Balancing Growth and Compassion: Australia's Immigration Dilemma

Australia has the third highest intake of refugees in the world behind only the USA and Canada according to the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Humanity dictates that we should do more.

Unfortunately, those arguing for even greater humanitarian immigration need to explain first how we can afford to do so, then argue in favour of a reduction in either of skilled migration or family reunification. The merits of an individual case make for healthy dinner conversations, great headlines, and excellent political opportunity. But they often make for poor policy.

There are four key factors that shape my argument: we have a finite capacity to absorb growth; total immigration must therefore also be capped; an increase in one category of immigrant would be at the expense of another; and the process of accepting refugees must reflect the reality of a capped capacity.

Our capacity to absorb growth is capped

There is a limit to how fast a country can grow and still fund and maintain its infrastructure. Australia's population is growing at two to three times the OECD average at around 1.5% annually beaten over the last decade only by considerably smaller countries.

This growth comes through the combination of natural increase and net overseas migration. Natural increase is the excess of births over deaths and unless we adopt a policy of birth control, by law or by education, the rate of natural increase is somewhat preset. Net overseas migration (NOM) is the difference between incoming migrants and outgoing migrants regardless of how they got here and their legal status (illegal, visa, permanent resident, citizen).

While Australia's rate of growth has declined over the last decade, so has that of others in the OECD meaning that Australia's rate of growth is now proportionately even greater than that of other advanced economies. Growth, however caused, can't be unlimited.

Total immigration potential as a proportion of that growth is therefore also capped

Although I am a fan and beneficiary of multi-culturalism in both my home and professional lives, there is some minimum proportion of a country that ought to be born there to manage the evolution of its culture and norms. 30% of Australia's population was born overseas in 2022, up from 10% in 1947 according to ABS data. It hasn't been this high since 1890 when Australia was very young and hence naturally had much of its population born overseas and we were in a gold rush, where immigration spiked. Germany is well regarded in Europe for its open borders yet has a little over half as many of its population born outside of Germany compared with Australia (Statista). France has fewer still at around 10-15% (Wikipedia), 15% for the US (CIS), and the UK, like Germany, sits at around 17% (ONS).

That to say, we are on the extremely high side of the ratio of those born in Australia and those who joined later. And that trend isn't slowing. 60% of Australia's total population growth comes from net overseas migration (so, 40% is natural growth) and NOM has been proportionately growing faster than natural growth (Wikipedia).

During the 2000s, immigration lifted from between 100,000 and 150,000 in the early years to closer to 200,000 in the latter years - a trend that largely continued through to today.

• 160,000 - Australia's planned 2020 growth before the advent of COVID - was arguably on the lighter side. In reality, in 2020, 2021, and 2022, net overseas migration was negligible - perhaps even negative due to policy decisions in response to the COVID pandemic.
• Forecasts of 400,000 for 2022-23, 315,000 in 2023-24, and 260,000 in 2024-25 are largely a correction to this COVID-related drop in migration (SBS).
• Although some politicians and a few commentators argue for much lower growth in the long run, and half of the general Australian population agrees according to the Lowy Institute, a steady state of 200,000 seems to be widely embraced as a sustainable intake number.

Net, the inflow of immigrants is already dialled up to 11.

If we lift the proportion of this capped immigration for humanitarian aid, we have to reduce skilled immigration or family migration (reunion)

Temporary visas like students, tourists, working holidayers, and temporary workers make up 70% of the visas granted, and 30% are permanent, including those who first enter on a temporary visa like a student visa and later gain a permanent one. New Zealanders do not need either type of visa but despite making up around half a million of our current resident population, comprise only 2% of our NOM.

Of the permanent visas granted every year, family migration is over a quarter, and we're unlikely to want to restrict families from uniting. The other ways to obtain permanent visas are skilled migration (44%) which includes students who transfer from temporary to permanent visas, and humanitarian visas (28%) (APH).

We're already working hard. Australia has been the third largest country for UNHCR-assisted refugee resettlement behind the United States and Canada since 2003. Canada and Australia also had record resettlement figures in 2016, largely due to resettlement from Syria (UNHCR).

So, if Australia's growth is already at the limit, and immigration is also at its limit, then any increase in humanitarian aid must be on top of this already substantial intake and be at the expense of other forms of permanent immigration.

The process needs to be fair and efficient, but it is perceived by many to be neither.

Setting aside arguments about the number of refugees we can take in, there are some widely-held criticisms of the process for legally obtaining the right to settle in Australia based on a humanitarian need including:

• Stringent visa requirements and eligibility criteria
• Lengthy processing times
• Detention practices for those attempting to bypass the legal processes
• Limited integration support
• Lack of transparency and
• Policy uncertainty

Precisely what it would take to improve the fairness and efficiency of our processes, if quantum were to be set aside, is somewhat above my pay grade. I have a suspicion that many of the criticisms of processes are attempts to litigate the quantum argument by stealth, but equally suspect there is room for informed arguments about how the processes could improve.

The process for gaining humanitarian immigration rights needs to be fair and efficient but what it can't be is bigger. Those arguing for more humanitarian immigration, despite our contribution relative to other countries, need to argue either:

• A reduction in skilled or family reunification immigration; or
• More immigration still despite our outsized intake and the challenges presented above.

And those arguing for process improvements need to ground their recommendations in the uncomfortable reality of a material disconnect between supply (which is already generous) and demand (which is almost unlimited).