Australia should cut PR Visas

[Guest The Pom Queen]

AUSTRALIA should cut its permanent migrant intake by at least half to protect local jobs, a veteran population ­expert says. 

The federal government will today release its planned 2017-18 migrant intake in the Budget, just weeks after its crackdown on the controversial 457 visa program amid concern about jobseekers.

Dr Bob Birrell said if the government was serious about protecting Australian jobs, it should also slash its skilled ­migrant numbers.

“The permanent program is annually delivering some 60,000 principal applicants compared with 45,000 in the 457 (temporary) program,” he said.

“Of those 60,000 permanents, the largest occupations are computer professionals with about 10,000 arrivals, 6300 accountants and 6800 engineers.”

Dr Birrell, who heads the Australian Population Research Institute, said Australians were struggling to get jobs in the aforementioned fields — with an average 30 ­applicants for each position.

“If the government was ­serious about its professed concern for Australian job seekers, you’d expect this to be reflected in the permanent program,” he said.

Last year, the program processed 189,770 people, including 128,550 skilled applicants and their families and 57,400 family reunion places. The vast majority were spouses or partners of Australian citizens.

Dr Birrell said that should be cut by at least half given the current economic climate.

But he said he was sceptical there would be any reduction at all.

“It’s a good test of whether there’s any real interest in local jobs, or that immigration is serving other goals like ­increasing the number of consumers,” he said.

Dr Birrell, who has turned 80, made his mark as a social researcher over decades as a top demographer at Monash University.

He coedited the influential university journal, People and Place, for 18 years and contributed to a key study into skilled migration by the Howard government.

Dr Birrell is also a member of the state Coalition’s Victorian Population Taskforce.

[AJ]

Absolutely should happen with skilled visas as well.  If there is no skill shortage the numbers should be decreased, theres no point bringing thousands more over to be unemployed.

[Guest]

All PR? So if someone falls in love and marries (or defacto) with an Aussie they shouldn't be allowed to move to live and work with them (and associated family if applicable) in Australia?

[Parley]

There is also the suggestion to stop all welfare payments to non citizens.

Currently welfare payments like Newstart and Disability Payments are paid to residents as the qualifying criteria.

It was something like 170000 British citizens living here that the Government is paying welfare to.

Other nationalities too but British by far the highest group we are paying welfare to.

 

In fact we are paying out $15B a year to foreigners in welfare payments.

Ridiculous when we have so much debt and deficit.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/foreigners-living-in-australia-get-15-billion-a-year-in-welfare-payments-2017-5

Edited May 8, 2017 by Parley

[Sandgroper]

I work in the IT industry and don't believe there is any shortage whatsoever in that area, I have recently taken on a new desktop support officer and had over 200 applicants. Every taxi I seem to get in is driven by an Indian IT graduate, surely the skills shortage list should be very fluid and reviewed every month with roles being removed/added as as needed.

[Guest263228]

14 hours ago, Ozzie said:

All PR? So if someone falls in love and marries (or defacto) with an Aussie they shouldn't be allowed to move to live and work with them (and associated family if applicable) in Australia?

I'm trying to think of how many 'marriages of convenience' I have come across over the years. Even advised it to people on odd occasions. Hardly confined to Australia either. Some scrutiny certainly needs to be undertaken. Automatic PR, at least in times of economic strife, cannot  and should not be given out like candy floss.

[Guest263228]

1 hour ago, Sandgroper said:

I work in the IT industry and don't believe there is any shortage whatsoever in that area, I have recently taken on a new desktop support officer and had over 200 applicants. Every taxi I seem to get in is driven by an Indian IT graduate, surely the skills shortage list should be very fluid and reviewed every month with roles being removed/added as as needed.

This has been ascertained years ago but the influx was allowed. Hardly only the IT area either. Business wanted greater competition and less working conditions.

[Toots]

2 minutes ago, Pura Vida said:

I'm trying to think of how many 'marriages of convenience' I have come across over the years. Even advised it to people on odd occasions. Hardly confined to Australia either. Some scrutiny certainly needs to be undertaken. Automatic PR, at least in times of economic strife, cannot  and should not be given out like candy floss.

We knew a man in Sydney who had over a number of years married and divorced 3 women from China.  All marriages of convenience.

[starlight7]

I think citizenship should be an absolute requirement for receiving Centrelink payments with the exception of emergency medical matters. There are many who just haven't bothered taking out citizenship even though they have lived here for years and years and to me that means a lack of commitment ,especially now dual citizenship is allowed.

[welljock]

22 minutes ago, starlight7 said:

I think citizenship should be an absolute requirement for receiving Centrelink payments with the exception of emergency medical matters. There are many who just haven't bothered taking out citizenship even though they have lived here for years and years and to me that means a lack of commitment ,especially now dual citizenship is allowed.

Fair enough if it's only citizens who pay tax

[Parley]

It is not okay to come over here and receive welfare for decades courtesy of Australian taxpayer.

If you want all the benefits of living in Australia then become an Australian citizen or go home.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Pura Vida said:

I'm trying to think of how many 'marriages of convenience' I have come across over the years. Even advised it to people on odd occasions. Hardly confined to Australia either. Some scrutiny certainly needs to be undertaken. Automatic PR, at least in times of economic strife, cannot  and should not be given out like candy floss.

So because of a few bad apples those in Aussie vs other nationality marriages should suffer? It's not easy to obtain a spousal visa and a huge amount of information is required / many intrusive checks are undertaken. I know, we've just been through this ourselves. I don't understand how simply marrying or forming a life with an Australian should mean the spouse should mean their family living in limbo land. If you've submitted the correct documents, undertaken all the police, medical etc. checks, you are thoroughly investigated and are approved that should be that. I say people moving to work, contribute to society, pay taxes etc. should be a very welcome thing. Especially after paying nearly $7,000 and investing life savings for the privilege.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

7 hours ago, welljock said:

Fair enough if it's only citizens who pay tax

Absolutely agree

[Parley]

4 minutes ago, Ozzie said:

Absolutely agree

You obviously would agree if you are a foreigner here receiving welfare from Australia.

Hardly an unbiased opinion

[Guest263228]

11 minutes ago, Ozzie said:

So because of a few bad apples those in Aussie vs other nationality marriages should suffer? It's not easy to obtain a spousal visa and a huge amount of information is required / many intrusive checks are undertaken. I know, we've just been through this ourselves. I don't understand how simply marrying or forming a life with an Australian should mean the spouse should mean their family living in limbo land. If you've submitted the correct documents, undertaken all the police, medical etc. checks, you are thoroughly investigated and are approved that should be that. I say people moving to work, contribute to society, pay taxes etc. should be a very welcome thing. Especially after paying nearly $7,000 and investing life savings for the privilege.

I have experience first hand as well. It can indeed be a little trying no doubt. Still easy enough to' get around' if so determined enough to remain. May well be 'harder' than previous years, as hardly look closely into that particular visa these days. You may consider yourself fortunate that Australia does not base the visa on the earnings of sponsor as does UK. Rather mean some may well say. But to restate. I have known a considerable number of 'dummy' liaisons over the years. Including gay people wedding straights in order to obtain a Green Card in USA.  Including East Europeans wedding UK students in order to obtain Leave To Remain in UK. And in Australia, well simply to remain.

That does not suggest people moving to 'better themselves'  other than a proper relationship status, should have any preference purely because they may pay tax. They will just as likely seek child benefit entitlements and compete for low/moderate skilled jobs. As you may be aware the migration process is all part of the business of relieving people of their earnings. A closer look at whom is entering, even if forced by public outcry, can surely only be welcomed?

[Guest263228]

8 hours ago, welljock said:

Fair enough if it's only citizens who pay tax

One may assume the earnings taxed on is higher than what one earns in normal country of residence? Hardly fair then.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Pura Vida said:

I have experience first hand as well. It can indeed be a little trying no doubt. Still easy enough to' get around' if so determined enough to remain. May well be 'harder' than previous years, as hardly look closely into that particular visa these days. You may consider yourself fortunate that Australia does not base the visa on the earnings of sponsor as does UK. Rather mean some may well say. But to restate. I have known a considerable number of 'dummy' liaisons over the years. Including gay people wedding straights in order to obtain a Green Card in USA.  Including East Europeans wedding UK students in order to obtain Leave To Remain in UK. And in Australia, well simply to remain.

That does not suggest people moving to 'better themselves'  other than a proper relationship status, should have any preference purely because they may pay tax. They will just as likely seek child benefit entitlements and compete for low/moderate skilled jobs. As you may be aware the migration process is all part of the business of relieving people of their earnings. A closer look at whom is entering, even if forced by public outcry, can surely only be welcomed?

What did the authorities do when you reported all these cases you know of?

[lbooth]

Australian Industry Group Submission to the 2017-18 Federal Budget

52

8. Annual Skilled Migration Program

The whole Australian community benefits significantly from a well-planned program of permanent

migration which includes skilled, humanitarian and family entry streams. In 2016 the Productivity

Commission (PC) formally reviewed Australia’s migration program (April 2016). It found that both

the level and the composition of migration matter. The greatest benefits to the community come

from younger, highly skilled migrants. In the long-term, the PC found that the current immigration

program delivers a ‘demographic dividend’ which will raise output and incomes for everyone:

“Continuing [Net Overseas Migration] NOM at the long term historical average rate [of 0.6%

of the population] and assuming the same young age profile asthe current intake is projected

to increase GDP per person by around 7 per cent (equivalent to around $7000 per person in

2013 14 dollars) in 2060 relative to a zero NOM scenario. Increasing or decreasing the level

of NOM from this rate is projected to have a corresponding impact on GDP per person, all

other factors equal.

The results reinforce the importance of age and skills in the migrant intake. Increasing the

average age structure of NOM to reflect that of the Australian population is projected to

reduce real GDP per person, while increasing the share of migrants entering in higher skilled

occupations is projected to lead to an expansion in real GDP per person.” (PC, p. 15).

Ai Group strongly supports the Productivity Commission finding that Australia’s permanent

migration program should strengthen its focus on skilled migration. Skilled migrants generate the

greatest benefits to the Australian community, since they contribute directly to our national

employment and skills base. Many also bring specialist knowledge that provide even bigger benefits,

by deepening our entrepreneurship, innovation and international linkages. Those that enter via the

‘demand-driven’ streams such as employer sponsored migration experience a better skills match

and faster entry to the labour market - therefore utilising more of their skills more quickly on arrival

in Australia – than those who arrive independently and seek work after arrival.

Department of Employment projections (updated in February 2016) indicate that over the next few

years to 2020, close to one million new jobs (989,700 jobs or 8.3% growth) are likely to be added to

the Australian economy, with about half of this future jobs growth coming from three of the largest

services industries: professional services, education and healthcare. This implies both workforce

growth and further industrial restructuring. It illustrates the scale of the challenges and

opportunities before us and suggests a commensurately larger policy response is required.

As noted by the PC, in the absence of a national population policy, the annual migration program is

an important policy lever for the Government in meeting these ongoing labour force needs,

especially as the population ages. This presents a compelling argument for lifting the annual

migration intake to 210,000 in 2017-18 from the current cap of 190,000. Indeed, in the Federal

Budget for 2016-17 (May 2016), Australia’s total Migration Program Planning levels were kept

unchanged for a fifth consecutive year, at 190,000 places. Within this total, skilled migration has

remained capped at around 128,000 visas per year. Consequently, permanent skilled migration has

not kept pace with growth in the Australian population or in the Australian workforce.

Australian Industry Group Submission to the 2017-18 Federal Budget

53

Recommendations

 The annual permanent migration planning level should be lifted to 210,000 per year in 2017-

18 and beyond, from the current maximum cap of 190,000; and

 Stronger priority should be given to the skilled migration stream within the permanent

migration program and especially to the demand-driven components of skilled migration.

https://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Consultations and Reviews/Consultations/2016/2017 PreBudget submissions/Submissions/PDF/Australian Industry Group.ashx

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Parley said:

You obviously would agree if you are a foreigner here receiving welfare from Australia.

Hardly an unbiased opinion

Oh my goodness @Parley how embarrassing for you. I am neither! Geez, talk about making an ass of yourself (assume)

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Toots said:

We knew a man in Sydney who had over a number of years married and divorced 3 women from China.  All marriages of convenience.

What did the authorities do when you reported him?

[Toots]

7 hours ago, Ozzie said:

What did the authorities do when you reported him?

I did tell a friend who worked in the immigration office near Circular Quay (Sydney) and she more or less just shrugged.  This was about 20 years ago.  She said it was happening all the time.  The saddest were the circumstances when men of Middle Eastern appearance and of middle age would front up at immigration with their pregnant teenage bride.  They had gone back to Lebanon or the Yemen to find a young bride, made sure they were pregnant then wanted everything sorted out so the young bride could stay in Australia.  I'm hoping things are far stricter nowadays. 

 

[Guest263228]

21 hours ago, starlight7 said:

I think citizenship should be an absolute requirement for receiving Centrelink payments with the exception of emergency medical matters. There are many who just haven't bothered taking out citizenship even though they have lived here for years and years and to me that means a lack of commitment ,especially now dual citizenship is allowed.

Does it really matter? Some don't do for the reason they will lose citizenship of country of origin. Just how does it infer commitment when so many just 'hang out' for a passport, (just in case) and then leave?

If anything citizenship should be made longer before an application can be lodged. Seven or ten years might be a better way of sorting out just who is 'committed'.

[Guest263228]

10 hours ago, lbooth said:

Australian Industry Group Submission to the 2017-18 Federal Budget

52

8. Annual Skilled Migration Program

The whole Australian community benefits significantly from a well-planned program of permanent

migration which includes skilled, humanitarian and family entry streams. In 2016 the Productivity

Commission (PC) formally reviewed Australia’s migration program (April 2016). It found that both

the level and the composition of migration matter. The greatest benefits to the community come

from younger, highly skilled migrants. In the long-term, the PC found that the current immigration

program delivers a ‘demographic dividend’ which will raise output and incomes for everyone:

“Continuing [Net Overseas Migration] NOM at the long term historical average rate [of 0.6%

of the population] and assuming the same young age profile asthe current intake is projected

to increase GDP per person by around 7 per cent (equivalent to around $7000 per person in

2013 14 dollars) in 2060 relative to a zero NOM scenario. Increasing or decreasing the level

of NOM from this rate is projected to have a corresponding impact on GDP per person, all

other factors equal.

The results reinforce the importance of age and skills in the migrant intake. Increasing the

average age structure of NOM to reflect that of the Australian population is projected to

reduce real GDP per person, while increasing the share of migrants entering in higher skilled

occupations is projected to lead to an expansion in real GDP per person.” (PC, p. 15).

Ai Group strongly supports the Productivity Commission finding that Australia’s permanent

migration program should strengthen its focus on skilled migration. Skilled migrants generate the

greatest benefits to the Australian community, since they contribute directly to our national

employment and skills base. Many also bring specialist knowledge that provide even bigger benefits,

by deepening our entrepreneurship, innovation and international linkages. Those that enter via the

‘demand-driven’ streams such as employer sponsored migration experience a better skills match

and faster entry to the labour market - therefore utilising more of their skills more quickly on arrival

in Australia – than those who arrive independently and seek work after arrival.

Department of Employment projections (updated in February 2016) indicate that over the next few

years to 2020, close to one million new jobs (989,700 jobs or 8.3% growth) are likely to be added to

the Australian economy, with about half of this future jobs growth coming from three of the largest

services industries: professional services, education and healthcare. This implies both workforce

growth and further industrial restructuring. It illustrates the scale of the challenges and

opportunities before us and suggests a commensurately larger policy response is required.

As noted by the PC, in the absence of a national population policy, the annual migration program is

an important policy lever for the Government in meeting these ongoing labour force needs,

especially as the population ages. This presents a compelling argument for lifting the annual

migration intake to 210,000 in 2017-18 from the current cap of 190,000. Indeed, in the Federal

Budget for 2016-17 (May 2016), Australia’s total Migration Program Planning levels were kept

unchanged for a fifth consecutive year, at 190,000 places. Within this total, skilled migration has

remained capped at around 128,000 visas per year. Consequently, permanent skilled migration has

not kept pace with growth in the Australian population or in the Australian workforce.

Australian Industry Group Submission to the 2017-18 Federal Budget

53

Recommendations

 The annual permanent migration planning level should be lifted to 210,000 per year in 2017-

18 and beyond, from the current maximum cap of 190,000; and

 Stronger priority should be given to the skilled migration stream within the permanent

migration program and especially to the demand-driven components of skilled migration.

https://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Consultations and Reviews/Consultations/2016/2017 PreBudget submissions/Submissions/PDF/Australian Industry Group.ashx

Hardly a non biased report though is it? There is no justifications for increasing migration numbers in the present climate. Even the Federal Government has gone against (U Turn) and questioning high temporally migration levels (often with the view to becoming permanent) There are stronger arguments to lower migration intakes to more normal levels or less.

[Guest263228]

12 hours ago, Ozzie said:

What did the authorities do when you reported all these cases you know of?

As if, as I think you well know the answer to that. What is being pointed out is the widespread abuse in response to your post on 'people falling in love' visa's being so deserving. Well up to a point. Hardly a carte blanche though to remain unchallenged....

[Toots]

10 minutes ago, Pura Vida said:

Does it really matter? Some don't do for the reason they will lose citizenship of country of origin. Just how does it infer commitment when so many just 'hang out' for a passport, (just in case) and then leave?

If anything citizenship should be made longer before an application can be lodged. Seven or ten years might be a better way of sorting out just who is 'committed'.

That would piss a lot of people right off - the ones who hang around to get citizenship then scarper I mean.