This fiscal year is expected to reduce the amount of immigration intake may be greater than 20,000!
The debate over whether Interior Secretary Peter Dutton has proposed a reduction in the annual quota for permanent immigrants from one hundred and ninety thousand to one hundred and seventy thousand has raged over the past few days. Although the whole thing is now in Rosemary, the Australian media and the responses from all sides still have some important information about immigration, such as this fiscal year's one hundred and ninety thousand quota will not be used up!
And today, the Australians are once again revealing more: although Australia's goverment strongly denies cutting immigration quotas, the actual drop in immigration intake this fiscal year is expected to exceed 20, 000.
From "Target" to "Upper limit"
Australia's annual quota for permanent immigrants has been one hundred and ninety thousand since 2011 and is largely fully used up until 2015. However, the actual use of the 2015 / 16 fiscal year was 189770 / 2016 / 17 only 183608, a drop of more than 6392, of which 4983 were skilled immigrants.
This is probably due to a request for tighter visa review in 2015. At that time, Peter Dutton was granted the right to change the "190000 immigrant target (target)" to "a maximum of 190000 immigrant (ceiling)"!
From target to ceiling, although still one hundred and ninety thousand, but the practical significance has been different! Because the goal is to be achieved, and the upper limit is not exceeded, as for a lot less than the upper limit, that is the immigration authority!
Tightening immigration "premeditated"
It can be said that the 2015 revision of the definition paved the way for a later reduction in immigration. Australia also confirmed that it would still reduce the intake of migrants without reducing quotas.
The actual number of immigrants admitted in FY17 / 18 is expected to fall to 160000, the lowest level since FY2007 / 08.
Until 2015, one hundred and ninety thousand is still a "target", the number of visas that the Immigration Board must approve! So the visa officer can only sign, at that time there are a lot of applicants who can not be approved in the current situation to get the PRs! So before 2015 visa processing time is generally much shorter than now.
Now one hundred and ninety thousand is only the number that can be approved at most, that is, how many immigrants can be approved each year by the goverment, can be adjusted at any time!
This also explains why visa processing has been slower over the past two years, and why visa processing, led by employer guarantees, has become more stringent, including for spouses and skilled immigrants!
Because there are no mission restrictions, the Immigration Board can increase the stricter visa review requirements, slow down the speed of approval!
Dutton himself has also said the Home Office has stricter requirements for visa applications, including those related to jobs and business, such as skilled immigrants, employer-guaranteed visas, and business investment visas.
The reduction of immigration has become a certainty.
While Mr Tan and Mr Dutton have denied the proposed 20, 000 quota cuts, they both admit that immigration intake will indeed be lower this fiscal year.
We don't know whether the decline in this fiscal year will be family or skilled immigration, but from our analysis of EOI invitations and quotas a few days ago, we can speculate that there should be no fewer reductions in skilled migration. After all, last fiscal year withheld more than 6000, skilled immigrants accounted for nearly 5,000! The April 19, 2017 457 reform was also aimed at reducing the number of people who subsequently received PR through 186 and 187.
From the obvious point of view of the goverment, the recent concern of parents, immigrant AOS, is not necessarily an isolated incident. The Ministry of the Interior is sure to know that a change will reduce the number of parents who apply for immigration, but perhaps that's what they're trying to do?
However, opponents of immigration reduction are worried that doing so will affect Australia's development. Glenn Withers, an economics professor at Anu, says reducing 30, 000 migrants a year would cost a lot to economic development. It is equivalent to 10 years less than a Wolong Gang or Gold Coast. Without them, Australia's GDP will fall by about A $50 billion, or 1.2% per capita, by 2040.
epilogue
It seems that the goverment is not necessarily good news about not cutting immigration quotas. What is the difference between a quota and a cut? It would be better to tell the people how many visas they can issue, so that they can be prepared. Lest, like the accounting quota, loosen first and then tighten, as a result, a lot of people's plans have been delayed.
This fiscal year EOI invited few, you may also think that the Home Office to deal with the backlog of cases, next fiscal year may be better. But if there are fewer practical quotas at the same time, it is hard to say what will happen in the future.
