Why doesn't Australia have local labour market tests?

From The Australian:

MORE jobs could be preserved if the Rudd Government introduced a local labour test before allowing employers to sponsor migrant workers in permanent jobs, a top demographer said yesterday.

Bob Birrell, from Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research, said the Government's decision on Sunday to cut the annual intake of skilled migrants by 18,500, or 14 per cent, over the next three months was necessary in tough economic times.

The downturn's severity has forced the Government to remove construction workers, including plumbers, bricklayers and carpenters, from the list of skilled workers employers can bring in on the 457 visa scheme.

"It's a significant policy shift because it implies the Government will restrict skilled migrant programs to employer-nominated permanent jobs and what remains on the critical skills list," Professor Birrell said.

"But the way the rules are written, there is no requirement an employer establishes that before he sponsors a migrant no one in the domestic labour market could do it," he said. "In 2007, there were over 8000 such permanent jobs, and while some were high-end corporate-type sponsored jobs, many weren't."

Others were less convinced of the need for such a sharp cut in skilled migrant numbers, although Immigration Minister Chris Evans said he would go deeper if the downturn warranted.

However, Senator Evans said he did not anticipate further cuts to the program this financial year.

"I think the cabinet will make a decision on next year's program as part of the budget and again, I would expect us to run a smaller program than we started out with this year," he said.

One of Kevin Rudd's closest allies in the business community, Australian Industry Group chief executive Heather Ridout, said now was not the time to cut back.

"While pressures are building on employment, shortages remain critical in a number of skilled trades," she said.

Australian National University demographer Peter McDonald was also wary. "A 14 per cent reduction in the current economic climate is understandable and manageable, but the Government needs to bear in mind the importance of migration to meet long-term skilled labour demand, particularly when the country starts to pull out of its financial difficulties," he said.

ACTU president Sharan Burrow described the decision to cut the quota as prudent, given the economic conditions.

"It's a chance to get the balance right to make sure that there is optimism to be able to get a job, earn a living wage for migrant workers," she said.

Perth builder Gerry Hanssen said his 457 workers helped his business through the boom and he believed their contribution to the state entitled them to stay.

Among them is welder Daniel Gucor, who came to Perth from The Philippines three years ago and dreams of citizenship.

Foreman Senan Amjedi-Effendi made Mr Gucor his employee of the month a few weeks ago and says the 28-year-old "is worth 10 other workers".

Why doesn't Australia have any labour market tests? While other immigrant-receiving countries require labor market tests and/or strict quotas before admitting overseas workers, Australia doesn't. These lax requirements mean that the system is wide open to exploitation by employers seeking access to cheap labour. Such easy access to foreign labour not only serves to drive down domestic wages, it also acts as a disincentive to recruiting and training Australian workers. Access to a never-ending stream of foreign workers also serves as a disincentive to labour saving investment. The same labour saving investment which drives innovation and productivity, both of which are sorely lacking in Australia at the moment.

Also take note how immigrant minorities prefer their own kind over native-born Australians. Senan Amjedi-Effendi, himself obviously coming from an immigrant minority background, claims that Philippino immigrant Daniel Gucor is worth ten (presumably Australian) workers. Why exactly is that? Because he is prepared to work for less and accept lower working conditions?

Of course, we are meant to feel sympathy for Daniel Gucor who dreams of one day gaining Australian citizenship. Personally, I feel more sympathy for those native-born Australians now directly competing for jobs against immigrant workers from the Third World.

High immigration fuels record population growth

From The Australian:

AUSTRALIA is experiencing a population boom not seen since the 1960s - but it is not a baby boom. High levels of immigration are fuelling record high population growth.

Australia's headcount increased by almost 400,000 last year to 21.5 million, fresh data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows.

More than half of the new arrivals, or just over 230,000 people, were immigrants.

The rest were babies born in Australia.

The Federal Government this week moved to cut back immigration, reducing the skilled migrant intake by 14 per cent in response to the economic crisis.

The rate at which the population is growing has surged 50 per cent over the last five years. It is now growing at just under 2 per cent a year.

"The last time Australia experienced higher growth rates was in the 50s and 60s as a result of post-war migration and high birth rates," the ABS said in a statement.

Western Australia and Queensland attracted the most new people in the year to September 2008 but Tasmania was spurned.

For people moving within Australia, Queensland was the mecca, while people from NSW appeared keen to leave their state.

Immigration and population growth is up, GDP per capita is down. Good work, Chris Evans and Kevin Rudd!

Columnist Andrew Bolt comments on the immigration-fuelled population explosion:

Can we build a new Adelaide every three years?

Andrew Bolt – Thursday, March 19, 09 (09:02 am)

We’re adding more than the population of Adelaide every three years:

Australia’s headcount increased by almost 400,000 last year to 21.5 million, fresh data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows.

More than half of the new arrivals, or just over 230,000 people, were immigrants… The Federal Government this week moved to cut back immigration, reducing the skilled migrant intake by 14 per cent in response to the economic crisis.

Cut back, but only to levels that are still a record. I’m also surprised that the intake last year was way over the targets set by Government. More when I find out why.

But here are the bottom lines:

1. Why are we importing so many people when we’re running out of jobs?

2. Why are we importing so many people, when our governments have lost the will to provide the people here already with enough power, water, land, freeways and public transport?

3. How many more people until we’re too crowded?

4. Exactly how many people does the Rudd Government think is enough?

UPDATE

Pro-immigration Michael Pascoe congratulate Immigration Minister Chris Evans for some typical Rudd-type spin - of saying one thing, but doing another:

Yes, Mr Evans did announce a reduction of 18,500 in the skilled permanent migrant category, “slashing’’ the intake by nearly 14% to 115,000.

The Minister might not have mentioned that that still means a 12% increase on the previous year’s skilled permanent migrant intake - and that it represents a bare 5% impact on total migration this year, that’s running close to 350,000 people. Maybe make that 332,000 now - still a record high.

UPDATE 2

The reason the actual immigration intake is so much higher than the official government target is that “net overseas migration”, as measured by the ABS, is any person coming in or out of Australia “long term” - with “long term” defined as a minimum of one year. So this would include students, people moving countries to work or temporarily live, and temporary workers on 457 visas.

The ABC's pro-immigration bias on full display once again

In a report about the Rudd Government's recent announcement that it was making some modest cuts to Australia's skilled immigration intake, the ABC's Richard Lindell states:

"Skilled migrants have been one of the key drivers of economic growth over the past decade.

In fact, an Access Economics report for the Government forecast that this year's intake will add more than $800 million to the economy."

Notice how Lindell makes the completely unsubstantiated claim that immigration has been one of the prime drivers of economic growth over the last decade, and then proceeds to cite an Access Economics report as evidence of the economic "benefits" of immigration. However, put in its proper perspective, we find that these "benefits" amount to a $800 million increase in gross domestic product in a $824.9 billion economy — an increase of 0.08 percent. That works out to be a whopping increase of about $36 for every person in Australia. And when balanced against some of the substantial costs of immigration, such as downward pressure on wages, higher housing costs, increased consumption of natural resources, a larger current account deficit, and increasing welfare and tax burdens on state and local governments, these "benefits" disappear.

Also note how Lindell quotes some economists, both of which are employed by firms which have a strong financial interest in ongoing immigration, who complain, among other things, that less immigration will ease pressure on housing, thus making it more, shock horror, affordable! We can't have that, now can we?

Given that our public broadcaster has allowed itself to become a mouthpiece for the growth lobby, it is no wonder that many Australians have been duped into putting up with ridiculously high immigration levels for so long.

Immigration-driven population growth responsible for declining GDP per capita

From Sustainable Population Australia (SPA):

GDP per person falls in every state of Australia because of population growth

Despite figures showing economic growth in some states, per capita GDP has fallen in every state in Australia, according to Sustainable Population Australia Inc (SPA).

Dr John Coulter, National President of SPA, says residents of those states in which gross GDP has risen have had their apparent advantage wiped away by population growth.

"Most economic commentators assume that changes in GDP are proxy measures for changes in human welfare," says Dr Coulter. "Accepting for the moment that this is the case, then change in GDP per person, rather than gross GDP, is actually a better measure of welfare.

"If we look at per capita rather than gross GDP, then all states show negative growth for the December quarter."

Dr Coulter notes that Tasmania, with the lowest rate of population growth, showed the least negative economic growth with only a 0.1% fall per capita. Western Australia, which had the highest rate of population growth, shows the second largest fall in per capita GDP at almost 2%.

"Queensland is in a similar position,' he says, 'sharing with the Northern Territory the second highest rate of population growth but having the third largest fall in per capita GDP. South Australia has the biggest drop in GDP, a high rate of population growth relative to the economy and the largest decline in per capita GDP at 2.5%."

Dr Coulter says the figures indicate no economic or welfare advantage from a growing population.

"They confirm calculations I have made over many years comparing OECD countries. These calculations repeatedly show no statistically significant correlation between population growth and growth of per capita GDP. They parallel the conclusion of the Productivity Commission report which showed that, despite excluding many of the environmental costs of a larger population, there was no demonstrable link between increase in immigration and per capita economic growth."

With respect to tackling climate change, Dr Coulter notes that the Rudd Government clearly accepts that there are considerable environmental costs from a growing population.

"In fact, there are a host of other environmental costs from population growth,' he says.

"It is long past the time for all Australian Governments to adopt population policies aimed at environmental sustainability, rather than the mirage of economic and welfare benefits from a growing population."

So, far from raising GDP per capita, immigration is only making us poorer. Is anybody really surprised?

Australia's bizarrely high population growth lies behind many of our problems

From Adelaide Now:

Australia's bizarrely high population growth lies behind many of our worst problems

By GUEST COLUMNISTS
March 03, 2009 12:00am

IN Australia, Right-wing "growthists" demand endless growth of the economy backed by endless growth of population. Forced since late 2006 to accept a serious public debate about water supplies and about how to maintain "growth" without more greenhouse gases, they are nevertheless determined to scotch any discussion about limiting population.

Many on the Left also refuse to debate population matters. They confuse immigrants with refugees and make absurd claims that limiting immigration would tumble us into fascism.

Various Lord Nelsons of the media will put the telescope to their blind eye and discern individual problems - unaffordable housing, environmental destruction, urban crowding, out-of-control greenhouse emissions - while somehow managing to not see any connection to population numbers.

Yet when I turned to the email news group run by the admirable society, Sustainable Population Australia society (www.population.org.au), it was the reverse.

I was inundated with evidence of how our bizarrely high levels of population growth lie behind many of our worst problems.

How could politicians and journalists, and even ordinary acquaintances, keep asserting that we had a falling population when they saw new suburbs going up everywhere? How could they raid the public purse for "baby bribes", claiming that births were not keeping up with deaths, when Australia has twice as many births as deaths?

During the 2006-07 drought, some folk gave up pretending Australia wasn't overpopulated. In fact, Bob Hawke and Bob Brown, two politicians who had long seemed determined to suppress concern about population growth, signalled a seeming change of heart.

In general, Australia's growth lobby might be best described as a well-organised stuff-up. However, not only can it be shown why this group's claims are false but also how and why it deceives itself. It can also be demonstrated why it is necessary to cap Australia's population growth, and that it is perfectly possible to do this without policies that are inhumane towards families and immigrants.

The population debate is a debate that we can no longer avoid.

Getting it wrong - as almost all government and business policies currently do - will lead to disaster. Getting it right will make a huge difference to the quality of life of our children, and also to those other species with which we share this unique continent.

Australia's population boosters continue to spread the myth of an empty land. In 2001, a growth-obsessed lord mayor of Brisbane, Jim Soorley, told the press Australia needed to triple its population in 20 years. Former Victorian premier Steve Bracks unveiled plans to increase the state's population by one million by 2025. South Australian Premier Mike Rann planned to raise immigration to SA to 50,000 a year and lift the population half a million by 2050.

Such boosters stand in a long tradition. They manage to believe that the world as a whole may be overpopulated, but Australia is a special case and actually needs more people. Overpopulation, they argue, is always over there. Who cares if the Coorong dies?

This belief that Australia has no limits lies deep in our culture. Yet population growth lies behind most of our troubles: Congested cities, bizarre housing prices that turn couples into mortgage slaves who work absurd hours and neglect their children, the endless ongoing destruction of environments and other species, water shortages, falling food security, greenhouse emissions. The list goes on.

I determined to write a book that would refute the boosters, and show why and how we can safely and humanely cap Australia's population.

BIGGER BUT NOT BETTER

• There is a powerful lobby concerned not with whether human life (or that of other species) would be better in a "larger" Australia, but with profits.

• Profits are likely to be much larger in a more populous Australia. More people means more customers, and more sales.

• In fact, this lobby insists that Australia, a First World country, must grow at faster than the average population growth rate of Asia (now 1.1 per cent a year).

• Australia is now growing at 1.7 per cent a year, on course for 42 million by 2050, and more than 100 million by 2100.

This is an edited extract from Mark O'Connor's preface to Overloading Australia: How governments and media dither and deny on population, published by Envirobook.

Original article

Immigration: A Public Health Risk

In response to this post, a reader commented:

As a doctor I was shocked when I recently had a patient come in and request medications to treat her active TB. She had just arrived from India within the last week. I thought this was screened for prior to letting these people in. Also a foreign doctor I worked with has recently been disgnosed with TB.

I also worked in the infectious disease clinic at the hospital during my training. Nearly every care was Hep B in an asian migrant.

Keep up the good post.

I think we will be making alot of progress in fighting this immigration/multicultural disease as the recession/depression hits harder. Australians will begin to fight back as times get tougher. Other countries I read are already cutting back on their immigration policies.

How many Australians are being exposed to diseases such as TB thanks to mass Third World immigration?