In the interests of a picture is worth a thousand words, the chart below from the ABS shows what the issue of migration is all about. There has been a sudden a massive increase in Net Overseas Migration (NOM) while the figures on natural increase have increased a smidgen. It is hard to say why this acceleration in net migration has happened, or what the implications are. But what cannot be denied is that it is happening and it is a worthy matter of national debate.
The reasons are as follows:
1. A change in the definition of migrant in 2006, in relation to duration of residence increased the count of migrants.
2. A decline in emigration.
3. An increase in Australians living overseas returning because of poor economic conditions overseas.
4. A surge in overseas student visa numbers.
5. A surge in 457 visa holders.
6. A smaller increase in permanent migrants through the Migration Program.
I agree that a debate is needed because there are clearly annual limits to the ability to absorb such large numbers of migrants, be they permanent or temporary. There is no point blaming state governments for not providing infrastructure/housing/public transport when the numbers were increasing so quickly.
Having said that, net overseas migration will fall away in the next few years as overseas students finish their courses and new students are deterred from coming because of the new arrangements, especially in relation to the new Skilled Occupation List.
Judith Sloan
27 Jul 10 at 10:21 am
“But what cannot be denied is that it is happening”.
Yes, that can be denied.
As Judith Sloan pointed out above, the definition of a migrant was changed in 2006.
The ABS warns: “Due to changes in the methods used to adjust NOM estimates, caution should be used comparing estimates over time.”
Matt C
27 Jul 10 at 11:12 am
If we are worried about over crowding a more relevant chart would be resident population versus time rather than it’s derivative.
TerjeP
27 Jul 10 at 12:58 pm
I’m puzzled why the libs want to slash foreign student numbers? Family reunion sure, but surely foregin students are ideal? We haven’t paid them a cent and get them as taxpayers from day 1 of their working life?
Steve Edney
27 Jul 10 at 4:39 pm
I agree Steve. It is madness. It’s not as if the Libs are beholden to unions. Foreign students are a cash cow and a source of cheap massage, cleaning services, and other service industries and they don’t even get to vote.
jtfsoon
27 Jul 10 at 4:44 pm
They are also a source of chatty cab drivers. Too chatty. Shut up and drive!
Peter Patton
27 Jul 10 at 4:47 pm
Immigration follows relative income changes and FDI follows realtive asset acquisition costs vis a vis the dollar.
We’re getting cheap labour as a reward for having policy good enough to get cheaper capital.
I don’t understand why we want to make ourselves poorer.
Overcrowding is an infrastrucutre problem. State Governments have been inept for corrupt for two decades or more – they can’t build and they won’t let anyone else.
.
27 Jul 10 at 6:34 pm
Anaother grand fail Steven. Perhaps you should read a little more deeply (or widely) before posting your next item.
FDB
27 Jul 10 at 6:54 pm
Why ‘a change in the definition of migrant in 2006, in relation to duration of residence increased the count of migrants’ should trigger a national debate is beyond me.
Net overseas migration is doing much the same as it has for ten years, we just changed the way we measure it.
Sam
11 Aug 10 at 2:20 pm