Australian Immigration

Australian immigration law

Since 1958, immigration has been regulated according to the Migration Act 1958. This Act replaced the numerous Acts of immigration legislation that had been enacted since 1901.

The Act is supplemented by an extensive and frequently amended body of rules called the Migration Regulations 1994. This contains amongst other things the criteria for each of the 200 or more visa classes and subclasses.

Current Australian immigration policy

The Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) executes government policy on immigration under the Migration Act 1958.

There are currently two immigration programs that allow permanent migration to Australia, they are the migration program and the humanitarian program. Foreigners currently living in Australia under one of a number of temporary visas can apply to be granted permanent residence. New Zealanders are a special case and can migrate to Australia under the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement. Illegal migrants typically fall into categories, unauthorised entrants and those who have violated conditions of, or overstayed their visa.

Migration program

To be accepted into Australia under the migration program a person must be a skilled migrant or sponsored by a family member who is "an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen aged 18 years or over who lives in Australia". A third class covers special eligibility migrants which includes Australians returning to Australia that had to give up citizenship to live overseas. DIMA says that the migration program for 2004-05 has 120,000 places available for migrants, with a strong focus on attracting skilled people and people who agree to live in regional areas of Australia. 42,000 places were allocated to the family stream.

In April 13, 2005, Australia announced that it will take an extra 20,000 skilled migrants in 2005-06 to help meet labour force needs. Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone said that between 130,000 and 140,000 non-humanitarian migrants would be taken, with a skilled migrant component of 97,500.

Some in Australia have expressed concern that skilled migration is being used as a solution to the current shortage of skilled labour in Australia, as opposed to training Australian workers. During the 2006 budget "right of reply" on 12 May, 2006, Opposition Australian Labor Party leader Kim Beazley stated that under a Labor government, foreign apprentices would be banned from seeking work in Australia.

New Zealanders

New Zealand citizens are entitled to live and work in Australia under the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement. New rules in 2001 divided New Zealanders living in Australia into two categories: those who were resident in Australia before 2001, and those who arrived in Australia after 2001. Those who were resident before 2001 may claim unemployment benefits after two years' residence, as is the norm for permanent residents of other nationalities. New Zealanders who arrive in Australia after 2001 are not entitled to any unemployment benefits at all, as is the norm for people living in Australia only on work permits.

Humanitarian program

The humanitarian program is designed for refugees and others in special humanitarian need. A major component of the humanitarian program is the offshore resettlement program, which assists people in humanitarian need overseas for whom resettlement in another country is the only option. The onshore protection component is for those people already in Australia who arrived on temporary visas or in an unauthorised manner, and who claim Australia’s protection. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees estimates that Australia took 16,000 refugees through its resettlement program. This consisted of both UNHCR assisted refugees and those taken through bilateral arrangements. This is the second largest program in the world after that of the United States and Australia takes 19% of those refuges being assisted by the UNHCR.

Types of visas under the humanitarian program:

Illegal migration

Illegal migrants under Australia's immigration laws are those who

There are estimated to be about 50,000 visa overstayers in Australia.

Australia's Migration Act 1958 requires that all non-Australian citizens who are unlawfully in Australia be detained and, that unless they are given permission to remain in Australia, they must be deported as soon as practical. Australia's policy of mandatory immigration detention for illegal arrivals was introduced in 1992, and has been maintained by successive governments. The Australian migration zone was reduced in 2001 by excising many offshore islands that had been used by illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, often under the guidance of people smugglers.

DIMIA statistics show that the most common nationalities of detainees since 2000 are: Afghan, Iraqi, Iranian, Chinese, Indonesian, Sri Lankan, Palestinian, Korean, India, Vietnamese and Bangladeshi. The largest proportion of illegals in Australia, however, are British nationals who have overstayed their visas.

Environmental and Protectionist Concerns

Views within the Australian community differ with regards to the composition and level of the migrant intake.

Some members of the Australian environmental movement, notably the organisation Sustainable Population Australia, believe that as the driest inhabited continent, Australia cannot continue to sustain its current rate of population growth without becoming overpopulated.

Some claim that Australia's recent level of immigration has (along with natural population growth and other economic factors) contributed to a widespread shortage of affordable housing, particularly in the major cities.

Australian Trade unions have at times exposed attempts by employers to import foreign labour for lower wages.

One expert found that thousands of low-cost IT workers entering Australia are undermining the job prospects of new computer science graduates and reducing salaries in the IT industry. Other research has found that due to Australia’s structured labour market, immigration is more likely to cause increased unemployment than a fall in wages.

There is significant concern amongst organisations such as Amnesty International about the use and humanitarian impact of mandatory detention, especially regarding the impact on children.

Instead of believing Australia is overpopulated, as some environmentalists claim, Liberal Party Treasurer Peter Costello believes Australia is underpopulated because of low birth rate. He believes the threat of negative population growth will have negative long-term effects on the economy as the population ages and the labor market becomes less competitive. In response to these fears the Liberal Party has increased migration to fill gaps in the labor markets and introduced a subsidy for families to have more babies.

Economic arguments on immigration

Chapman and Cobb-Clark believe that "immigrant spending from past savings will increase the demand for labour and create job vacancies". However, immigration also increases the supply of labour and the number of people applying for job vacancies.

Using regression analysis, Addison and Worswick found that “there is no evidence that immigration has negatively impacted on the wages of young or low-skilled natives.” Furthermore, Addison's study found that immigration did not increase unemployment among native workers. Rather, immigration decreased unemployment. The evidence from the Economic Record runs counter to the common view that immigration adds only to labour supply and reduce wages. Economic empirical data show that immigrants not only add to labour supply but also to labour demand. Whether labour demand increase is greater than labor supply increase after immigration is an empirical issue. When the magnitude of change in aggregate labour supply is much greater than the magnitude of change in aggregate labour demand as a result of increased immigration then immigration can cause wages to decrease. Analysis by Garnaut shows this.

In July 2005 the Productivity Commission launched a commissioned study entitled "Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth", and released an initial position paper on 17 January 2006 which states that the increase of income per capita provided by higher migration (50% more than the base model) by the 2024-2025 financial year would be $335 (0.6%), an amount described as "very small". The paper also found that Australians would on average work 1.3% longer hours, about twice the proportional increase in income.

In a study in the Australian Economic Review, Junankar finds that during the 1980s the Hawke Government’s decision not to decrease immigration lowered the unemployment rate. A recession occurred in 1990-91 after several years of record immigration and the unemployment rate jumped to over 11 percent, with more than one million people unemployed. Concluding that the recession occurred a result of the high immigration may be a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Individuals and interest groups such as Sustainable Population Australia have filed submissions in response to the Productivity Commission's position paper, arguing amongst other things that immigration causes a decline in wealth per capita and leads to environmental degradation and overburdened infrastructure, the latter creating a costly demand for new infrastructure.The Productivity Commission's report in part accepted these arguments as valid but regarded the environmental costs of increased population growth as being too difficult to measure and thus outside the scope of the study. The costs mentioned, but not counted, by the Productivity Commission included air, river and ocean pollution, land degradation, increased use of natural resources (including increased water shortages), biodiversity loss, and increased congestion of roads and public transport.

Although the environmental argument is favored by politicians like Bob Carr, the Liberal Party of Australia continues to be concerned not with decreasing Australia's population but increasing it. Contrasting against environmental concerns of overpopulation, Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello warns of an impending demographic disaster because of Australia's low birth rate and ageing population.

Although Australia is a relatively high-immigration country like Canada (the country with the highest per capita immigration rate in the world) and the United States, other Northern countries like Japan have negligible immigration.

Immigration and Australian politics

In general both major parties favour a relatively high level of immigration. When John Howard came into office, net migration was climbing, and the upward trend in the number of immigrants has increased over the decade of Howard's Government. According to Banham, Australian political leaders who support higher immigration include Amanda Vanstone, John Howard, Peter Costello, Kim Beasley, and Steve Bracks, with vocal opposition to immigration coming from former New South Wales premier Bob Carr who cites environment reasons for his opposition. Treasurer Peter Costello believes that high population growth in Australia is important for economic growth and says high immigration is necessary because of Australia's low birth rate. In addition to high immigration the government is also trying to increase birth rate with subsidies to women who have babies (also known as the Baby Bonus).

The Howard Government's very public strictness on illegal immigration and its less public high-legal-immigration policy has raised suspicion among some such as Ross Gittens, a columnist at The Age. In his piece entitled Honest John's Migrant Twostep, Gittens accuses John Howard of deception by projecting an image of toughness on illegal immigration to win support from the working class while simultaneously winning support from the upper class with high legal immigration. Commentator Phillip Adams has also been critical of Howard's policy.

Recently the Labor Party under Kim Beazley has taken a stance against the importation of increasingly large numbers of temporary migrants workers ("foreign workers") by employers, arguing that this is simply a way for employers to drive down wages.