Australian Politics
Immigration is not the answer to our troubles
Immigration has been in the news lately as various submissions are released to the government-commissioned review, A Migration System for Australia’s Future. Unsurprisingly, most of them simply talk the book of the sponsoring body.
The submission of the Business Council of Australia, for example, calls for an even higher migrant intake (from 195,000 to 220,000) with future intakes set as a percentage of the population.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry wants streamlined pathways for temporary migrants to secure permanent residency.
The most depressing aspect of the submissions is the narrow perspective they take. In particular, there is a glaring failure to acknowledge that there are both costs and benefits associated with immigration and that not all the costs and benefits are economic or calculable.
It’s worth returning to first principles when thinking about an optimal immigration policy. The first is to recognise that a higher migrant intake will make the economy bigger but will not necessarily result in higher per capita income. In other words, being bigger is no guarantee of being wealthier. There is no convincing evidence that migration has boosted productivity.
The second important principle is that there are winners and losers when it comes to immigration. The biggest winners are the migrants themselves, a point demonstrated by the Productivity Commission. But owners of capital and workers with skills that are complementary to migrants are also beneficiaries. Workers whose skills are substitutes with migrant workers will often lose out.
Third, the supposed effect of immigration on the demographic profile of the population is very marginal, in part because migrants age themselves.
Those who advocate for higher migrant intakes because migration slows the ageing of the population also overlook the visa categories that permit the entry of older migrants such as the Parent and Investor Visa programs.
Fourth, it is only skilled migrants who generate estimated positive fiscal impacts, with family and humanitarian entrants associated with large budgetary drains. The idea that more migrants are needed so we can pay less tax is highly misleading because this depends critically on the migrants who are approved and what they do. The reality is that it is simply not possible to run a skilled migration program without a family stream; permanent migrants will always seek to be reunited with their family.
We also have to be careful about the definition of skill. Just because an applicant has a university qualification, even one obtained from an Australian institution, does not make that person skilled. Indeed, there is evidence, including from the work of demographer Bob Birrell, indicating that many independent skilled migrants do not work in skilled occupations.
Finally, many of the benefits and costs of migration are not captured by normal economic data. This is particularly the case with costs, which include congestion, crowded schools and hospitals and loss of cultural cohesion and urban amenity.
The notion that these costs can be completely offset by better infrastructure planning and implementation is naive and unrealistic. There is also the issue of the current spate of extreme cost overruns and the delayed completions of many infrastructure projects that would not have been required had the population been allowed to grow more slowly.
It’s worth outlining what has happened to immigration over the past several years. Needless to say, the pandemic significantly impacted both inflows and outflows of migrants for a period of time. Prior to that, net overseas migration (the difference between long-term inflows and outflows, both permanent and temporary) had been running at around 250,000 per year, making up some two-thirds of population growth. Most migrants headed to Melbourne, Sydney and the southeast corner of Queensland.
It is estimated that Australia’s population could be lower by close to one million because of the interruption of the pandemic. But here’s the thing: survey after survey has demonstrated that the majority of people do not support high migrant intakes and would be very happy with slower population growth. Neither the Coalition or Labor has shown any tendency to take into account public opinion on this matter.
Now the border restrictions have all been lifted, the surge in migration is gathering pace. There is a possibility that net overseas migration could reach 300,000 this year. The number of student visas being issued is at record levels, with students from India dominating the intake.
We know from research that a clear majority of students from India intend to stay in Australia. (Students from China are less likely to stay although the duration of their residence in Australia can often be close to a decade.)
In the meantime, international students form a significant part of the unskilled and semi-skilled workforce, particularly given the lifting of restrictions on their work rights. There is no doubt that the hospitality and retail sectors, in particular, welcome the return of this source of labour, easing the pressures many employers were under to lift wages.
More generally, the tight labour market, with unemployment at about 3.5 per cent, appears to support the case for a higher migrant intake, at least in the short term. Bear in mind that unemployment is a lagging indicator and it’s likely that the labour market will soften in the coming months as the impact of higher interest rates is felt. Note also the cripplingly tight rental housing market that underscores the poor timing of allowing in more migrants.
There is no doubt the current configuration of visa categories and the attached conditions is difficult to understand and carries high compliance costs, for applicants and employers. There have been unacceptable delays in the processing of visa applications, although this situation is improving.
The lists of skilled occupations that qualify should be ditched, in part because individual commissions and omissions make no sense but also because of the scope for gaming. The requirement for labour market testing – employers are required to see whether a position can be filled by a local – is also gamed. A cleaner approach is to insist on a minimum pay for temporary skilled migrants, in particular. Care needs to be taken, however, that employers don’t simply deduct inflated accommodation costs and other expenses to get around this requirement.
The bottom line is that the government should not lock in the current higher migrant intake, let alone increase it further. There is actually a strong case for returning to a lower figure – it was 160,000 under the Coalition – given the public’s preferences and the clear costs of immigration, including the current poor timing. Agreeing to the demands of employers and other beneficiaries (think universities and property developers, in particular) while ignoring the broader population who bear the external costs is not governing in the national interest.
**************************************************
Lawyers warn of ‘unintended consequences’ in birth certificate reforms
A Queensland plan making it easier for people to change sex on their birth certificates, or list none at all, could cause problems for courts and government departments, lawyers warn.
Transgender rights reforms from the Palaszczuck Labor government – certain to pass on the anticipated votes of ALP and Greens MPs – will drop reassignment surgery requirements for adults and children wanting to change the sex recorded on their birth certificates.
Parents will also have the option not to list any gender on their newborn’s documentation.
The Queensland Law Society broadly supports the policy, but has called for an audit of all state legislation and policies referring to “sex” or “gender”, to clarify rules.
In her submission to the bill, law society president Kara Thompson said people with no gender on their birth certificates could pose identification problems for courts and government departments.
“We seek further clarification on how verification of identity processes are to be managed in the absence of a sex descriptor appearing on a person’s birth certificate, where current procedures refer to ‘gender’,” she wrote.
Ms Thomson said police would also need clear guidance on rules requiring body searches, in cases where a person being searched has changed their birth certificate but “retains the anatomical capacity of a male”.
“Without further consideration of the distinction between the two concepts (sex and gender), especially as applied across the current Queensland statute book, there may be unintended consequences that flow from the implementation of the bill in its current form,” she said.
Tasmania became the first state to make gender optional on birth certificates in 2019.
NSW will soon be the only jurisdiction requiring people to undergo reassignment surgery before they can change birth certificates, after Queensland and Western Australia announced changes last month.
NSW Labor has not committed to law changes if it wins the March state election and the Liberal government did not respond to request for comment.
Reassignment surgery is not covered by Medicare, and can cost about $80,000.
In Queensland, children older than 16 will be able to legally self-identify as another sex, without parental consent, as long as they have a supporting statement from an adult who has known them for at least a year.
Those aged 12 to 15 will require their parents’ permission to change their birth certificate, but can apply to the courts if their parents do not support an application.
Queensland will not require a medical statement from a doctor or psychologist, which will be required in Western Australia and is already adopted in South Australia, the ACT and Northern Territory.
Sally Goldner, spokeswoman for LGBTIQ lobby group Just Equal, said reforms would reduce invasion of privacy and stress.
“NSW must introduce similar reforms as a matter of priority not only for the sake of better national consistency, but also for the benefit of many trans and gender-diverse people across NSW who are currently denied access to identity documentation which reflects who they are,” Ms Goldner said.
“The reform makes life fairer and easier for trans and gender- diverse people and reduces invasion of privacy and stress due not having to constantly ‘tell your story’ to total strangers.”
Critics say self-identification would impede on the right to privacy in female-only spaces such as toilets, change rooms and prisons. The Australian Christian Lobby says the bill is: “out-of-step with community expectations for parental rights and the safety of women”.
“This situation does not pass the ‘pub test’ and is viewed by many in the community as controversial and dangerous,” the lobby’s Queensland political director, Rob Norman, wrote in a submission.
“Queenslanders have every right to question the granting of access for biological males to female-only spaces, this is neither transphobic nor irrational.”
Ms Goldner said trans women accessed female spaces and services every day across Australia and had done so for many years. “I don’t understand why this is suddenly controversial,” she said.
“It has been almost a decade since the first jurisdiction in Australia removed the requirement for trans and gender-diverse people to have surgery to access updated birth certificates, with numerous other protections prior, and the sky hasn’t fallen in.”
Queensland Attorney-General Shannon Fentiman criticised groups who “will try to cloak their transphobia in the guise of women’s safety – making claims about trans women accessing women’s spaces, including change rooms or even domestic violence shelters”. “I want to be clear: there is no evidence, domestically or internationally, to support these outrageous claims,” she said.
“I note the Australian Psychological Society has warned against casting undue suspicion on an individual’s motives for stating a particular sex.”
Reforms were launched in a number of countries – including The Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Ireland – after a 2015 Council of Europe report called for easier procedures for birth certificate and passport changes.
By mid-year New Zealanders will be able to make a statutory declaration to change their birth certificates.
The UK government scrapped its own plans to change gender recognition laws in 2020, but Scotland last month introduced a self-identification model.
Transgender people in Scotland may need to apply to be legally recognised in England and Wales after the UK’s equalities minister announced a review of the list of countries whose gender certificates are recognised.
About half of US states do not require people to have reassignment surgery before amending their birth certificate.
********************************************************
The date of Australia Day would be protected by law, similar to Anzac Day or the design of the Australian flag, a Queensland MP says
The date of Australia Day would be protected by law, similar to Anzac Day or the design of the Australian flag, under a proposed private member’s Bill to be pushed this year.
First-term Queensland LNP MP Henry Pike has drafted the legislation, which would enshrine January 26 as the date of Australia Day and rule that it could only be changed by a national plebiscite.
Under the proposal, the plebiscite would also have to offer a choice for voters between January 26 and an alternative date.
Debate on Australia Day has heated up in recent years and Mr Pike said he wanted to prevent the date being changed because it was “fashionable”.
Advocates of changing the date say that celebration on January 26 is disrespectful to First Nations’ Australians, for whom the day represents disruption and dispossession of their culture, and call for a date all Australians can support.
The date of Anzac Day is protected in state legislation, the Anzac Day Act of 1995, and the Australian flag via the Flags Act of 1953.
Mr Pike said he was concerned the current or a future government could change the date of the Australia Day public holiday without public consultation because “it’s the fashionable thing to do”.
“Australia’s flag and Anzac Day are both protected in federal legislation, but Australia’s national day can be changed at the whim of the government of the day,” Mr Pike said.
“The current laws guarantee that our flag can’t be changed unless the people of Australia agree. We should have the same protection for our national day.
“It’s unhelpful having the same debate every 12 months.”
He said January 26 was the date “this continent was changed forever”. “We should look at what we’ve achieved since then and assess it for the good, the bad and the ugly,” Mr Pike said.
Anthony Albanese has repeatedly rejected calls to change Australia Day and said his government had no plans to change the date.
The Prime Minister has said the Voice to Parliament would be his big focus this year, with a referendum to be held later this year.
Mr Pike said it should be possible to debate both issues and intends to raise his private member’s Bill with the Coalition partyroom when parliament resumes next month.
He said he intended to introduce his proposed Bill to the House of Representatives later this year, but was realistic about its chance of success.
*******************************************************
Anything but Christianity! (Or mum and dad)
News that ‘Christmas and Easter will not be celebrated in some childcare centres under new inclusion guidelines’ is, quite extraordinary.
While the silly season is all but done, the decision by the Community Child Care Association is in full swing and would be laughable if it wasn’t so ridiculous.
It has been a slow train coming. But it has now arrived.
While it seeks to sideline Christmas, the same Association requests child care centres support other cultural or religious celebrations such as Ramadan, Diwali – and yes – Pride, which has become a religion of its own, it would seem.
Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar and is a holy time of prayer and fasting. Diwali is a five-day festival of light celebrated by Indians and the faiths of Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism.
Pride – well – that’s celebrated every day of the week and ensconced into every aspect of modern society, including favourable employment laws and social inclusion policies.
The Executive Director of Community Child Care Association of Victoria, Julie Price, is quoted in the Herald Sun on December 21, 2022, as saying: ‘If you have families who don’t celebrate Christmas, then maybe focusing on other celebrations is more inclusive.’
How is it that Ramadan is inclusive while Christmas is not? Or Diwali? The Association appears to be inferring that it is okay to celebrate any religious festival except those relating to Christianity.
Easter and Christmas are celebrations of the Christian faith, the faith that has born this modern nation and swaddled it into a first-world country. The cancel culture proponents clearly see Western Civilisation and Christianity as obstacles to their revisionist agenda.
One can only assume then, that staff at these childcare centres will not be taking a ‘Christmas’ break or an ‘Easter’ long weekend. It stands to reason that they will also not accept the double and triple penalty pay arrangements for working these Christian-based holidays, or Christmas gifts from parents.
Similarly, the Australia Day holiday should be disregarded by staff. One wonders why anyone would want to come to this apparently disrespectful country.
The inclusivity gurus at Community Child Care Association go further.
Not satisfied with dismantling and displacing the centrepiece cultural and religious celebrations of our nation, they also want to disrupt the core family structure.
They want communications to parents to be addressed ‘to families’, ‘guardians’, or ‘adults’. It’s in with generic terms – out with mum, dad, mothers, and fathers. In the hustle to disenfranchise the family, the clock must surely be ticking for the terms ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ and ‘grandmothers’ and ‘grandfathers’
The Community Child Care Association wants Father’s and Mother’s Days to be Special Person’s days.
It is all in the name of protecting or embracing the rights and circumstances of those children who may have only one parent, queer parents, non-English speaking parents, or no parents at all.
But even one parent is either a mother or a father. Queer parents are still mums and dads, or mums and mums, or dads and dads. Even a dad one day and a mother the next if their fluidity desires are valid.
And as for parents having to declare a pronoun for their child – is there no end to this nonsense?
In truth, these contortions of titles, language, and gender have nothing to do with the children.
At age two, three, four, or five, children don’t (or should not have to) even think about these things: there are holes to be dug, buckets to fill, and kites to fly. This is the stuff of a carefree childhood and of robust beginnings to life.
Childhoods should not be squashed by the unintelligible babble of adults about non-gendered or non-Christian motivations.
Yet the inversion of reality is in full flight: the noisy few control the mob while the socially silent become the playthings of a political agenda.
The fight against the family structure ignores the role that evolution has forged through the millennia, placing the family unit as a key component of survival and success.
During the Victorian state election, Premier Andrews promised many things, including the construction of 50 government kindergartens. Will these also conform to the anti-Christian and contorted name agenda criteria of the cancel culture Woke brigade?
Such diktats are done in the name of inclusivity. But it is exclusivity that they champion. They divide, not unite. They point out difference instead of saying ‘we’re all in this together’.
Struggle is not a story for one community alone to be used for the purchase of social benefits and manipulation, even the indoctrination of others.
The bulk of Australians are fair. They are caring. They don’t look for division. They value individuals without reference to Woke titles.
The slow woke train has definitely pulled up at the station, all huffy and puffy and horns tooting.
My suggestion is you hop off, change platforms, and catch the next one back home – if we’re allowed to call it that.
Perhaps a communal dwelling site would be a better term!
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/01/anything-but-christianity-or-mum-and-dad/
************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment