Migrants will be key to Australia’s economic recovery.
The lack of arrivals since the pandemic began has affected our workforce, our GDP, our universities and our population growth. This financial year there’ll be a net loss of 72,000 migrants, compared with a net gain of 154,000 in 2019-20. Population growth is expected to drop to 0.2%, down from 1.5% in 2018-19.
The number of permanent visas available for 2020-21 has been set at 160,000, but getting into Australia is tough. Caps on international arrivals were further slashed by states earlier this month in response to the more infectious UK variant of COVID-19. Those hoping to arrive have to have a valid visa, be granted an exemption by Australian Border Force, return a negative COVID test before departure, score a flight, and pay for hotel quarantine.
Of all the steps in that long process, the hardest is scoring an exemption. Tens of thousands of migrants have their applications rejected and decisions have been made in as little as 10 minutes.
‘No rhyme or reason’ to exemptions
Immigration lawyer Adam Byrnes tells Crikey he’s seen huge inconsistencies in the way exemptions were granted.
“Criteria is published on the Department of Home Affairs website for the various exemption categories, and what we’re seeing is people who clearly meet that category … such as those with marriage certificates … being refused,” he said.
Despite the huge amount of work and evidence involved in submitting an application, some applications were rejected almost instantly.
“There’s obviously discretion but how that is applied I have no idea,” he said. “Is it based on caps, the individuals assessing, is it the algorithms?”
The ABF told Crikey that from March 20, 2020, to the end of December, more than 32,780 foreign nationals had inbound travel exemption requests approved. During that same period, more than 50,221 were denied.
“Each case is unique and is considered on its own merit based on the information provided in the application, and supporting evidence must be provided,” the ABF said.
Exemption applications are free, and there’s no limit to the number a person can make. The main exemption categories are for immediate family, compelling or compassionate reasons, or those with specialist skills needed in Australia.
Most applications are accepted or rejected within seven days, the ABF said.
Families apart and on hold
Rebeca Vonk Marins found out she was pregnant three days after her partner, Giorgio Motta, flew back to Australia for work. Motta, a Brazilian national, has been living in Australia as a permanent resident for 11 years.
The pair met in Australia in January 2019 and travelled to Brazil together in early 2020. As the pandemic worsened, they travelled to stay with Vonk Marins’ parents in the Netherlands.
Vonk Marins, who has a work and holiday visa for Australia, has submitted more than 70 pages of evidence and applied for an entry exemption on compassionate grounds more than 30 times. She says she didn’t understand why their applications were rejected.
“We are now expecting a child which runs the risk of being separated from his father for up to two years,” she said.
“If our situation isn’t compassionate, what is? People are being put through a true personal hell.”
It’s a similar story for Australian citizen Sophia, who lives in Tasmania, and Petr, who lives in Russia. They have an intimate wedding planned in Hobart next month, although Sophia acknowledges it will probably not take place. The pair had been undergoing fertility treatment before the pandemic.
They’ve applied for an exemption — using registered migration lawyers — on compassionate grounds, compelling circumstances, immediate family and critical skills (Sophia develops and manages healthcare databases). They’ve been rejected 15 times. In one instance, ABF staff amended their application category before rejecting them.
Sophia says having to reveal to ABF staff the effect fertility treatment and miscarriages had had on her mental health, along with other personal information, was challenging.
“I am experiencing some misplaced anger — randomly bursting out at my computer whilst writing another application after work hours, obviously misdirected and completely out of character for me,” she said.
“This is reminiscent of feelings I experienced seeing other couples pregnant whilst Petr and I were having fertility procedures: ‘Why not us? What’s wrong with us?’ “
A method to madness … with long-term consequences
Immigration lawyer Jackson Taylor tells Crikey he got the impression application rejections were less about making a decision in a legally appropriate manner and more about managing the queue of people waiting to come into Australia.
“There are no flights and there’s no space in quarantine placement,” he said. “It appears that maybe informally the federal officers are deliberately going slow in granting people exemptions so as not to have a huge backlog of people who are authorised but can’t get in.”
Taylor says that in his experience, more well-known clients with larger platforms tended to get exemptions more often. Other times politicians had speculated clients had been rejected because they were travelling from a country with high COVID rates.
University of Sydney global migration expert Associate Professor Anna Boucher tells Crikey that while visas were being approved, very few applicants had made it into the country.
“This will be very challenging for the government,” she said. “We could have an influx of people disproportionate to the annual flows … There could be pent-up demand.”
Australia is no longer the key migrant destination it once was, either. While last year it was ranked as the top destination for talent attractiveness, online sentiment analysis shows potential migrants are turning their attention elsewhere.
Although Australia’s intake numbers remain low, Boucher stresses the government had been lenient for those already in Australia by extending visas and giving those on bridging visas spousal status.
The article linked to in the first line does indeed push the case for more migration, but the comments under it virtually all reflect the view that building an economy on migration is a Ponzi scheme.
Australia is already well past peak population. Our cities are gridlocked, over-heated, sprawling and many running out of water. There’s still a million Australians out of work. Continual intake of 200,000 migrants annually is totally unsustainble.
You present a sound case based on long-term biophysical reality and environmental sustainability. But there will be others who think their emotional knee-jerk desire to feel good and look virtuous renders such a position irrelevant. Just because a conservative view that may also be interpreted as bigoted does not suit contemporary prejudices does not rule it invalid.
Peak population at M25? That is a single city in some countries. This country as founded on immigration (albeit restricted to Caucasians for many years due to the fear of the “yellow peril” – which still exists). Our cities are sprawling and gridlocked solely because of the Australian obsession with the Quarter Acre block and Property in general.
The need for immigration is driven economically by a number of factors but primarily by the need for ever increasing Government revenue. Australians are still far too dependent on the Age Pension and other Government benefits. We demand payment for having children, subsidies for childcare to enable Parents to work and seek the Quarter Acre block. We demand “free” Healthcare and Government assistance in our old age to ensure that we preserve our capital to pass on to our progeny to continue the cycle all over. Superannuation was intended to take pressure off the revenue demand in at least one stage but, as usual, has both been fiddled with at every opportunity by successive Governments while the Beneficiaries squander the proceeds to enable them to attain Age Pension benefits as “they have paid taxes all their lives”.
All of this is fine however it requires an ever increasing population to increase the tax base to meet the ever increasing revenue demands. This is most certainly a Pyramid Scheme (Ponzi is an American term) but for entirely different reasons to what some have stated.
As to environmental issues long touted as the reason to constrain immigration, the single worst thing that anyone on earth can do, from an environmental perspective, is to have children. I haven’t noticed any of these Immigration opponents being willing to go down this path.
The Australian obsession with Property and Government support need to be addressed to truly enable immigration to be optional.
Australians seek the quarter acre block? Not since the 1980s. Maybe there’s no big push for high density living where you are but there certainly is where I live – blocks as small as 180sqm, blocks that used to contain one house now subdivided to accommodate 4, all 3 bed/2 bath with zero yard, all paving and hardscape. A neighbouring 900sqm block that held one house was replaced by 8 apartments (2 levels). You might find a quarter acre block in a regional town but not in the suburbs of a large city.
I do agree with your statement about children.
I think you missed the point. I had a house on 1000m a mere 15km from the Sydney CBD until I sold it 5 years ago. What you describe is Medium Density. Regardless, the expectation of Government benefits and the desire for a House (as opposed to an apartment) will continue to drive the growth in our cities and the ongoing need for population expansion to meet the revenue needs. Australians need to wean themselves off Government benefits and property if they wish to contain both city and population expansion.
Australians need to wean themselves off property? How does that work?
Tell you what – if we all had quarter-acre blocks, enduring the lockdowns would be a darned sight easier for most of us.
Strange how most other countries with far higher population density manage quite well (and with significantly less histrionics). The “lockdowns” were not bad and not overly long (Melbourne excluded for the latter). After all you were only asked to stay in your own home.
For histrionics check the UK. But it’s more than histrionics: almost the entire population appears to have suffered mental health damage. Let’s hope they recover eventually.
Mental health damage? Really? As someone who has experienced Endogenous Depression for over 30 years, I can assure you that most people are just a little sad. This is just another example of hyperbole and histrionics that is rampant in our Society.
Strange how most other countries have more water than Australia and deep rich soil.
Where is the evidence that there is a need for “ever increasing” government revenue but for the fact that it needs to be spent propping up infrastructure because the population keeps growing? Other countries don’t have this problem – they don’t have massive immigration programs as we do – what’s wrong with us?
Applying the expression ‘Ponzi scheme’ to humanity and Australia’s longstanding migration program helps to ‘other’ ‘other types’? Meanwhile it’s not just Covid that cuases the economic need for ‘migrants’.
The expressions, now with negative connotations, ‘migrant’ or ‘immigrant’, popularised in recent decades by political media -ve agitprop, are not good descriptors but catch all phrases for non citizens caught up in the NOM net overseas migration; definition was expanded in 2006 including more temporary residents e.g. students then descibed as ‘immigrants’ hence, spike in estimated population (kicked off news headlines while all media was ignorant of the change vs. fact that about one million citzens/PRs are not resident in Oz, normally).
Most people (are encouraged to focus) upon libertarian ‘economic value’ placed upon impersonal units of immigration (suggesting eugenics), while ignoring individual human beings and their contribution; our stance on refugees is the most extreme example while immigrants, without evidence, are deemed to be a load on the nation e.g. old eugenics trope of challenging a vague idea of ‘carrying capacity’.
However, basic statistical trends into the future show why Australia has (modest levels of) skilled immigration and more significant temporary ‘churn over’ of students, backpackers, NZ’ers, investors, various skilled and other related visas; the latter known as ‘net financial (budget) contributors’.
Like elsewhere globally, our permanent population is ageing with an increasing need for pensions, health and related state support as numbers of retirees grow, from budgets, set against an ageing and declining workforce of tax payers contributing to budgets (cf. Germany hit the sweet spot some years ago but covered by immigration from EU and elsewhere).
In about five years time many pre WWII oldies (who lived longer lives than they or their ancestors ever imagined) will have departed, then the mother lode of demographic change will occur over a generation in the permanent population, the big retirement, downsizing and ‘die off’ of the baby boomer bubble….. the impact is neither discussed nor imagined.
The latter will not be simply about managing budgets e.g. how to avoid increasing taxes and cutting services, but ensuring (imperfectly) that Australia can attract human resources from unskilled through to highly skilled to supplement a relatively smaller workforce supporting a larger cohort of retirees.
The whole world is ageing and reaching peak population (China expected to reach this in five years time) and as predicted many years ago (Prof. Ian Goldin, Oxford Martin), all nations will be competing for human resources (Africa will become very popular), but difficult if a nation’s outlook is couched in ethnic exceptionalism and nativism; the direction the US was heading under Trump.
You might have a vague idea about carrying capacity, but we are not all as blind to limits as you appear to be.
Having a clear idea about carrying capacity is easy. Ask any farmer, especially one who has sent stock off to agistment. There are signs in lifts and buses that specify a carrying capacity. You and I might have different ideas about how we measure carrying capacity and what significance we place on signs of stress, but the notion itself is rock solid.
Perhaps more importantly, why is it that if a carrying capacity is specified it is generally assumed we can rocket up to that figure, rather than being satisfied with living well within that capacity?
Yes Keith, Australia does have a carrying capacity, if it wants sustainability. Drew seems to think it’s a big place, therefore we can fit any number in.
As for Drew’s other observation, probs about 2/3rds of boomers are already retired, so we’re sort of close to the worst part of the demographic bulge of retirees now, as natural attrition plays its part.
Surely the first priority should be allowing and enabling Australians – especially those with no second citizenship (which may allow them welfare benefits of their other country of citizenship) – back into their country.
And as for immigration being the key to recovery, why not the training of Australians?
Training of Australians for what exactly? Migrants add immeasurably to this country. A lot of them do the jobs that lazy Aussies don’t want to do (hospitality and fruit picking as two examples). They bring their food, music, customs and improve Australia in every way. I say this as an Aussie who grew up in the 60’s and 70’s in the cultural and culinary wasteland that was Australia at those times.
There was a good article recently in the Monthly explaining why fruit picking, done by locals until the 90s, is now a mug’s game.
It’s only a mugs game because we pay them too much in Government benefits.
Utter rubbish Lexus. It’s a mugs game because farmers haven’t been paying award wages. It has nothing to do with too much benefits. Have you seen how much the usual dole payment is?
What an ignorant comment. It’s the employers who won’t hire Australian workers, not the workers who won’t take the jobs. Fruit growers and farmers only want exploitable backpackers and foreign workers who won’t talk up about how they’re being ripped off because they don’t want to jeopardise their visas.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/10/25/farm-jobs-shortage-australia/
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/11/01/fruit-picking-farm-jobs/
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/11/farmers-screaming-shortage-wont-employ-young-aussies/
https://uat.crikey.com.au/2020/11/09/fruit-pickers-australians/
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/11/15/farm-work-australia-wages/
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2020/11/16/farm-work-australia-exploitation/
Actually they add very measurably.
To the tune of more than 250 000 per year pre-covid, giving us the dubious honour of a developing world population growth of 1.6% per annum.
There’s been plenty said about the “benefits” of this rapid growth and I won’t rehash the.various bromides.
To contextualise immigration as a binary paradigm of good or bad is ridiculous.
The broader question remains: how much is good at any given point in time?
At the moment probably not much.
Incidentally I also grew up in 60’s and 70’s and thought Australia was a bloody good place to live.
I believed then (and now) that I was incredibly lucky
Kinda makes me wonder why you stuck around.
There seems to be a very real lack of imagination in the comments on this article about redesigning the entire economic system so that it does not rely on the blunt instrument of increasing population. It doesn’t take much to have a quick look around you and see that its completely unsustainable and that humans are having a devastating impact on the earth’s ecosystems and it cannot go on like this, quarter acre blocks or inner city apartments alike! And yes dear lexusaussie that is just one of the reasons that I haven’t added to the population growth! Australia definitely has a responsibility to accept some refugees given our meddling overseas but immigration as a way to keep the economy going is bonkers!
We have not done a significant amount of “meddling” in China, New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Ireland or the UK so the meddling argument is not a strong one in the light of the entire intake.
What’s more, it can be largely cancelled out by the argument for our need for skilled migrants, many of whom come from countries where we have not incurred any obligation through our meddling.
We incurred an obligation under the disgusting “White Australia” policy, which still is clearly in the minds as the “good old days” by a large number of predominantly White Australians.
Anyone who has negotiated through our byzantine, racist immigration process knows that it is already designed to deter anyone (but particularly those from non-English speaking countries) migrating to Australia.
Immigration and Foreign Investment are vital to the continued growth and prosperity of Australia and this has been proven many times over. I for one have no desire to return to the “football, meatpies, kangaroos and Holden cars” drivel of the Australian cultural wasteland that existed in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
“Proven many times over”… go on show us where…
How about you do the work and prove me wrong.
Here is a taste:
https://australiantranslationservices.com.au/how-immigration-contributed-in-australian-economy/
Migrants are the key to keeping the housing bubble inflated.
Ain’t that the truth!
It looks like it will be a very long time before this country will open its borders (and hearts) to immigrants again. John Howard’s misanthropic “we shall control who comes to this country” mantra may as well be our new national slogan.
Unless you are White.
John Howard is the one who made our economy dependent on very high levels of migration and on the use of low-paid workers from overseas. For the previous few decades there had been steady migration but at lower levels and those entering for work purposes had to be skilled and prepared to transfer their skills. Training locals was an important component.
Prior to COVID, high migration was a Ponzi scheme where economic activity was mainly generated by meeting the needs of an increasing population.
Howard’s comment about ‘we shall control’, etc just referred to asylum seekers arriving by boat.
Disagree, ‘Ponzi scheme’ is simply a glib expression, applied to ‘immigration’, which ignores many other factors.
Australia is a migration nation co-existing with indigenous while better migration policies are also informed by global and local demographics (not just push polling); Howard created an existential monster on immigration and refugees as a threat, and for political agitprop.
However, he understood the need but like too many LNP MPs and others, they are conflicted by the balancing act between economic need on budgets and workforces, while dog whistling the same post white Oz policy for political PR (ageing electorates &/or MPs/advisors own biased advice and attitudes).
The latter is shameful and embarrassing as evidence of Australians still needing to be catered to on issues of race or eugenics, spun and justifed otherwise e.g. suppoosed cause of environmental degradation.
Who exactly is calling for only white immigrants, Drew? Serious question. The white Australia policy died many years ago. Not sure if you live in a big city here, but Asian migration is significant in Sydney.
Howard and his LNP acolytes, and to a lesser extent Labor, have used population growth largely to keep our GDP growing, a goal without a reason. GDP per capita is the real relevant measure, but that’s only recently cited.
Again, the immigration argument for those who advocate less has nothing to do with a white Australia policy. Your insistence on assuming that any debate on population must be based on ethnicity and eugenics detracts substantially from any argument you wish to put forward. It isn’t about ethnicity, it is about numbers.
I am happy to open my heart (and I do open my pocket) to people overseas in dire need. That does not mean I want them to bring their plight here. If people in other countries have exceeded their respective carrying capacities, that does not mean we are under any obligation to bring them here so we can exceed our own.