Statistics show Australia doesn’t need these migrants

AUSTRALIANS are being fed a “myth” about immigration and one expert says he has the damning statistics to prove it.

AUSTRALIA’S immigration program has been slammed by an expert, who says it is not really aimed at addressing skills shortages.

Population expert Bob Birrell, a former Monash University professor and now head of the Australian Population Research Institute, has released new analysis on the skilled migration program that confirms many can’t find jobs.

Mr Birrell points out that supporters of high immigration levels often spruik the role of migrants in delivering scarce skills. But he found the idea that the program was attracting migrants with in-demand skills was “a myth”.

“Only a small proportion of recently-arrived migrant professionals are actually employed in professional positions,” Mr Birrell’s report Australia’s Skilled Migration Program: Scarce Skills Not Required said.

He said the selection system did not prioritise occupations with skill shortages and so many professionals entering Australia were trained in fields that are currently oversupplied.

This includes accounting, engineering and many health professional fields.

Mr Birrell said the Skills Occupations List introduced in 2010 to target professions experiencing a “national shortage”, had gradually been watered down and then scrapped altogether in 2016.

He believes the list was axed because of the pressure to maintain a high immigration program after the mining boom slowdown. Recently, Treasurer Scott Morrison said calls to reduce immigration could cost the Budget $1 billion a year.

“From the Treasury’s point of view, low growth (that is without the population boost) means a slowdown in tax revenues,” the report suggests.

“It will make it even harder for the government to rein in the budget deficit.”

Adding to the pressure was the fall in overseas students due to a tougher university selection system introduced in 2011.

“Around half of all overseas students enrol in business and commerce courses, where most do the required accounting courses needed to attain the credentials to apply as an accountant or auditor for a Skill Stream visa,” the report said.

“Many others do engineering courses. Should such occupations have become ineligible it would have dampened future enrolments.”

So instead of being guided by genuine skills shortages, immigration is now allowed via the Medium and Long-term Strategic Skill List aimed at attracting occupations that could experience a future skill shortage. This does not address current skills needs.

“To the extent that the current program does deliver any scarce skills this is an accidental rather than a planned outcome,” the report says.

Mr Birrell questions the effectiveness of looking to fill future shortages as young Australians could be encouraged to train in these areas instead.

“Australia is awash with graduates from both domestic and migrant sources,” the paper notes.

“Demand for graduates may grow, but so too will supply.”

Governments, educational authorities and innovation advocates are already encouraging young Australians to enter university, particularly in STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) disciplines, and the recent deregulation of university enrolments will also ensure a growing supply of graduates.

Mr Birrell has analysed census results to identify whether professionals moving to Australia to fill skills shortages are actually getting jobs, and the answer is, in many cases they’re not.

Census 2016 results showed just 24 per cent of educated migrants aged 25 to 34 years old from non-English-speaking countries arriving between 2011 and 2016, were able to find professional level jobs by 2016. Five per cent had found managerial jobs.

This compares with 50 per cent of those from mainly English-speaking countries who managed to get professional jobs and an extra 13 per cent in managerial jobs.

Young people born in Australia had the best prospects, with 58 per cent in professional jobs and 10 per cent in managerial jobs.

But despite the poor job prospects, Mr Birrell said people still wanted to live in Australia.

“The reason is that there is a huge pool of professionals in Asia who would like to move to a country with Australia’s salary levels and quality of life,” the report said.

“There is also an expanding number of Asian graduates from Australian university courses who want to convert their qualification into a permanent entry visa. Many of these professionals are not put off by Australia’s soft labour market in some professions.”

While Mr Birrell noted that there were caps on the number of visas that can be issued to each occupation, he said these numbers were so high they had little impact, except in the case of accountants.

Overall, he said Australia’s skilled program was being driven by migrant demand, not the country’s needs.

“Most recently arrived skilled migrants cannot find professional jobs,” the report said.  “The Skill Stream program is deeply flawed.”

SOURCE






Calls for Aboriginal adoption laws to be relaxed evoke anger

But the angry comments did not actually refer to what was proposed

SUNRISE is facing a backlash after a discussion on taking Aboriginal children out of abusive family environments sparked accusations of “blatant racism” and “bottom feeding”.

The controversial chat on the Channel 7 breakfast show came after children’s minister David Gillespie’s proposal white families should be able to adopt indigenous children to save them from rape, assault and neglect.

Currently, they can only be placed with relatives or other Aboriginal families or with other families as a last resort.

Sunrise host Samantha Armytage said: “Post-Stolen Generation, there’s been a huge move to leave Aboriginal children where they are, even if they’re being neglected in their own families.”

 Panellist Prue MacSween said removing the kids was a “no-brainer” and that there was a “conspiracy of silence and fabricated PC outlook that it’s better to leave them in this dangerous environment.”

MacSween, who was previously criticised for saying Yassmin Abdel-Magied should be run over, added: “Don’t worry about the people who decry and handwring and say, this will be another Stolen Generation.

“Just like the first Stolen Generation, where a lot of children were taken because it was for their wellbeing, we need to do it again, perhaps.”

Brisbane radio host Ben Davis said Mr Gillespie’s proposal was simply spelling out “what a lot of politicians are afraid to say.”

Davis said doubts over taking this step were “politically correct nonsense” and claimed Aboriginal leader Warren Mundine had called it “madness”.

“We need to be protecting kids, we need to be protecting Aboriginal kids and putting them back into that culture, what culture are they growing up seeing?” asked Davis. “Well, they’re getting abused, they’re getting hurt and they’re getting damaged.”

Armytage wrapped up the segment by saying, “let’s hope some sense prevails there.”

But social media users were disturbed by the discussion, with the chat attracting a stream of comments calling it “paternalistic racist BS”, “vile” and “a new low”.

Some viewers claimed the panellists were advocating “forced assimilation” without looking at other solutions such as better foster care or support from family case workers.

Angelo Angeli tweeted: “Sorry to inform you that the 1st of April is over two weeks away.”

Many viewers asked why there were no indigenous voices on the panel.

James Dean, an Aboriginal ABC Alice Springs reporter, wrote: “I see the horrible conditions some of these kids live in. But the suggestion that ONLY white families should take them, is a terrible inference that suddenly EVERY Aboriginal family is bad.

“Also the reference at the end it the video that Warren Mundine supports the idea, incorrect as well, Mundine does not support white families taking in abused Aboriginal children, he agrees with the consensus that these children need to be removed from these abusive environments.”

A spokesperson for Seven told Fairfax Media: “Editorial opinions, either written or articulated are a vital part of journalism.

“At all times on Sunrise, respect for others and their values and opinions is a foundation principle in debates.

“The issue raised by the page one article in today’s newspapers around the country warranted a discussion in a fair and reasonable forum, as undertaken by social commentators Prue MacSween and Ben Davis.”

SOURCE






Conservatives are everywhere

Another completely dense article from Janet Albrechtsen, this time on Where have all the conservatives gone? Her first half sentence: “It is premature to read the last rites to Australian conservatism”. As if she’d know. Oddly, just the other day this same issue came up in a letter I was writing, in which I wrote in reply to someone else:

    “Conservative” is not a list of policies but a state of mind that values the past and wishes to preserve what we have learned by heart so that it can be passed on to future generations. Border protection is the single most conservative policy of the present day. Lose on that, and everything else disappears. Zero tariffs is not a “conservative” policy in any sense I can think of.

So here is Janet going on about the same thing, but with hardly a sense of what that elusive thing called conservatism is. I will come to the comments in a minute, but first will take you to her last para:

    Just as Ronald Reagan was once described as an optimist in a party that had acquired a habit of pessimism, Australian conservatives need a good dose of optimism before they can man up for a long battle over ideas that still matter today.

Missing entirely in her empty screed is mention of Donald Trump, the most conservative political leader of the past thirty years anywhere in the world, and a living example of what a conservative looks like and does. And then these, from the top down, in comments on her article at The Oz.
Mandy6 hours ago

For a prime ministership cut short by Turnbull, the Labor way, Abbott’s legacy is impressive :

stopping the boats, beginning budget repair (getting regulations & spending down), completing beneficial trade deals with Japan, South Korea and China, scrapping the mining and carbon taxes, agreeing to a second Sydney airport, ending wasteful corporate welfare, reducing the public service by 12,000, and abolishing hundreds of unnecessary government boards and agencies.

And, he has said he’s sorry for reneging on the pledge to repeal 18C. He’s acknowledged the wall of opposition he faced at the time – within the parliament and the lobby groups outside of it.He’s said he’s sorry for reneging, what more do you want?

Cultural leadership, no other contemporary parliamentarian can top this -Abbott’s memorable speech, self-penned, for the 2015 dawn service at Gallipoli.  A snippet, “So much has changed in one hundred years but not the things that really matter.  Duty, selflessness, moral courage: always these remain the mark of a decent human being. They did their duty; now, let us do ours.They gave us an example; now, let us be worthy of it. They were as good as they could be in their time; now, let us be as good as we can be in ours”.

And he’s still providing leadership to this day.From the backbench.Raising the parliamentary bar with contributions via interviews, self penned newspaper articles and speeches such as the Sydney Institute speech on immigration levels (and energy) and his “Daring to Doubt” speech for Global Warming Policy Foundation in London. And the toxic Turnbull and his Team’s reaction to Abbott speaking the truth? They attempt to shoot-the-messenger Abbott, because as Richo has noted, many resent the man they have already knifed, Tony Abbott, because he dares to demonstrate, day after day after day, that the man they chose to replace him as prime minister is a political dud.

SOURCE






Coalition backbenchers urge end to solar subsidies

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg faces a backbench revolt with pressure building to end subsidies for solar panels.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott is demanding action after revelations that the subsidies could cost consumers more than $1 billion this year.

Mr Abbott led a chorus of ­Coalition backbenchers urging the government to end the small-scale renewable energy scheme, with Liberal MP Craig Kelly declaring the policy was more economically damaging than the Rudd government’s home insulation scheme.

“The cost to the economy in dollars is far greater than what the (home insulation) scheme was,” Mr Kelly said.

The scheme was also criticised by Grattan Institute director Tony Wood because it did not reduce subsidies to solar panels as they ­became more affordable.

Mr Abbott cited a report in The Australian that revealed the big increase of solar panels could drive up costs by $100 per household.

“Australians are paying far too much for our emissions obsession. Government must end subsidies for new renewables,” Mr Abbott said yesterday.

Nationals senator John Williams said the policy forced struggling families to subsidise rich people’s solar installations. “Renewable energy is good in that it is renewable and it goes on forever,” Senator Williams said.

“However, the subsidies they cost us is enormous, renewable ­energy should be made to stand on its own two feet. We’ve got all the users of electricity paying for this.’’

Queensland senator Ian MacDonald said the small-scale ­renewable energy scheme pushed up electricity prices but did nothing to reduce climate change. “Nothing we do in Australia will make any difference, we could open up new mines, new power stations it would not make one iota of a difference to what they say is climate change,” he said.

“I think we should be at least making renewable energy compete on a different basis with other forms of energy and that means phasing out subsidies for an ­expensive form of power.”

The small-scale renewable scheme, which is unaffected by the proposed National Energy Guarantee, gives financial incentives for homes and small businesses to install solar panels or hydro systems on their property.

Certificates, worth a maximum of $40, are provided for each megawatt hour of renewable electricity that would be created from a solar panel until the scheme ends in 2030. Electricity retailers are ­required to buy the certificates, passing the cost on to consumers.

Industry analysis obtained by The Australian showed the subsidy was expected to more than double from $500 million last year.

Mr Kelly, chairman of the ­Coalition backbench committee for energy and the environment, said the government should halve the maximum certificate price to $20, followed by another ­halving in its value next year ­before it is phased out a decade early in 2020.

Mr Wood, from the Grattan ­Institute, said the problem with the renewable energy target was that it did not have any “self-correcting mechanism”.

“The idea the subsidy stays in place regardless of what happens to the thing you are subsidising is asking for a problem in the long term,” he said.

“If people continue to put in more small-scale solar the retailers, more or less, are forced to support it with a price that is capped at $40 MWh.

“That means that, despite the cost of solar coming down dramatically, there is nothing that means that subsidy comes down with it, and that business in effect becomes more profitable.”

SOURCE





Shoe brand cops heat on social media for “ridiculous sexualisation”



A SOCIAL media campaign for a Melbourne shoe company has sparked outrage online, with one labelling the advertisement as “ridiculous sexualisation”.

Preston Zly Design, which launched in North Fitzroy in 1995, sells handmade shoes designed by artists Johanna Preston and Petr Zly.

The shoes, which are available in store in Melbourne as well as online, uploaded a montage of designs to their Instagram, which featured an array of boots, heels and wedged shoes.

But some social media users were quick to critique the campaign, which features an almost naked woman wearing the brightly coloured shoes.

“Why does the model have to take her pants off to sell shoes? one person questioned.

“Lisa Little lovely shoes. Shame about the ridiculous sexualisation,” another added.

Designer Johanna Preston hit back at the criticism, defending the photographs as simply showing off the shoes to consumers.

“We are not clothing designers — it’s all about the shoes here,” she wrote on Facebook.

“She [model] is not naked and is not doing anything sexual. Have we come to a place now where the female body is completely taboo?”

SOURCE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here