in all nations’ immigration policies (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights articles 3, 9 and 23). Justice Murphy of the High Court of Australia went as far as to say:
‘the break-up of families is generally regarded as inhumane and uncivilized. It was one of the worst aspects of slavery, and is a horrifying feature of literature about the American slave colonies and States, and the Queensland blackbirding and forced labour of “kanakas”’.
Nonetheless, the changes in 2014 no longer allow the best interests of minors to be considered.
The Spirit of Mateship
On Sunday 18 October 2015 Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull promised to speed up the appeals process for New Zealanders, noting that ‘Australia and New Zealand [relations] is like a love affair, for it to last you’ve got to put a lot of work into it’. Indeed his New Zealand counterpart, John Keys has been the most vocal critic of the policy arguing that ‘in the spirit of mateship, there should be some compassion shown’. It remains to be seen whether merely increasing the deportation process will meet these expectations.
References
ANU College of Law: Migration Law Program, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014, accessed 6 October 2015
Direction No. 55, made under section 499 of the Migration Act
Elibritt Karlsen, “Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test and Other Provisions) Bill 2011” Parliamentary Library: Bills Digest 143 (23 June 2011)
Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014
Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test and Other Provisions) Bill 2011
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Jane Norman, “Malcolm Turnbull Promises John Key he will speed up appeal for the New Zealanders facing Deportation” ABC News (18 October 2015) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-17/turnbull-promises-key-he-will-speed-up-nz-deportation-appeals/6862768 accessed 23 October 2015
Moira Coombs, “Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014” Parliamentary Library: Bills Digest 53 (25 November 2014)
Nystrom v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 12
Pochi v Macphee (1982) 151 CLR 101
Refugee Council of Australia, Submission to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014, accessed 6 October 2015
Review of the Character and General Visa Cancellation Framework
Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, Parliament of Australia, Administration and Operation of the Migration Act 1958 (2006) Recommendation 58
Over the last half‐century the languages spoken by migrants coming to Australia have changed. This increasing diversity reflects both adjustments to Australia’s migration policies and shifting patterns of migration across the world.
Using responses from the 2011 Australian Census, we can see when different languages began to arrive in Australia. The Australian Census data also shows the impact this has on the age of different language groups today, with implications for older Australians.
By John Casey
Australia is a country that has historically relied heavily upon migration as a means of both population and economic growth. However, for permanent migrants in any country it is necessary to determine their ability to integrate with their host community, in order to see how effective that country’s immigration policies actually are.
To this end, the study of second‐generation migrants provides a vital benchmark from which to construct a comprehensive image of the costs and benefits a state derives from its permanent immigration policies, as well as allowing policy analysts to see how easily migrants and their families are able to engage with their local communities and their host country’s labour market.
by Tom Culley
Australia’s population is diverse culturally and linguistically with 28.1% of the population being born overseas as at June 2014 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013‐14). This figure has increased in the last ten years by around 5% indicating on current trends, increasing diversity will continue into the future.
Differences in health outcomes between migrants and Australian born residents
Policy issues for migrant health
Ageing Migrant Population
by Lili Smith
Submissions
The Migration Council Australia is pleased to be able to provide a submission to the National Sports Plan.
Kind regards,
Carla Wilshire
CEO
Migration Council Australia
The Migration Council Australia is pleased to be able to provide a submission to the Australia‐China Joint Economic Report. The Migration Council Australia (MCA) is an independent, non‐partisan, not-for-profit body established to enhance the productive benefits of Australia’s migration and humanitarian programs.
MCA brings together corporate Australia and the community sector to provide a national voice to advocate for effective settlement and migration programs.
We believe that the success of the migration program is critical to Australia’s future prosperity. Managing migration policy and assisting new migrants and refugees to settle is an investment in the future of the Australian community, our economy and our prospective workforce.
Our aim is to promote greater understanding of migration and settlement and to foster the development of partnerships between corporate Australia, the community sector and Government.
The following submission provides background and a general overview of the migration trends from China to Australia. Today, China is amongst the top countries of immigration to Australia through a wide variety of different visa programs. While migration trends will ebb and flow, Chinese migrants to Australia look set to remain a mainstay of migration to Australia, contributing socially, culturally and economically.
Kind regards,
Henry Sherrell
Acting CEO
Migration Council Australia
The Migration Council Australia (MCA) is an independent, non-partisan, not- for-profit body established to enhance the productive benefits of Australia’s migration and humanitarian programs. The MCA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the components of the Chinese-Australian Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) that relate to immigration policy.
These include:
This submission is made in the context of significant community concern over the elements of ChAFTA that relate to labour mobility. It is our contention that many such concerns relate to the technical nature of migration related FTA provisions and a lack of understanding of the existing regulatory framework.
The MCA notes that migration related clauses have become a standardised element of free-trade agreements, reflecting the nexus of linkages between the movement of people and the flow of trade. Such clauses do not seek to prioritise migrants over Australian workers in the labour market, rather the emphasis is on cultural connections and skills transfer.
While the MCA has sought further clarification on several matters, there does not appear to be clauses in ChAFTA Chapter 10, the side letter on skills assessment and licensing or either Memorandum of Understanding that will prioritise potential Chinese migrants workers over Australian workers in the labour market. The following sections outline our understanding of the context and effect of the immigration related provisions.
Yours sincerely,
Carla Wilshire
CEO
Migration Council Australia
The MCA welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Migration Program 2013-14 consultation process. The Migration Program is one of Australia’s greatest modern policy successes.
The Migration Council Australia (MCA) is an independent, non-partisan, not-for-profit body established to enhance the productive benefits of Australia’s migration and humanitarian programs.
MCA brings together corporate Australia and the community sector to provide a national voice to advocate for effective settlement and migration programs. The MCA advocates policies that contribute to future social and economic success.
We believe that the success of the migration program is critical to Australia’s future prosperity. Assisting new migrants and refugees to settle is an investment in the future of the Australian community, our economy and our prospective workforce.
I ask the Department to give serious considerations to the following issues raised for the Migration Program.
Yours sincerely,
Carla Wilshire
CEO
Migration Council Australia
The Migration Council Australia is pleased to provide a submission for the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Australia’s Migration Intake.
Our submission reflects an ongoing commitment by the Migration Council Australia to advocate for improved migration and settlement policies.
The Migration Council Australia is an independent, non‐partisan, not-for-profit body established to enhance the productive benefits of Australia’s migration and humanitarian programs.
We would be happy to meet further with the Commission to expand on our submission.
Yours sincerely,
Carla Wilshire
CEO
Migration Council Australia
The Migration Council Australia is pleased to provide a submission for the inquiry on the ‘impact of Australia’s temporary work visa programs on the Australian labour market and on temporary work visa holders’ being undertaken by the Senate Education and Employment references committee.
Our submission reflects an ongoing commitment by the Migration Council Australia to advocate for improved migration and settlement policies and builders on previous reports and submissions, Also enclosed are copies of two of our recent reports, More Than Temporary: Australia’s 457 Visa Program and The Economic Impact of Migration.
We would be happy to appear before the committee if requested.
Yours sincerely,
Carla Wilshire
CEO
Migration Council Australia
The MCA would like to thank the Department for their invitation to submit and the helpful forum held in Canberra on 16 October 2014.
Given the timeframes associated with this discussion paper, the Migration Council Australia submission has not had the opportunity to present to the full board.
The Migration Council looks forward to participating in the next stage of this review process as indicated in the discussion paper.
Yours sincerely,
Carla Wilshire
CEO
Migration Council Australia
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to the Independent Review of Integrity in the Subclass 457 visa.
The Migration Council Australia (MCA) is an independent, non-partisan, not-for-profit body established to enhance the productive benefits of Australia’s migration and humanitarian programs.
MCA brings together corporate Australia and the community sector to provide a national voice to advocate for effective settlement and migration programs.
We believe that the success of the migration program is critical to Australia’s future prosperity. Assisting new migrants and refugees to settle is an investment in the future of the Australian community, our economy and our prospective workforce.
Our aim is to promote greater understanding of migration and settlement and to foster the development of partnerships between corporate Australia, the community sector and Government.
The attached submission builds on the evidence provided in person on the 19 March 2014.
Yours sincerely
Carla Wilshire
CEO
Migration Council Australia
