Increased immigration 'a recipe for disaster'

From the Canberra Times:

Migrant push 'a recipe for disaster'

BY DAVID ALEXANDER ECONOMICS EDITOR
23/08/2008 10:48:00 AM

Senior Opposition figures are moving to open a second front on the Government's immigration policies by highlighting the dangers of boosting migrant numbers as the economy falters and unemployment rises.

Liberal leader Brendan Nelson marched into the immigration debate this week, attacking the pilot guest worker scheme announced by the Prime Minister at the South Pacific island of Niue, saying that Australian workers should come first.

Coalition figures acknowledge the risk of being accused of playing the race card, but say Labor's plans to boost immigration levels at a time of rising unemployment will undermine public confidence in the immigration system. "Rudd has got it completely wrong," one senior Coalition figure said.

''Howard used to bring in increasing numbers of migrants based on jobs growth and lower unemployment, and that kept the public happy. Rudd is bringing in a massive surge ... at the same time as jobs are disappearing, a recipe for disaster.'' The Government announced a 20per cent increase in migration numbers in the budget, from 159,000 in 2007-08 to an estimated 190,300 in 2008-09, in order to deal with chronic labour shortages and wages inflation pressure.

The budget also forecast an increase in the unemployment rate from 4.3 per cent to 4.75 per cent a rise of more than 100,000 people, the Opposition claims.

*snip*

"Why is it beyond the wit in this country, when we've got half a million people still unemployed, that we have to bring in people from Pacific island nations to do this work?" Mr Nelson asked yesterday.

While some Coalition members support the guest worker plan, senior sources estimate this to be a clear minority.

Coalition figures point to Britain as an example of government mismanagement of an immigration program leading to a loss of public confidence in the system and an upsurge in racial problems.

Full article

The perils of immigration-driven population growth

From The Australian:

Danger in growth for growth's sake

Barry Cohen
August 06, 2007

Scene: The House of Representatives
Date: 29-5-2007
Time: 2pm
Program: Question Time

IS the Prime Minister aware that the basic reasons for the introduction of Australia's excellent immigration policy by the Chifley government in 1946 and continued by successive Liberal governments are considered by many people to be no longer applicable? Does he realise that vast population increases, once considered highly desirable, are now being questioned due to the pressure it places on education, health and social welfare services, housing and land prices and the consequent diminution in the quality of life that overcrowded cities have on our environment? Will his Government bring down a white paper on immigration so that a cost-benefit evaluation can be made?

Good question isn't it? It shows that at least one backbencher is on the ball and understands the crisis Australia is facing. There's one problem. I lied about the date. The question was asked on June 10, 1970. Modesty prevents me naming the prescient backbencher.

The prime minister, who, at the time, happened to be John Gorton, was shocked at the question and appalled that it had been asked by a Labor MP. Fred Daly, then Labor's shadow immigration minister, was none too pleased either. Questioning Labor's sacred post-war immigration policy was not on his or his colleagues' agenda.

All had been nurtured, since World War II, on three fundamental beliefs: that Australia, having just fought a war of survival with the Japanese, had to substantially increase its population to ensure that it had the numbers to defeat "the yellow hordes" who were casting their greedy eyes in Australia's direction; to justify our occupation of the vast open spaces and to provide a substantial population that would enable our manufacturing industries to develop the economies of scale that would enable us to compete with the world's large economies: the US, Britain, Europe and Japan.

All of the above was conventional wisdom among Australia's political parties. It ensured bi-partisanship no matter who was in government. "Populate or perish" was our national slogan.

Gradually, Australians came to realise that basing Australia's defence on population increases was beginning to look ridiculous. With billions on our doorstep a few million extra Australians would make little difference. Increased trade, cultural exchange and diplomacy would have far greater effect.

So too with the economies of scale argument that gradually disappeared as our manufacturing industry wilted under the pressure of the Asian tigers. Mining, agriculture, tourism, education and specialised manufacturing that did not require large numbers of low-paid employees, ensured a growing and prosperous economy.

As the old argument faded a new reason emerged for increasing our population. As medical science extended the average life span, an increased population was essential to support the swelling ranks of the retired. It is no surprise the business community enthused about that one. Immigration provided them with a continually expanding market with little effort on their part.

At the same time, while there was growing concern about the deterioration in the quality of life, particularly in our cities, there was little public debate about the cause of the deterioration: more and more people. Very few made the connection.

In 1970, when Australia's population was about 12 million (it was 5 million when I was born in 1935), in a speech in reply to the budget, I asked: "We all know that if we follow unthinkingly the present program we will reach almost any figure we care to name - 25, 50, 100, 200 million and so on. But the question is when? Will it be by the year 2000, 2050, 2100, 2200 or 2300?"

After my speech, the then minister for immigration, Phillip Lynch, invited me to his office to ask me what I was on about. I told him: "You can't have an immigration policy divorced from a population policy. Growth for growth's sake is nonsense. It's a question of how many people Australia can contain and still maintain a high quality of life." We should be asking, "What is Australia's optimum population, when should we get there and what do we do when we arrive? Slay the first born?"

Shortly afterwards Lynch announced the appointment of W. D. Borrie to head up an inquiry into Australia's population. Unfortunately, when the final report was tabled in 1978 it made no recommendations about numbers, merely stating that there were various schools of thought that favoured population levels ranging from 14 million to 50 million.

In the decades that followed nothing much changed and then suddenly the debate about climate change exploded. Headlines daily scream about greenhouse gases, global warming, water shortages, air and water pollution, urban congestion and so on. What had, for years, been primarily the concern of the dark greens overnight became mainstream. The worst drought in our history suggests the Cassandras might be right. Even the sceptics, agree that action must be taken.

What is bizarre about the debate is that rarely is the connection made between the apocalyptic scenario painted by eminent scientists and the demand for a greatly expanded population. Why is that?

In part because public figures are nervous that any call by them for a slowdown in population growth will be interpreted as less immigrants which the multicultural lobby will call racism. That is nonsense but it will bedevil any attempt to develop a concerted attack on the environmental catastrophe many believe Australia is facing.

If our population continues to expand over the next 40 years as it has during the previous 40, by 2050 Australia will have a population more than 40 million. If that happens, all the solutions now being proposed by politicians and public figures won't amount to a hill of beans.

Barry Cohen was a federal Labor MP from 1969 to 1990.

Source

Immigration debate needed

From ABC Unleashed:

Rudd's immigration policy doesn't add up

Ben Power
12 August 2008

Australia is finally starting to have an immigration debate. A number of commentators, including Michael Duffy, Paul Sheehan and Ross Gittins, have highlighted the Rudd (and previous Howard) Government's acceleration of the migrant intake.

As Paul Sheehan wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald, Rudd is "implementing the biggest immigration program since the end of WWII and the biggest intake, in absolute numbers of permanent immigrants and temporary workers, in Australia's history".

Before I go on, I have to make the usual disclaimer: this article is not arguing against immigration. It is not about the benefits of cultural diversity and the wonders of having 20 different restaurants in our main streets. This article is questioning why Australia's governments never fully outline the economic impact of significantly accelerating immigration.

The Rudd government has said, or indicated, its immigration boost is designed to combat a 'skills shortage' and inflation. But the economics of immigration is more complex; it is not just about broader economic gains, it is also about winners and losers. And it is about suitable timing given the state of the economy.

There is no denying immigration brings economic benefits, particularly if there are a high proportion of skilled migrants. Research shows that skilled migration does increase the well being of Australians; that is, boosts GNP per capita.

But the benefits are surprisingly, and disappointingly, small. This has also been found overseas. Harvard immigration economist George Borjas said the debate over immigration actually shouldn’t be about the economic benefits to a nation, as they "seem much too small". In the UK, a recent House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs report, The Economic Impact of Immigration, found the economic benefits of immigration were 'small or insignificant'.

According to Borjas, the debate over immigration numbers should be about winners and losers: "In the short run, it transfers wealth from one group (workers) to another (employers)."

The main mechanism through which the economy benefits from immigration is the lowering of wages by increasing the supply of workers. (While people focus on the impact on low-wage workers, a program with a high proportion of skilled workers will also keep down wages for a nation's existing skilled workforce). Some argue immigration doesn't lower wages, but if wages aren't lowered, then there is probably little economic benefit from immigration.

Cheaper labour costs eventually mean lower consumer prices... but also higher profits to business. That's one of the reasons business – particularly big business – is constantly calling for higher immigration. It is in the interests of business to talk up a 'skills shortage'. (Borjas also believes that productivity gains from skilled migrants – one of the biggest selling points – are "trivial in the context of the overall economy").

There are also other costs. The House of Lords report found immigration didn't just have a small negative impact on wages of lower-paid workers but also contributed to falling housing affordability – one of the major issues facing Australia.

In the current economic climate in Australia, perhaps the biggest issue is timing. The government is accelerating immigration as the economy and employment are weakening or set to weaken. Will Australians accept increasing competition for jobs when the economy is slowing?

Even if we accept that skilled migrant numbers are an economic boon, what are the justifications for the numbers we're targeting?

Given the economic benefits are surprisingly and disappointingly small, the fact the economy is slowing and inflationary pressures easing, the Rudd government needs to explain its justification for an acceleration in the immigration program. We hear little discussion about these issues in Australia. I haven't even touched on the impact of higher population on carbon emissions and water supplies.

The UK and US are having debates on the economic impact of immigration, and hopefully ours is starting. In recent times Australians have accepted higher immigration numbers. But in a gloomy economic climate that could change quickly if the government doesn't start convincing them why it is a good thing.

Source

Record immigration adding to Australia's housing crisis

From VOA News:

Record Immigration Adds to Australian Housing Woes

By Phil Mercer
Sydney
14 August 2008

Real estate experts warn Australia faces an acute shortage of affordable housing as immigration reaches record levels. There are estimates that Australia needs to build an extra 40,000 new homes a year simply to cope with current demand. From Sydney, Phil Mercer reports.

Australia opens its doors to about 300,000 new migrants next year as part of a plan to address a chronic lack of workers. That means the country will see its highest immigration flow in more than 60 years.

An army of temporary and permanent settlers will be granted visas as part of a government effort to sustain a decade-and-a-half of economic growth.

There are three major strands to Australia’s migration program: skilled workers, family reunions and humanitarian migrants.

The skilled component is at unprecedented levels, with qualified migrants being recruited in vast numbers from traditional areas including Britain and New Zealand, as well as emerging nations such as China and India.

In demand are accountants, engineers, computer professionals, health care workers and many workers in skilled trades, such as construction workers.

Such an influx of new migrants puts pressure on Australian society and has helped create a housing crisis as demand for inexpensive accommodation in major cities outweighs supply.

Demographer Bernard Salt says Australia is struggling to cope with the expanded immigration program.

“During calendar 2007 the Australian continent added 332,000 people,” Salt said. “Never before in our history have we added that number of people to our population base. 330,000 people per year is a rate and pace that we’re not really comfortable with. We’re used to growing at the 220, 230,000 per year. Our systems, our infrastructure, our culture can cope with that. We’re un-used to traveling at this pace.”

Thousands of Australians find it hard to buy or rent affordable homes, a problem exacerbated by decade-high interest rates, increasing land prices and taxes.

The government recently began a program to add 50-thousand rental properties for low-income earners to the market. Real estate experts, however, say it will take at least four years before such measures help make housing more affordable.

They say an average wage earner in Australia will struggle to buy an apartment or house in a country where housing inflation has been rampant in recent years, although does show some signs of easing.

The rental market, however, remains strong; a shortage of properties led to double-digit rent increases in the past year.

Source

Victoria's runaway population growth threatening state's liveability

From The Age:

Put brakes on runaway population, says Brumby

Paul Austin, Marc Moncrief and David Rood
August 1, 2008

PREMIER John Brumby has called for a pause in the growth of Australia's migrant intake, as Victoria struggles to cope with its population boom.

With the State Government seeking solutions to Melbourne's road and public transport congestion, as well as pressure on housing affordability, Mr Brumby said Victoria would now take a less aggressive attitude to attracting skilled migrants.

Victoria's population growth rate of 1.6% - or about 1500 people a week - was above the national average, he said, and "about as fast as we want to go".

"Five years ago, I think the number of migrants coming to Australia was about 100,000 a year. This year it will hit 200,000 a year," Mr Brumby told ABC radio.

"I'd say that number is about right. We wouldn't, at this point in time in our history, be wanting to go above that."

Mr Brumby emphasised that the State Government did not want to "stop population growth", and was proud of its record in making Victoria a magnet for migrants.

"Last year we added 80,000 people. In the 1990s, under the former (Kennett) government, the problem was the exodus. We were losing people - 40,000 a year. So we've had a dramatic turnaround because Victoria is a very popular place to live."

He said the Government did not want to "put a lid" on migration, but "we're not going to go out and look for extra population in the way in which we've done in the past".

Victoria has increased its share of Australia's skilled migrant intake from 17.6% in 1998-99 to about 27% now.

Government officials said last night that Mr Brumby wanted to keep skilled migration at about that level, but did not believe Victoria needed to keep accelerating its intake.

The director of Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research, Bob Birrell, said most previous premiers had seen the health of the Victorian economy as intimately linked to population growth because of the impact on housing, infrastructure and other industries.

"They (past premiers) have always in the past dismissed any of the downside to this - what it means to existing residents."

But Dr Birrell said the 1.6% growth the state was experiencing was too much, and "1.6 is what got us here".

Here, according to Dr Birrell, means an overcrowded state with too much pressure on infrastructure, housing and transport that threatens Melbourne's famed liveability.

Full article

Australians strangers in their own land

From Immigration Watch Canada:

Strangers In Their Own Land

Tim Murray
May 17, 2007

This bulletin is a synopsis of many major points made in "All For Australia" written in 1984 by Australian Geoffrey Blainey, Professor Of History. The National Trust of Australia has classified Dr. Blainey as an "Australian Living Treasure". His thoughtful and critical observations (primarily social, but also economic and environmental) on Australian immigration policies are particularly relevant for Canada today.


All For Australia

A. Principles

* Every nation has the right to control immigration. Ironically, the Third World countries which some Australians are afraid to "offend" have no hesitation in using this right to retain their present ethnic composition. (P.164)

For the sake of national unity, the typical nation practices discrimination against migrants. Every nation in Asia limits the entry of immigrants from other ethnic groups, especially those ethnic groups that seem to be very different. "A family of Australians, of European descent, would now have faint chance of emigrating, if it so wished, to any Asian land." (P.52)

Sri Lanka "would not allow the typical Australian family to become citizens". The former Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (now Myanmar) requires an applicant for citizenship "to speak well one of the Burmese languages". Japan requires any of the hundreds of thousands of Koreans who live there "to be financially stable" and to be "judged capable of contributing to Japanese society in order to gain citizenship. Few (Koreans) have become citizens." Papua New Guinea calls for "a knowledge of English and one local language, demands a willingness to contribute to the nation's culture and requires eight years' residence...before a resident can apply for citizenship". Thailand demands that those applying for citizenship should have a regular job, a knowledge of the Thai language, and five consecutive years of residence. Thailand limits to 100 the number of immigrants from any one country.... That is one reason why the Indo-Chinese living in the refugee camps in Thailand have to look elsewhere for a haven." (Pp.52-53)

In the space of half a year (circa 1984), about 40,000 illegal migrants from Bangladesh have settled in Assam in India. The Indians, fearful of heavy immigration, are now planning a long fence along the border at an enormous cost." (P.54)

"Our immigration policy is increasingly based on an appeal to international precepts that our neighbours sensibly refuse to practice. We are surrendering much of our own independence to a phantom opinion (that ethnic composition makes no difference) that floats vaguely in the air and rarely exists on this earth. We should think very carefully about the perils of converting Australia into a giant multicultural laboratory for the assumed benefit of the peoples of the world." (Pp.54-55)

* "The controversy about immigration is a controversy about about who we are and where we are going." "Immigration is everyone's business: it is one of the most important national issues. The idea that it is too dangerous to be debated is a mockery of democracy. It is too important not to debate." (P.164)

* "The present government believes an immigration policy should primarily reflect the truth that all "races" are equal. On the contrary, an immigration policy should not, any more than a trade or tariff policy, be designed primarily to reflect that fact." (P.164) (Note: Blainey's point is that the interests of the majority of Australians come first, not some social experiment which will probably damage those interests.)

* Australia, in normal conditions, should accept its share of genuine refugees, irrespective of which continent they are fleeing from. At present, Australia is taking far more than its share of refugees." (P.165)


B. Asia

* "It is vital that Australia maintain sound relations with Asian nations", but it is simplistic to think that admitting more Asians is "a certain way of improving relations with Asia". A careless Australian immigration policy "can too easily lead to social and ethnic tensions within Australia, thus weakening relations with Asian countries from which immigrants have come." (Pp.165-166)

* "There is little evidence to support the government's view that increasing migration from particular Asian nations will improve our trade with them." (P.166) In fact, Australia's dramatic increase in trade with "China and Japan occurred in years when we admitted only a handful of migrants from East Asia". (P.77)

* Immigration is not the most effective way of giving aid to the nearer parts of Asia. A humanitarian policy should place emphasis on educating engineers, geologists and agricultural scientists for Asia and on supplying new technology and, in a famine, food. It is more humanitarian to supply food for 10 million than to bring in a mere one-hundredth of that number of Asian immigrants." (P.167)

* Our attitude to Asia has oscillated widely. Whereas half a century ago, we saw ourselves as part of Europe, we now say that we are part of Asia, a proposition that is true and false. Our danger today is that we so emphasize the importance of Asia that we forget the importance of Australia." Australia's immigration policy "now gives the tiny Asian portion of the Australian population four out of every ten migrant places". (P.167) Australia's Minister of Immigration, Stewart West, has commented that "the increasing Asianization of Australia" was inevitable". There is nothing inevitable about Australia's future. It has a choice. (Pp.28-30)

* "Australia will have to find ways of impressing on Asia and the rest of the world that much of its territory is arid. ...(and that it) "can support few people". (Pp.167-168) (Note: As of 2007, Australia has suffered from a drought for 7 years.)


C. Recipe For A Sound Policy

* "The ethnic composition of the population--and the particular mixture of nationalities, language and cultures--is a matter of importance to all nations. (P.168)

* "Any rapid alteration in the ethnic composition of the population can lead to strong social tensions and the placing of strong pressure on democratic institutions--unless that rapid alteration has the support of a majority of Australians, especially in the districts most altered by the new migration." (P.168)

* "Every nation relies on a sense of community. That sense of belonging is delicate and can easily be upset by the too rapid entry of peoples who unintentionally challenge the sense of cohesion." (P.169)

* "One lesson of Australian history is that immigration should not be encouraged in times of economic adversity. This (1984) is the first depression in which immigration is not being discouraged, overall. (P.169) "For those arriving from Asia since the start of 1983, the unemployment rate is the remarkable 55 per cent. It is as if Australia is importing unemployment, but not announcing what it is actually doing." (P.74)

* "It is a fallacy to believe that Australia's present difficulty in digesting or welcoming immigrants is a close parallel to that of the 1950's, and will be solved with equal ease. Thirty years ago, there was almost full employment, the public overwhelmingly believed that immigration was vital to Australia's future, and most immigrants came from a cultural background that was similar. All these advantages have ceased." (P.169)

* "The social effects of an unpopular immigration policy are probably far more important than the economic effects. And the social effects are felt mostly by the poor, the unemployed and the people who are tied to the neighbourhood where they live. Whereas the prosperous residents protect their neighbourhood from heavy traffic, factories and high-rise flats by collective action, they are the first to object when other neighbourhoods, faced with an influx from a different culture, quietly protest." (Pp.169-170)

* "An immigration policy is unlikely to succeed if the entire parliament supports it, but millions outside parliament do not support it." (P.170) "In June 1984, only three out of every ten Australians supported the present immigration policy." (P.44) "...our present policy, in its divisiveness, makes greater numbers of Australians feel...like strangers in their own land." (P.125)


D. Multiculturalism

* "The multicultural policy has, at times, tended to emphasize the rights of ethnic minorities at the expense of the majority of Australians, thus unnecessarily encouraging divisions and weakening social cohesion. It has tended to be anti-British, and yet the people from the United Kingdom and Ireland form the dominant class of pre-war immigrants and the largest single group of post-war immigrants." (P.170)

* "Recent governments emphasize the merits of a multicultural society and ignore the dangers. And yet the evidence is clear that many multicultural societies have failed and that the human cost of the failure has been high. Many of our refugees actually come from multicultural societies that are faltering or in disarray." (Pp.170-171)

* "There are dangers in the increasing belief that toleration can simply be imposed on people by a variety of new laws and by a bureaucracy specializing in ethnic affairs, cultural relations and human rights. Unfortunately, the laws and regulatory bodies, introduced in the hope of promoting toleration, can be invoked to attack freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and those principles on which minority rights must, in the last resort, depend. A sensible humane immigration policy is more likely than most of these new agencies and laws--present or proposed--to maintain and foster racial toleration." (P.171)


E. Immediate Reforms:

* The changes in the immigration ideology and policy that took place under the Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke governments were attempts to cope with new situations, but it is time to re-examine closely that change in direction, because of the new economic climate and the experience gained in the last decade." (Pp.171-172)

* "There is a strong case for reducing--perhaps halving--immigration while unemployment is so high. (Australia was experiencing its most severe depression in 50 years.--P.23) The reduction should not affect genuine refugees, but should affect the increasing emphasis given to family re-unions. (P.172)

* "There can now be little doubt that (Illegal immigrants) exceed 15,000 a year. (P.152). This matter "should be tackled vigorously. It fosters the fear that we cannot control our own ports and airports and even our own destiny." (P.171) Amnesty is "an official confession of failure, a mockery of the concept of a planned immigration programme, and an incentive for others to arrive, hoping to benefit from a further amnesty." (P.151)

* "The immigration department should produce and present more realistic statistics and forecasts. Confusing and deceiving statistics should be no more acceptable in immigration than in the federal budget." (P.171) Reports that UK interest in migration to Australia had declined were untrue and were deceitfully used to justify high immigration from other areas. (Pp.111-112) In spite of pretences that they were deities impartially dispensing justice, immigration ministers and their departments have deliberately withheld important statistical and demographic information from Australians in order to cloud what they were doing. (Pp.65-66)


NOTE: "All For Australia" was published by Methuen Haynes. Its ISBN number is 0 454 00828 7.

Source

Foreign students making a mockery of immigration laws

From The Australian:

Overseas students flout work rules

Richard Kerbaj | August 11, 2008

INTERNATIONAL students are making a mockery of immigration laws by flouting visa conditions which limit them to 20-hour working weeks, with those driving taxis in Victoria clocking up to twice as many hours behind the wheel as they're allowed.

Despite a warning from Immigration Minister Chris Evans that taxi owners who employed students in breach of their visa restrictions risked up to two years' jail, cab advocacy bodies and student drivers revealed the industry was largely ignoring the law.

Student bodies have urged the Rudd Government to lift the 20-hour cap, saying overseas pupils should be entitled to juggle their academic commitments with as many hours of work as they can manage.

The Australian understands the Howard government planned to target Victorian taxi businesses as a first step in a national crackdown on students who were rorting the employment restrictions of their visas.

Victorian Taxi Drivers Association secretary Thomas Henderson, whose organisation represents the interests of both driver and owner members, admitted some holders of student visas were clocking up to 40 hours a week on the road.

"One work shift consists of 12 hours and even if they do two shifts they're already done four extra hours," Mr Henderson said. "But the moment (working hours) start to come to the notice of the authorities, it starts to become verydifficult for students because they are only allowed to work 20 hours a week."

The National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia played down visa breaches, saying increasing living expenses were pushing overseas pupils to work beyond their limits.

NLC president Eric Pang said the federal Government should abolish the 20-hour working week limit and allow students to work at their own discretion.

"The working hours should be up to the students and the institutions," he said. "If the student can study full time and is performing well (academically) then, yes, they can work more than 20 hours. If they can't perform well in their studies, then they shouldn't work more than 20 hours.

"The new Government should be reviewing this (working) policy but the aim should be to provide more flexibility and more rights in terms of how much (students) want to work and how much they want to study."

The federal Government has given no indication it is considering relaxing the law. Senator Evans said taxi owners who employed students in breach of their visas also risked a fine of up to $13,200.

"Taxi owners, like all employers, are responsible for ensuring that overseas workers -- including students -- abide by their visa conditions," he said.

It is understood former immigration minister Kevin Andrews wanted to pursue student visa rorters working as cab drivers through the Victorian Taxi Directorate.

In the lead-up to last November's federal election, Mr Andrews was planning to demand the personal details of student taxi drivers from the VTD to determine the number of hours they had been working. Anyone found to have breached their visa conditions would have risked being deported.

Mr Henderson said student drivers, many of whom drove at night, shouldn't have to pay taxes because they had to put up with disorderly passengers. "If you ever think about what these poor guys have to put up with, then they shouldn't be taxed at all," he said.

Source

Rudd Govt. scales back Pacific "guest worker" scheme

From the Herald Sun:

Jobs rate cuts plan for Pacific workers

By Steve Lewis
August 09, 2008 03:58am

KEVIN Rudd has dramatically scaled back plans for a controversial Pacific "guest worker" scheme amid concerns of a community backlash.

The Coalition has already raised concerns over the radical immigration plan, allowing islanders to work in rural communities for up to seven months.

But with unemployment on the rise, the Rudd Government has halved the number of participants to just 2500 over three years.

Only three countries - Tonga, Kiribati and Vanuatu - will be involved in the "pilot" scheme, although the Government is keen to sign up Papua New Guinea.

Senior Government sources last night confirmed Cabinet had adopted a "safety first" approach, following concerns it could trigger a backlash from "Pauline Hanson-type forces".

The Prime Minister will announce the scheme in the next few weeks ahead of meeting with Pacific leaders on the tiny island of Niue on August 19.

It is expected to get off the ground later this year, although the Government may hold back until 2009.

Islanders will be granted special visas of up to seven months, paid award wages and put to work in areas where labour shortages are most acute. This is likely to include areas of northern Victoria, southern NSW and northern Queensland.

New Zealand has been trialling a similar "guest worker" scheme this year, although it has about 5000 temporary workers from five Pacific nations.

The Coalition is warning that even a small number of Pacific islanders on these special visas could displace domestic labour.

"Does Australia want unskilled labour coming in from a number of Pacific Islands given there are half a million unemployed in Australia already, and a projection (of) a further 134,000 unemployed people?" Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Andrew Robb asked.

Source

The policy that dare not speak its name

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

And the challenge of migration?

Paul Sheehan
August 4, 2008

Did you know the Rudd Government is implementing the biggest immigration program since the end of World War II, and the biggest intake, in absolute numbers of permanent immigrants and temporary workers, in Australia's history?

Did you know the migration program for 2008-09 has set a target of 190,300 places, a robust 20 per cent increase over the financial year just ended?

On budget night, May 13, amid the avalanche of material released by the Government, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, issued a press release stating, among other things: "The use of 457 visas to employ temporary skilled migrant workers has grown rapidly in recent years. A total of 39,500 subclass 457 visas was granted in 2003-04 compared with an expected 100,000 places in each of 2007-08 and 2008-09." That is a 150 per cent increase in four years.

Did you know the number of overseas students coming to Australia is also at a record high, with 228,592 student visas granted in 2006-07, a 20 per cent increase over the previous year?

Under the Rudd Government, Australia's net immigration intake is now larger than Britain's, even though it has almost three times the population of Australia. To put all this in perspective, the immigration program in the Rudd Government's first year is 150 per cent bigger than it was in the Howard government's first year. The immigration intake is running almost 60 per cent higher than it was three years ago.

On November 14 last year, when Kevin Rudd launched Labor's election campaign, he mentioned at length the challenges of climate change and water shortages: "It is irresponsible for any national government of Australia to stand idly by while our major cities are threatened by the insecurity of water supply." While presenting a commendable shift away from John Howard's inertia on these issues, his policy is breathtakingly inconsistent. Not only did Rudd commit to a policy of building high-energy desalination plants for Australia's main cities, he has also committed Australia to record levels of immigration.

Talk about shifting sands. To quote Rudd in this same keynote speech: "Mr Howard lacked the decency to even mention Work Choices at all during his 4400-word policy speech on Monday. Work Choices has become the industrial relations law that now dare not speak its name."

Rudd did not have the decency to mention immigration once in his 4300-word campaign launch. It is the most glaring inconsistency of his Government.

The immigration figures quoted above do not even include New Zealanders, who are not counted as part of Australia's annual migration program, nor do they include people who have overstayed their visas. Add another 50,000 or so people to an equation which will see a million people added to the population during the three-year term of the Rudd Government. The only element in Australia's immigration program that is not going gangbusters is the refugee and humanitarian intake, which remains static at 13,500 places a year.

It was not until Evans made his first key policy speech last week that I began to appreciate the scale of the Government's selective silences. He began with a ritual bashing of his Liberal predecessor as minister, Kevin Andrews, who is now not even in the Opposition shadow outer ministry and would do his party a favour if he retired.

After the point-scoring Evans got to the essence: "Today I want to announce … [that] mandatory detention is an essential component of strong border control … [but] children and, where possible, their families, will not be detained in an immigration detention centre … Detention that is indefinite or otherwise arbitrary is not acceptable … Detention in immigration detention centres is only to be used as a last resort and for the shortest practicable time …"

It was not until the last paragraph of his long speech that Evans got to the core point: "In the future, the immigration system will be characterised by strong border security, firm deterrence of unauthorised arrivals, effective and robust immigration processes and respect for the rule of law and the humanity of those seeking migration outcomes."

Sounds like Howard. In other words, the fundamentals of the system are not going to be changed. The Rudd Labor Government is not dismantling the detention system first set up by the Keating Labor. It is not ending the excision of Australian territory from the Immigration Act, which prevents asylum-seekers from entering Australian territory via offshore islands. It is not ending the detention of adults until security and health checks are completed. It is not cutting funding for navy border patrols. It is maintaining the new Christmas Island detention centre, far from Australia's shores, and capable of housing 800 people short-term, as a place to warehouse any new wave of boat people.

The fundamentals have not changed because they cannot change. The electorate holds dear the principle that people cannot determine when and how they will move to a new country, bypassing immigration controls or refugee programs. This is elementary to a nation's sovereignty.

The hysterics in the refugee and mandatory detention debates have always thrown around words like "shame" and "gulags" and engaged in moral relativism, comparing Howard to Saddam Hussein, while refusing to recognise that there are real consequences of failures of immigration policy. Thousands of Australian have paid a heavy price for the failed refugee-vetting processes in the 1970s and 1980s, when many people who should never have been allowed into the country were approved. We are still paying the price.

Labor learned the hard way that to compromise border security is to invite political disaster. This is why the Rudd Government is still talking tough on border security, and has a major immigration policy but dare not speak its name.

Source

Rudd Government to people smugglers: "Australia is open for business once again"

From TheRealists:

Immigration minister takes ‘modern risk management approach’ to Australia’s security

July 30th, 2008

Mandatory detention of asylum seekers, introduced in 1992 and according to former Labor leader Mark Latham one of the “proud achievements of the Keating administration”, has been watered down by the Rudd Government.

Headlines across the world are announcing to would-be asylum seekers that Australia is open for business.

Asylum seekers for the first time in 16 years can now come to Australia, face some routine checks and then be released into the wider community. It’s what our new immigration minister, Senator Chris Evans, likes to call a “modern risk-based approach to detention”.

The immigration minister says that the Howard government policies brought great shame on Australia. He points to the United Nations Human Rights Committee making adverse findings against Australia in immigration detention cases. But being a minister isn’t about avoiding shame. It isn’t about pandering to corrupt organisations such at the UN.

I’m reminded of a BBC reporter who was sent undercover into Pakistan to obtain fake Afghanistan passport in order to pose as an Afghani refugee in the UK. The counterfeiter assured the reporter that all he had to do was show up in the UK with that passport to be allowed asylum; and access to welfare payments. He said that the only countries in the world where they wouldn’t believe he was an Afghani were Afghanistan itself; and Australia. That’s just one example of corruption of the asylum system, and a reason why Australians can feel proud of their tough asylum policies.

The deterrent effect of mandatory detention and a tough immigration stance can also be seen in the figures showing a dramatic reduction of people coming to Australia by boat since the Tampa incident in 2001 made headline news around the world. The success of these policies has been so great that few boats have made the journey to Australian shores since 2001.

The minister would also be advised to speak to some Europeans on the matter of asylum seekers. In Europe hundreds of thousands of people claim asylum each year. A new phrase ‘asylum shopping’ has been coined for asylum seekers who travel from country to country attempting to get the best asylum deal. Now the asylum seekers have a new shop to try.

The Europeans, without the tough policies that Australia has, are powerless to contain the flow of people. Why would Australia want to go down this path?

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the new policy is that under the new system the department will have to justify why a person should be detained. That is, asylum seekers will be given automatic rights to live in the Australian community, with the onus on a government official justifying why the asylum seeker does not have that right. Shouldn’t this be the other way around?

This is a bad signal to be sending out to the rest of the world. The rights of the illegal immigrant will be placed ahead of the right that ordinary Australians have to feel protected in their own country. This is a bad signal to be sending out to the rest of the world, let alone legislating for the Australian people. It is exacerbated by the government saying it will only detaining people “as a last resort”.

The minister for immigration recently said that “The debate about temporary migration, quite frankly, is over”, even as more Australians wake up to the problems of sustained mass immigration. Having reduced our immigration standards the same minister now wants to weaken our asylum policy by introducing a risk-based approach to detention.

In a time when Europe and the Unites States are grappling with ways to contain illegal immigration, now is not the time for the minister to be watering down our immigration and asylum systems and steering Australia closer to their failed policies.

Source

Rudd Govt's changes risk a new wave of illegal immigration

From ABC News:

Coalition warns detention changes risk border protection

By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers

Posted Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:23pm AEST

The Federal Opposition says it will not support any changes to Australia's mandatory detention laws amid warnings the changes will weaken border protection.

Under new reforms announced today by Immigration Minister Chris Evans, asylum seekers will no longer be detained once they have been ruled out as a risk to society.

The Immigration Department will now also have to make a case as to why someone should be detained.

Senator Evans has described the approach as more compassionate than the previous government's policy.

The changes have been broadly welcomed by refugee groups but Opposition immigration spokesman Chris Ellison has described the move as a knee-jerk reaction which sends the message that Australia has softened its border protection.

"I think the weakening of Australia's strong immigration detention policy will send a clear message to the region that we are relaxing border control," he said.

"The intelligence we have demonstrates there are still people smugglers in the region ... that intelligence has not changed over the last couple of years."

Senator Ellison has also called on the Government to provide more detail of what will happen when asylum seekers are released into the community and how they will be supported.

"To simply release these people into the community without any support, without any plan as to what is to happen with them shows no compassion for them either," he said.

The Government will be able to make some administrative adjustments in order to implement the changes but laws may also have to go through Parliament.

Senator Ellison says the policy should not be changed.

"We have to have a strong immigration policy and legal system which says, 'If you come to Australia and you have no right to be here then you either return from whence you came or your matter is resolved, and whilst that is being done, Australia has the right to detain you'," he said.

"Certainly the Opposition in the Senate will be taking careful note of what the Government is proposing but we will not agree to anything which relaxes Australia's border protection and we will not agree to anything which diminishes our strong immigration policy in this country."

Full article


More:

Illegals could 'disappear'

July 29, 2008 03:04pm

RELAXING Australia's detention rules could allow hundreds of illegal immigrants disappear into the community, the Federal Opposition says.

Under a new system unveiled by Immigration Minister Chris Evans today, asylum seekers and people caught overstaying their visas will be detained only if they pose a risk to the community.

They will remain in the community until their cases are finalised.

Boatpeople will continue to be detained on Christmas Island but with the aim of resolving their cases in the shortest time possible.

Opposition immigration spokesman Chris Ellison said the plan had not been thought through properly and would relax the strong border protection system put in place by the Howard government.

"The fact that we only have six unauthorised arrivals in detention in Australia today demonstrates the past success of the coalition government's strong border protection policies," he said.

"But we don't have the detail as to what is to happen to these people if they're released into the community.

"These people have been found to be overstayers, to have breached their visa conditions, and it is appropriate that they be detained until they're granted a further visa or the matter is resolved one way or the other."

It was inherently difficult to keep track of people living in the wider community, and therefore to deport them, he said.

"As a result of Labor's announcement these people will be allowed to enjoy the benefits of living in Australia and potentially disappear, despite having no substantive visa to remain in Australia," Senator Ellison said.

The decision would send a message to people smugglers in the region that Australia was relaxing its border control, he said.

Source