As Australian politicians worry about pressure on Australia's state capital infrastructure and public services, the federal government is considering binding immigrants to specific remote areas in the future. Alan Tucci, secretary of citizenship and multiculturalism, said the idea behind these policies was also to develop local, remote and rural economies.
But a recent study suggests that binding emigration to remote areas does not contribute to the long-term growth of the region's economy.
Two researchers, Louise Roos and John Madden, said that in their research model, those who emigrated to remote areas did not drive the local economy to a large extent. Instead, they would go to first-tier cities such as Sydney in a few years' time. At this time, once they choose to leave, it will have a negative impact on the local economy.
"in the short term, targeted immigration plans can increase the number of employees in target areas, but also lead to lower average wages in the region. This prevents staff from other areas from moving into the area and encourages them to leave. "
More stringent future review
At the Senate review hearing at (Senate estimates hearing) earlier this week, a Home Office official said Australia's actual intake of immigrants in recent years was in fact below the annual quota limit of 190000, and that the gap between the two was widening.
Australia received 183608 immigrants in fiscal year 2016-2017, the official said. In fiscal year 2018, 138086 immigrants were accepted, meaning that the number of immigrants received in the current fiscal year could be about 20000 less than the annual quota ceiling.
Of the 138086 permanent immigrants accepted in the current fiscal year, 91302 were skilled immigrants, 44193 were on family reunification visas and 2591 were accompanied by their children. Petzoro (Michael Pezzullo), under-Secretary of the Interior, said the decline was due to the government's improved immigration screening mechanism through links to multiple security databases.
Development depends on immigration
A recent study by the Treasury and Home Affairs found that 2/3 of the new jobs created in Australia over the past five years have benefited from immigration, which makes up a higher proportion of full-time jobs. The report also showed that immigrants did not replace Australia's native labour force.
"in fact, the study found little evidence that native Australians were harmed by immigrants." "Immigration offsets Australia's ageing population, increases employment participation and productivity, and helps businesses acquire skills that are difficult to upgrade in the short term," the report said.
Tracking immigration and GDP data over the past 40 years found that skilled migration provided Australia with an economic dividend, raised per capita living standards by 0.1% of GDP per capita, raised productivity by 10%, and increased employment participation by 10%. Immigration makes Australians richer, not poorer.
The world is always happy to see the benefits of immigration policy for economic growth; but there is a reluctance to make the necessary spending to ensure that the economy is able to cope with the need for a large influx of migrants.
As a result, many big cities are overburdened, infrastructure is obsolete and utilities are in short supply. This, in turn, has a negative impact on Australian productivity, leading to further distortions in the distribution of wealth among Australians. In the end, part of the unknown Australians are pointing their finger at the immigrant army.
The more population there is, the greater the economic mass will be; the more people there are, the more products and services will be consumed. Instead of blindly rejecting overseas immigrants, the federal government should actually consider how to balance the relationship between the two, so that overseas immigrants can better contribute to the development of Australia.