What We Do...

Leadership

Innovation

Team Coaching

Sports Coaching

Executive Coaching

Mediation

Change Management

Article

Immigration: Populate and/or Perish

29-10-2009

IMMIGRATION:POPULATE AND/OR PERISH!

Immigration has a long and checkered history in our vast island nation. Recent events concerning asylum seekers have brought this whole issue into sharp focus. Previous incidents (the Tampa Affair, Children Overboard) became a focus during an acrimonious election campaign. Clearly people have strong feelings one way or the other regarding immigration generally and arrivals of so-called “illegal immigrants”. Many of these seek asylum in our country.

Greg Sheridan writing in the Australian Newspaper (24th October 2009) described how French politicians looked to the Australian model of immigration when confronting their own problems. The relevant French minister (Francis Etienne) described major concerns that various European countries have with Muslim immigration (mainly from Turkey, Maghreb, Sub-Saharan Africa and Iraq). He described how the children of these illegal immigrants grew up in France with parents who did not speak the local language. As a result the children did poorly at school and were more likely to be unemployed and involved in crime at a later stage. In the context of recent terrorist activities in the UK and Europe there was also concern that a minority of this Muslim population might pose a security threat. Borders are generally much more difficult to control in Europe especially given the much freer movement between countries which has resulted from the European Union.

The French viewed Australia as a country which has, in many respects, got it right with regard to immigration. Etienne assessed that here are approximately 15 million Muslims living in EU countries at present.

Australia has some obvious advantages when is comes to immigration. The first is that we are an island and a single nation. The second is that we have a significant experience of immigration which has varied at different stages of our history. Indeed, immigration has been the foundation of our recent (and not so recent) history.

The first human inhabitants of our country arrived some 40-45,000 years ago. This was at a time when the increase in the polar ice cap had dropped ocean levels by 100-150 meters. As a result, an effective land and island bridge existed between southern Asia and the Australian Continent.

Fast forward by 40,000 years or so to 1788 when the first penal colony was established in Sydney Cove. At that time in human history travel from the UK to the United States was much cheaper than the long journey to Australia. By the 1840’s it was necessary to use government money from land sales to subsidise migrant travel to Australia. 1851 was the beginning of the gold rush and saw an influx of mainly British and Irish immigrants. There were also small numbers of Europeans and Chinese. Racial discrimination against Chinese people made it an unattractive prospect for them to stay on.

The advent of Federation in 1901 saw the decision to no longer use government money to subsidise immigration. The feeling then was that this was effectively providing unfair competition for jobs. The Immigration Restriction Act occurred soon after 1901 and it effectively restricted non-white settlement. Under pressure from the British Government this was not specifically stated in the relevant statute. However, a “dictation test” was a necessary requirement for entering the country. Prospective immigrants could be tested in any language chosen by the relevant immigration officer. This effectively put a barrier on immigration to people of non-Caucasian backgrounds.

The arrival of the Great Depression prompted the then Governor General to cease immigration of all kinds. From 1938 approximately 5,000 Jewish families emigrated from Germany, in the context of the rise of the Nazi Government there.

After World War 11 the general thought about immigration centered around the notion of “populate of perish”. This was a response to the threat of Japanese invasion during World War 11. Priority was given to residents of British Commonwealth countries. Over 1 million British subjects emigrated to Australia in this context. Their travel was subsidised (the so-called “ten pound Poms”). Later large numbers of persons emigrated from the Netherlands and Italy. The two criteria were that people should be of sound health and under the age of 45 years. The so-called “White Australia Policy” was in full swing with preference given to persons of Caucasian background.

By 1970 the demand for immigration outweighed the perceived need so that subsidised immigration was abolished. The past 15 years have seen a further surge to immigration to this country. The main groups have been skilled immigrants and those involved in family reunion. In 1992-93 there were 30,000 immigrants. By 2006-07 there were 177,000. Despite concerns voiced by the Howard Government about illegal immigrants, there has been a significant overall increase in immigration on their watch. This continued under the Rudd Government and it was planned that 300,000 immigrants would arrive in 2008-09. However this figure was cut by 14% due to the global financial crisis.

In 2006 24% of residents in Australia were born outside the country (4.9 million). The top 4 countries of origin were UK, New Zealand, China and Italy. In his article in the Australian Greg Sheridan addresses the issue of illegal immigrants. He makes the point that there have been 80 disruptions of potentially illegal immigrations in Indonesia. These concerned approximately 1500 people. He says that another 2000 more have arrived during the past 12 months. This system of disrupting illegal immigrations in Indonesia is dependent to a large degree upon goodwill with the Indonesian Government and the expertise of the Australian Federal Police. He makes the point that effective border control in this manner gives a clear negative message to potential illegal immigrants.

During a recent radio interview the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, said that he “believes in a big Australia”. He stated that he was in favour of a population increase for security reasons. He did not state a projected maximum population for the country however.

In my opinion this whole debate about the potential for over-population has not been given enough air. The vast majority of Australians live on the eastern seaboard and this narrow strip of the continent has finite resources. The green lobby is concerned that people moving from low greenhouse gas production lifestyles will effectively increase greenhouse gas production as a result of living a different lifestyle. The UN is not of the opinion that immigration has a significant adverse effect upon global greenhouse gas emissions.

New arrivals to the country have to be housed somewhere. They tend to settle in cities. The productivity commission recently investigated the increase in housing prices generally. They found that increase in house process was largely driven by higher aspirations of persons buying houses rather than by demand exceeding supply. They also commented on the increased demand for rental accommodation by the large numbers of overseas students in Australia.

Employment has been a concern for many. Trade Unions are concerned that large numbers of skilled workers from overseas would accept lower pay than local people. The Productivity Commission has demonstrated that this is in fact not the case. One area of labour supply which has a shortfall is that of unskilled labour, especially in the farming industry. This was addressed recently by allowing significant numbers of Polynesian workers to be given short term working visas.

Australia faces a so-called “demographic crisis”, with the baby boomer generation now entering their mid to late 60’s. This ageing population presents a double challenge. After they retire they are no longer generating taxation income. As they age they become expensive to care for by the community. Most immigrants are under the age of 45. The Productivity Commission estimated that the arrival of 80,000 migrants reduces the proportion of Australians over 65 years by 3.1%. This has a significant positive affect upon the economic variables associated with an ageing population. From an overall economic perspective, the consumption by the families of immigrants and the positive affect for business of this far outweighs any potential adverse affects of competition for work.

What emerges from this discussion is that there are two prominent issues. The first concerns the arrival on our shores of people who have gone outside the legal process. This has generated emotive debate. The polarisation of views rests between two perspectives. The first is the need to protect our borders as all costs. The second is the concern for a compassionate way of dealing with other human beings in genuine distress. The election results in 2001 in some ways indicated that Australians favour secure borders over humanitarian concerns. The bigger question in my view is that of immigration numbers in general. Without a clear plan for where the population in Australia is actually going in the longer term, any decisions regarding immigration numbers will be ad hoc eg. the 14% reduction in the face of the global financial crisis. Clear consensus on an issue as complex as this would be difficult. However failure to address the problem might well result in impossible dilemmas for further generations.

Latest Articles

19-02-2010
Death in the Luge in Vancouver - Is This a Symptom of Something Else?

22-01-2010
Erwin Rommel - Lessons for Leadership and Management in the 21st Century

09-12-2009
Christmas Business

05-11-2009
Functional Foods, Fads or Pharmacy by Another Name

29-10-2009
Immigration: Populate and/or Perish

Work Fit Analysis

Archive

What We Do...

Article

Immigration: Populate and/or Perish

Latest Articles

Newsletter