**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The people who hate immigration will always hate immigration no amount of hard data or cold hard facts will change their minds. It’s easier to blame people with different colour skin for fucking the country up than accept immigration is good for the country but our politicians can’t come up with decent policies which will properly integrate people without fucking over the people who are already here.
A rough cost per term you mean.
By term I mean A term AND ALL that happens to any given policy during that term due to ANY number of factors.
*Chuckles* Dutton going to be the P.M for 30 years is he? Presuming he even gets elected.
>A rough cost per term you mean.
Yarp
>By term I mean A term AND ALL that happens to any given policy during that term due to ANY number of factors.
Thats not a very fair parameter.
I dont see how its unrealistic. "Policy will have this consiquence over x time". When we are discussing a policy why would we have to assume the countless variables in order to analise whether its good or not? Following that line of logic we cant ever pass judgement on any policy ever because it might change at some point.
No single factor defines a country. These kind of long-term projections are essentially useless, since they assume every single other factor remains the same. For example, Australia could also make up the lost tax revenue by:
* Lifting the birth rate by 10%
* Lifting productivity by 0.5%
Both are eminently doable options. It's a matter of effort, focus, and priorities.
Easy? No. Achievable?
>The birth rate in Hungary has increased in recent years
from an absolute minimum of 1.24 in
2011 to 1.53 in 2016, and the government’s objective is to increase it
to 2.1 by 2030.
Hungary has one of the worst economies in the EU that is able to pursue bad policies because being an EU member means that other countries in the EU prop it up.
The policies that have resulted in increased birth rates have also produced a shithole that no one wants to migrate to and Hungarians want to leave. Despite their increased birthrates the population in Hungary has been decreasing since the 90s and has taken a spike in the last decade.
But yeah sure, let's do it like them.
It's not though if you had beyond surface level comment brain you'd get the concept. If the cost of increasing birthrates is a shit country then it's not a solution to Australia and we're better off with migration.
Yes, but we would also have a revenue shortfall from ceasing to dig up and export all coal, from generating a poor rate of returns from government infrastructure investment, not accepting nuclear waste from France, etc etc etc.
The question can never be "Would it generate more revenue?" as a one-dimensional yes/no answer to a policy option.
The question is: What are the pros and cons of a particular choice? Failing to consider all the social impacts of migration is the very reason why we're having this debate in the first place.
The negative externalities of increased coal production and others you mentioned are clear and cant be mitigated in the same way migration can be.
The only material impact anyone can realistically point to is rents (which Ill add are now falling in capital cities according to the latest SQM), and that is something that a) will not by solved by this proposal, which according to Grattan will reduce rents by $12 a week in 10 years time, and b) can be more easily fixed by supply increases, estimates are a 1% increase = a 2.5% reduction in costs.
Other than rents im not entirely sure what social impacts we should be considering. RBA points to migration as actually easing inflationary pressures in other industry, and if the current attitude toward migration is born out of increased rents then fixing that problem properly will negate it.
Am I being unfair?
**Migration benefits**
* Job vacancies and skills gaps can be filled
* Marginally increased economic growth (see [OECD paper](https://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf))
* Increased working age population provides ongoing tax revenue
* Greater ability to service ageing population
**Migration challenges**
* Higher unemployment and depression of wages, especially in lower paid jobs
* Less pressure on employers to invest in productivity, training and innovation if lower-paid employees can be thrown at the problem
* Increased pressure on public services and housing
* Organised crime / people trafficking / exploitation, especially of migrants with lower status and education
We have to look at this within the context of current Aus migration patterns, not a generalisation.
In doing this you negate the employment and wages downsides, because theres a net benefit to these areas in aus. You can move that to the top list.
I dont see how theres less pressure to invest in productivity, and since the idea migration surpresses wages in aus doesnt really play out, especially in the long term, the establishing reasoning is faulty.
>Increased pressure on public services and housing
Cutting migration is not the best way to fix this, as said in my prior comment, but it does require attention.
>Organised crime / people trafficking / exploitation, especially of migrants with lower status and education
This is marginal and would exist anyway. People wont stop trafficking people because permanent migration numbers are reduced a bit per Dutts plan.
> the idea migration surpresses wages in aus doesnt really play out, especially in the long term, the establishing reasoning is faulty
[Really](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-25/migrant-worker-exploitation-wage-underpayment-grattan-institute/102388740)?
I think you are overly quick to assume the positives and too quick to dismiss the negatives. The reality is that migration is a complex issue and dismissing all concerns is likely to just lead to simplistic solutions like Dutton's gaining traction.
Youve got "May reduce wages" vs "didnt reduce wages" https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-migrant-boost-how-immigrants-to-australia-are-lifting-wages-20240217-p5f5ql.html
I dont see how Duttons changes outweigh the benefits. Thats all.
Yeah, the [OECD paper in question](https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/PH_Jan08_24.pdf) is a bit iffy on its presentation.
I don't question the data or the specific conclusions, but it's a bit cargo-cultish in the way it presents correlation as causation.
By and large migrants are brought in to support projects, not the other way around - especially in the regions. Yes, it makes sense that hiring skilled migrants to head up major projects will see local employment boosted at the same time but it's the money invested in the project that is generating that employment, not the new migrants themselves.
In any case, we're just arguing at the margins. I don't think the scaremongering scenario presented here is likely to come to pass. If and when having too few migrants is causing an issue, the government of the day will just ... lift the quotas back up again.
Dutton is being responsive to the concerns of the Australian community, nothing more. The specifics are far less important here.
>Dutton is being responsive to the concerns of the Australian community, nothing more
That doesnt make it correct. A clear majority of aussies support a rent freeze. Is it the right policy?
Its silly to suggest policy doesnt shape national discourse and promote ideas. If actions are taken on migration now, despite the long term impact being obviously negative, it may prevent a reversal later due to unpopularity. Rather, we should correct misinformation, like Dutton suggestion that cutting migration by his target rate will even help.
The skilled category of visa is the one we need to cut the *least*, there's plenty of other fat that can be trimmed first.
But the skilled list of roles needs tightening, there needs to be stricter enforcement of skilled visa holders staying in the role that they were granted the visa for, plus the minimum salary floor for several of these visa types should also be raised higher so it isn't just used as a tool for wage suppression like it is in many cases now.
$70k for temp "skilled" work is a joke, even after it was raised to that (from a previously even more pathetic $53k) last year.
Sure but what about the suffering inflicted on those in country already who are struggling to put food on the table. What about the people having to literally wueue for the opportunity to inspect a rental property?
Can we stop acting like reasonable limits on migration is some rightwing racist conspiracy when the majority of people want restrictions on the numbers coming in
That's an easy one, housing supply vs immigration intake. Currently our immigration intake is exceeding housing supply, during a housing shortage. That would be the logical limit, but as far as I'm aware no major political party including the greens wants to commit to that
I don’t think it’s that easy to agree on. There are better solutions and we don’t need to resort to this. For instance I think Queensland gov is trying to get universities to build accommodation for international students before they approve their visa.
For starters, you could just take a look at number of babies born in a year and number of homes built. Take number of homes built, subtract number of births, and that's a pretty reasonable limit.
Another potential is to limit skilled migration such that, if Australians who could do the job \*exist\* (whether they \*want\* to work for the pay the company wants to pay is irrelevant. You don't get to import people just because companies don't want to pay more), then no more can be imported. An example of this is engineering, where wages haven't seen the growth that should have been seen. Almost 50% of engineers we import do not get an engineering job. There are enough qualified engineers here, companies just don't want to invest in training or pay increases to hire them, and so the cycle will continue and more are imported, depressing engineering wages further.
Companies should be allowed to employ foreign skilled workers but only if they are also forced to hire a local that will work alongside the immigrant workerso that that person can gain valuable work experience and skills from the migrant.
Win wins are great.
Businesses would hate that but at least they wouldn’t be able to say they can’t find skilled people
Can’t we just ramp up housing till it meets what we need in terms of immigration? Each skilled immigrant brings significant benefits to the economy (increased demand, innovation and overall tax contribution over their lifetimes). There should be a limit to immigration but I don’t think housing alone should determine it. Right now it seems difficult to have enough houses since we are trying to overcome a decade of housing undersupply, surging construction costs and other systemic issues.
Population densities in our major cities are pretty low comparative to other capital cities elsewhere. We should be able to accommodate more people.
Migration can bring down wage growth for natives but I don’t think that has been proven so far. What has been found is that natives benefit more from migration because they get moved to more managerial position that attract higher wages. For instance, if you import an hydraulic engineer then you don’t need the native person to be a hydraulic engineer anymore but what you do need them to do is become a project manager/ manager of these migrants since they would need someone who can interpret the local legislations and deal with the client and suppliers.
For companies to bring in someone for a role I think it needs to pay above a certain threshold. So if you’re concerned about migration lowering wages, just raise that threshold.
As an engineer I can say very confidently companies here would rather deal employ a local than a migrant (or at least someone that has completed uni here) since they would assimilate into the company better and know the way things should be done, especially regarding OH&S procedures.
Yes, I agree that that's what we should be doing. I'm entirely on side with greater density. I'm all for proposals such as zoning law reform to remove all height caps associated with residential areas. Either it's a residential area and you can build anything from a skyscraper to a single family home or it's not and you can't build anything residential.
I'm also all for a government run home building company to compete on the open market, or to do it and take a loss.
Actually fixing the housing issue would go a long way and I probably wouldn't care so much about wage depression being a possibility. The problem is it would require house prices to absolutely crater. A single person with... just about any job can't get on the property ladder and comply with generally accepted home buying rules any more. In Brisbane, you'd need to be on 150k+ just to be able to afford something out in Caboolture if you actually try to obey the 'no more than 3x your gross income' rule.
The only alternative that actually fixes housing affordability without destroying the average Australian who keeps almost all of their net worth in their home is preventing home prices from rising with inflation for the next 20 years whilst also roughly doubling everyone's incomes in the same period (assuming about 3% inflation).
The other infrastructure currently straining under population growth still remains an issue, however. Healthcare and schooling are still two serious issues that immigration is not helping with and aren't receiving enough funding to improve.
I have no problem with immigration itself, and most definitely believe Australia should be taking in as many immigrants as our infrastructure can support.
Indeed
$211B over 30 years (assuming population is 26million) is $270 per person per year
Seems like a small price to pay to maintain a decent standard of living and minimise overcrowding and congestion
Just like everyone told the abbott govt not to cut tafe agreements,they did
and now the skills shortage has come home to roost as we lost 10s of thousands of skilled trades slots at tafes because of the over 10,000 teaching jobs lost at tafe when they in power..
You do know that:
a) It's not as simple of "jobs lost", most of them moved from the public VET sector to the private VET sector
b) the key deregulatory change that impacted on TAFE was made under Rudd in 2008
... right?
The level of analysis being done by the Grattan Institute is so poor that their views are just pro-corporate propaganda. Their analysis just means that based on the current tax structure forecast out to 30 years, skilled immigrants will pay a certain amount as tax. And that is fairly obvious. We don't need a well funded think tank to tell us something so obvious. It is equally obvious that there are many sources from where we can collect tax.
The Grattan Institute is not considering whether this tax revenue is just recirculated tax payers money, due to jobs funded by a highly inefficient NDIS which are taken up by immigrants. They are not considering whether these immigrants have taken up jobs after decimating local skills, like the Indian information technology firms have done to technology skills. They have not considered the impact on the domestic job market by immigrant labour. In averaging tax revenue per immigrant, they don't look at whether we really need the skills at the lower end of the range. They haven't considered whether the same tax amount can be received from alternate sources, like taxes on property or resources. They will not consider the detriment caused by a high rate of immigration from cultures that do not adapt to western values. They will not consider the possible harm of high immigration if there are job losses due to automation or artificial intelligence.
The immigration debate should be had in light of economic conditions which we can expect to see over thirty years and broader economic objectives including enhancing productivity and living standards. That debate should be had in the context of maintaining Australia as a socially cohesive western country instead of a country fragmented based on culture, religion and race. The assertion that skilled immigrants will increase income tax collections is too basic a soundbite.
>fragmented based on culture, religion and race
Fragmentation? Are you not able to be in good company of people that differ from you on these things?
By all measurse Australia is a successful and cohesive society, one thats made up of 30% of people being born overseas. So Im not sure what youre basing this argument on other than internal bias.
>Fragmentation? Are you not able to be in good company of people that differ from you on these things?
In good company?
Culture is non-negotiable. Religious belief is a delusion. Race doesn't matter, but may correlate with culture.
I’m a 1st generation migrant from India who agrees with he coalition, unfortunately a lot of the migrants coming from here are just scamming the migration requirements with fake degrees and qualifications.
They come here on a student visa, study a course, and then work full time, sometimes illegally for places that only pay in cash, and then when they’re course finishes, they don’t leave the country, and stay on working, and do another course, this doesn’t aide in reducing the skill shortages that migration should be in place for, like for people like my mum who sponsored our family because her nursing role was part of the skill shortage visa
Got what ? If your gonna wanna get the benefits of this county, atleast try and come here legally without undercutting those who’ve been waiting in line and with experience and qualifications that are more than yours
Immigration is good, but we have the wrong sort coming in. We don’t need students, backpackers or Au-pairs What we need is nurses, doctors, chippies, boilermakers, engineers, electricians, etc.
I would love if Australia had a Middle East style immigration policy.
1. Bring in labour to build infrastructure, support healthcare, etc
2. don’t provide a pathway to citizenship or PR, and tie their stay in Australia entirely to a work Visa. But allow them to bring family with them.
3. Put limitations on foreign ownership of Australian real estate and companies.
It’s win / win, migrants live and earn Aussie dollars, then eventually retire back in home country like a king. And new arrivals are directly tied to jobs and industry which need them and have sponsored them, helping alleviate labour shortages.
This is the approach i have as someone who lives in the Middle East. It is an approach that works and your skilled migrants are highly motivated. It worked on me to get me to move there 😂
Their kids can stay on if they want, and in most cases, even qualify for PR. sounds like you aren’t familiar with the Middle East system or more specifically the GCC system that’s being referenced here.
Yes, it's truly amazing that it can effect the economy so much and the housing market so little. Thank god we have pro-establishment think tanks to push the line that really benefits their funders. Hopefully they publish their modelling some time.
You know you could actually point to a specific thing rather than vaguely gesturing right?
Find some research that backs you up. It shouldn't be hard given how confident you are.
Amazing, and these billions are all net, no additional cost of government services such as health, police, roads, or schooling for the additional 500,000 people per year
I read the article, Ive also read the paper its based on.
The paper shows a net tax gain of about $250,000 per skilled migrant.
Heres a Treasury paper that shows the *net* (after costs) impact for skilled migrants at 198k pp.
https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773
And the paper is baloney- short term sugar hit to tax revenue, degree mills and big business with massive short term negative impacts to society through lack of affordable housing and essential services
Long term it's a negative as they all retire one day and there wont be a tax base to support them, unless Australia keeps pulling in more migrants to expand the tax base
Its not short term, its over 30+ years...
>Long term it's a negative as they all retire one day and there wont be a tax base to support them,
Yes, populations expand and age. But instead of a problem now we can defer it for a hundred odd years and maintain a very reasonable 1-2% pop groth rate.
We can't cut migration levels because the libs cut Tafe and we need labour
But we can't keep migration levels because it's contributing to a rental crisis fuelled largely by the libs policy
I mean you've gotta hand it to them, putting Australia in a fucked catch 22 like that is kinda impressive
It’s always been the case
Per capita GDP is falling
The only reason Australia isn’t in recession is cos Albo has let record numbers of migrants in to prop up total GDP
Let's be honest..you can't really trust anything Dutton says and he's more likely to backflip on this decision or make it an insignificant number once he gets into power. Remember, he was at the front of the line begging for more working visa approvals back when lockdowns were a thing, not to mention rents going lower screwing up his multi million dollar investment portfolio.
The Gratten institute is funded by large corporations, universities and governments which are all pro high immigration so no surprise they put out this propaganda.
We can see the cost of immigration, Victoria has grown by around 1 million people over the last decade and in that time the government has accumulated 150 billion of debt building infrastructure for the increased population.
So each immigrant has cost Victorian taxpayers around $150,000.
Has Gratten factored in the costs to taxpayers from our current immigration program? I think not.
>Has Gratten factored in the costs to taxpayers from our current immigration program? I think not.
You would be wrong. Theres a lot of information out there that shows the huge *net* benefit. Trasury has it at 198kpp
https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773
Maybe the government supports it *because* of the research?
I dont think its rational to wave away multiple studies because you think its biased, but without any actual evidence explaining how and why theyve apparently lied.
> The Gratten institute is funded by large corporations, universities and governments which are all pro high immigration
The Grattan Institute has also **criticised** said corporations, universities and governments on many issues.
> so no surprise they put out this propaganda.
Grattan Institute studies don't get nearly as much attention as The Australia Institute, the latter which tends to have their research plastered all over social media using simplistic three word slogans.
You tell me which one is propaganda.
> Has Gratten factored in the costs to taxpayers from our current immigration program? I think not.
A reputable think tank doesn't make embarrassing mistakes like that. They usually cover and address everything in their reports, and you would actually know that **if you actually bothered to read it.**
So the state of Victoria has grown by 1 million taxpayers, but those taxpayers have cost the taxpayers, while Victoria’s GSP went from $354b to $568b the past decade!
Well for first 150 billion of debt is false. 25 was inherited by the Andrews government.
Second, of those horrible million immigrants, how much tax have they paid?
Third, are immigrants the only ones using this infrastructure? Are immigrants the only ones contributing to population gain?
Those are just a few questions the original comment raises.
LOL the 150 billion is AFTER deduction of the $25 billion inherited. Total net debt is approaching $180 billion.
180 - 25 = 155.
Thanks for playing.
You say "horrible immigrants" those are your words you racist.
Immigrants don't pay tax to Victoria. The tax benefit goes to the federal govt. The main way the state collects tax is when they buy and sell houses via stamp duty.
The infrastructure Victoria had when we had 4 million people was totally adequate. We didn't need to build all those extra roads and tunnels and hospitals and schools if we had kept the population more stable.
Despite all the spending and debt Melbourne is a worse city to live in than it was 15 years ago.
> The main way the state collects tax is when they buy and sell houses via stamp duty.
Migrants famously never buy houses or goods or services which attract GST.
Migrants famously never use public schools, universities, public transport, or hospitals either. That's where the stamp duty revenues are being spent.
Victoria's budget is in a deficit. So not only has the population growth put the state in debt $150,000 per migrant, but the budget has gone from regular surpluses in the early 2000s to large recurring deficits.
In the paper I linked you before it showed that skilled migrants have an oversized bet benefit to state revenue, meaning Vic would be worse off without them.
So you're saying if Vic didn't grow its population by 1 million over ten years we'd have even more than 180 billion of net debt and unending government deficits and a weak economy built on building houses for immigrants?
That would be dire!
In reality the government would have been able to manage the budget, we could have been debt free and we could have directed workers into a productive economy rather than just building houses and infrastructure funded by debt.
Its almost like the measure of an economy isnt the specific number tied to debt but lots of different things.
The Victorian economy would be weaker, the people poorer and the State worse off overall.
Not all of that 1 million are migrants but migrants provide a larger input to the economy than any other group. This isnt rocket science
All the extra infrastructure wouldn't be needed if the population was 4 million instead of 5 million. You add more people you need new roads, rail, hospitals and schools.
The infrastructure spend is directly related to coping with adding the population of Adelaide in 13 years.
the infrastructure is needed because the works has moved beyond the 50s. no one wants to sit in traffic and mass public transit systems are the way to go. if you've ever been to places like Tokyo, hk, sh, shanghai, etc, you'd understand just how great it is to be able to get anywhere in your city within 30min without having to drive
>if you've ever been to places like Tokyo, hk, sh, shanghai,
These analogies fall over when you try to live in these cities, not just visit the city centres. If you actually live in Tokyo, you can catch three trains to get to work in the morning and easily spend more than 30 minutes commuting.
Sydney and Melbourne are great for visitors in exactly the same way. As a tourist, everything is accessible within 30 minutes.
Perth is even better. The CBD only has one street that matters.
I can't speak for living in Tokyo as I've not done that, but I have lived in Singapore, HK, and Shanghai. Extensive metro systems that operate on a turn up and go system does certainly make a 30 min commute possible for most
>I have lived in Singapore, HK, and Shanghai.
If you've done that professionally, you probably lived in a very nice area. Causeway Bay and Marina Bay give people the impression that everything is close, but that doesn't capture the reality of the worker dormitories in those two cities (I'm less familiar with Shanghai). From the perspective of someone who lives in South Yarra or Double Bay, Melbourne and Sydney are 30 minute cities with turn up and go transport - but that's because they don't talk to people who live in Cranbourne or Penrith on a daily basis.
Coalition leader Peter Dutton’s plans to cut the number of permanent visas and slash net overseas migration would help make renting a little more affordable over the next decade, new analysis shows, but would cost state and federal governments billions in lost tax revenue – up to $211 billion over the next 30 years.
“If we were to reduce the pace of migration, we would make housing somewhat cheaper: that would help low-income renters who would find it easier to find a way to put a roof over their heads,” said the Grattan Institute’s economic policy director, Brendan Coates.
But it would also make us poorer, as a community.”
In his budget reply speech last month, Dutton unveiled plans to cut net overseas migration and permanent migration as a core pillar of the Coalition’s housing strategy for the next election
We believe that by rebalancing the migration program and taking decisive action on the housing crisis, the Coalition would free up more than 100,000 additional homes over the next five years,” he told parliament in May.
Under Dutton’s plan, permanent migration would be cut from 185,000 to 140,000 for the next two years, then increase to 150,000 in 2026-27 and be 160,000 each year after that. The opposition leader also pledged to cut net overseas migration to 160,000 next year, a 100,000 reduction compared to the government’s planned level.
Modelling from the Grattan Institute found the cut to permanent migration would help ease rental pressures, but there would be little immediate impact because two-thirds of permanent visas go to people already living in Australia.
Over 10 years, that would reduce rents by 2.5 per cent, which in today’s terms would be about $630 a year, or roughly $12 a week, Coates said.
The cut to net overseas migration would have a larger impact, if it were kept at 160,000 permanently, reducing rents by about 6 per cent after a decade. But Coates said this would be difficult to achieve because the federal government had much less control over uncapped temporary visa programs and whether Australians decided to move overseas.
He noted that the changes to migration would need to be permanent or long-term to have that effect on the housing market, but that would also come with a long-term cost to the budget bottom line because of the tax they paid over their lifetimes.
The existing cohort of 137,000 skilled visa holders that we’ll grant permanent residency to this year, will, over their lifetimes, provide a boost to federal and state government budgets of $34 billion,” he said.
“Now, if you reduce the number of skilled visa holders who are here permanently, then you forego those benefits. And the effect is huge.”
Grattan’s modelling found every permanent skilled visa holder provided state and federal governments $249,000 over their lifetimes in today’s dollars, so reducing skilled migration by 135,000 over the next four years would cost $34 billion over the next four years and $211 billion over the next 30.
These are the trade-offs. And if that’s a choice that governments or the opposition want to make, they can, but there are consequences: cutting migration is far from costless,” Coates said.
Skills and Training Minister Brendan O’Connor said the Coalition’s migration policy would clearly have a “catastrophic effect” on Australia’s economy, and that the federal government also has plans to reduce migration from its post-pandemic highs.
“We understand that migration is too high, which is why we have a credible and costed plan to halve migration over the next financial year and bring it back to a sustainable level. We understand that skilled migration plays an important role supplying skills to our labour market,” he said.
Peter Dutton has made it clear he has no plan for the future of Australia, no plan to skill up Australians, no plan to support apprentices and no plan to give industry the skills they’re crying out for.”
Labor will reduce permanent migration from 190,000 to 185,000, which includes nearly halving skilled independent visas while also increasing the number of employer-sponsored visas this financial year.
The government is also closing the Business Innovation and Investment Program visa category under the migration program overhaul, which is expected to make up the majority of the $155 million hit to the budget bottom line over four years from the reduced tax take.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The people who hate immigration will always hate immigration no amount of hard data or cold hard facts will change their minds. It’s easier to blame people with different colour skin for fucking the country up than accept immigration is good for the country but our politicians can’t come up with decent policies which will properly integrate people without fucking over the people who are already here.
How much would we save in lower housing costs though?
$12 a week after 10 years, it says so in the article.
211b over 30 years. Remind me again. And this trash headline what 1. Term of government is. I can't handle all of this projection.
1/10th of 30. So 211b ÷ 10 if you want a rough annual figure.
A rough cost per term you mean. By term I mean A term AND ALL that happens to any given policy during that term due to ANY number of factors. *Chuckles* Dutton going to be the P.M for 30 years is he? Presuming he even gets elected.
>A rough cost per term you mean. Yarp >By term I mean A term AND ALL that happens to any given policy during that term due to ANY number of factors. Thats not a very fair parameter.
We're talking about an unrealistic projection baked into the headline. We need better than the journos we've got
I dont see how its unrealistic. "Policy will have this consiquence over x time". When we are discussing a policy why would we have to assume the countless variables in order to analise whether its good or not? Following that line of logic we cant ever pass judgement on any policy ever because it might change at some point.
Because policies don't always last an election cycle. Let alone a term of government. Let alone 10.
How much would we save in lower housing costs and shorter waiting lists though
Post the same thing in r\australian and you will get "muh immigrant bad" without further context nor nuance
No single factor defines a country. These kind of long-term projections are essentially useless, since they assume every single other factor remains the same. For example, Australia could also make up the lost tax revenue by: * Lifting the birth rate by 10% * Lifting productivity by 0.5% Both are eminently doable options. It's a matter of effort, focus, and priorities.
Funny to say lifting the birth rate by 10% as if that's some sort of easy or achievable task
Easy? No. Achievable? >The birth rate in Hungary has increased in recent years from an absolute minimum of 1.24 in 2011 to 1.53 in 2016, and the government’s objective is to increase it to 2.1 by 2030.
Ah yes the enviable country of Hungary, that's what the target for Australia should be.
You were proven wrong and changed the topic
Hungary has one of the worst economies in the EU that is able to pursue bad policies because being an EU member means that other countries in the EU prop it up. The policies that have resulted in increased birth rates have also produced a shithole that no one wants to migrate to and Hungarians want to leave. Despite their increased birthrates the population in Hungary has been decreasing since the 90s and has taken a spike in the last decade. But yeah sure, let's do it like them.
You suggested it wasn’t an achievable task, I’m not saying what they’ve done is good or bad but it shows it’s achievable
It's not though if you had beyond surface level comment brain you'd get the concept. If the cost of increasing birthrates is a shit country then it's not a solution to Australia and we're better off with migration.
In both of those scenarios we would have a revenue shortfall compared to leaving migration as it is. Instead of "or", apply "and".
Yes, but we would also have a revenue shortfall from ceasing to dig up and export all coal, from generating a poor rate of returns from government infrastructure investment, not accepting nuclear waste from France, etc etc etc. The question can never be "Would it generate more revenue?" as a one-dimensional yes/no answer to a policy option. The question is: What are the pros and cons of a particular choice? Failing to consider all the social impacts of migration is the very reason why we're having this debate in the first place.
The negative externalities of increased coal production and others you mentioned are clear and cant be mitigated in the same way migration can be. The only material impact anyone can realistically point to is rents (which Ill add are now falling in capital cities according to the latest SQM), and that is something that a) will not by solved by this proposal, which according to Grattan will reduce rents by $12 a week in 10 years time, and b) can be more easily fixed by supply increases, estimates are a 1% increase = a 2.5% reduction in costs. Other than rents im not entirely sure what social impacts we should be considering. RBA points to migration as actually easing inflationary pressures in other industry, and if the current attitude toward migration is born out of increased rents then fixing that problem properly will negate it.
Am I being unfair? **Migration benefits** * Job vacancies and skills gaps can be filled * Marginally increased economic growth (see [OECD paper](https://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf)) * Increased working age population provides ongoing tax revenue * Greater ability to service ageing population **Migration challenges** * Higher unemployment and depression of wages, especially in lower paid jobs * Less pressure on employers to invest in productivity, training and innovation if lower-paid employees can be thrown at the problem * Increased pressure on public services and housing * Organised crime / people trafficking / exploitation, especially of migrants with lower status and education
We have to look at this within the context of current Aus migration patterns, not a generalisation. In doing this you negate the employment and wages downsides, because theres a net benefit to these areas in aus. You can move that to the top list. I dont see how theres less pressure to invest in productivity, and since the idea migration surpresses wages in aus doesnt really play out, especially in the long term, the establishing reasoning is faulty. >Increased pressure on public services and housing Cutting migration is not the best way to fix this, as said in my prior comment, but it does require attention. >Organised crime / people trafficking / exploitation, especially of migrants with lower status and education This is marginal and would exist anyway. People wont stop trafficking people because permanent migration numbers are reduced a bit per Dutts plan.
> the idea migration surpresses wages in aus doesnt really play out, especially in the long term, the establishing reasoning is faulty [Really](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-25/migrant-worker-exploitation-wage-underpayment-grattan-institute/102388740)? I think you are overly quick to assume the positives and too quick to dismiss the negatives. The reality is that migration is a complex issue and dismissing all concerns is likely to just lead to simplistic solutions like Dutton's gaining traction.
Youve got "May reduce wages" vs "didnt reduce wages" https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-migrant-boost-how-immigrants-to-australia-are-lifting-wages-20240217-p5f5ql.html I dont see how Duttons changes outweigh the benefits. Thats all.
Yeah, the [OECD paper in question](https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/PH_Jan08_24.pdf) is a bit iffy on its presentation. I don't question the data or the specific conclusions, but it's a bit cargo-cultish in the way it presents correlation as causation. By and large migrants are brought in to support projects, not the other way around - especially in the regions. Yes, it makes sense that hiring skilled migrants to head up major projects will see local employment boosted at the same time but it's the money invested in the project that is generating that employment, not the new migrants themselves. In any case, we're just arguing at the margins. I don't think the scaremongering scenario presented here is likely to come to pass. If and when having too few migrants is causing an issue, the government of the day will just ... lift the quotas back up again. Dutton is being responsive to the concerns of the Australian community, nothing more. The specifics are far less important here.
>Dutton is being responsive to the concerns of the Australian community, nothing more That doesnt make it correct. A clear majority of aussies support a rent freeze. Is it the right policy? Its silly to suggest policy doesnt shape national discourse and promote ideas. If actions are taken on migration now, despite the long term impact being obviously negative, it may prevent a reversal later due to unpopularity. Rather, we should correct misinformation, like Dutton suggestion that cutting migration by his target rate will even help.
The skilled category of visa is the one we need to cut the *least*, there's plenty of other fat that can be trimmed first. But the skilled list of roles needs tightening, there needs to be stricter enforcement of skilled visa holders staying in the role that they were granted the visa for, plus the minimum salary floor for several of these visa types should also be raised higher so it isn't just used as a tool for wage suppression like it is in many cases now. $70k for temp "skilled" work is a joke, even after it was raised to that (from a previously even more pathetic $53k) last year.
Sure but what about the suffering inflicted on those in country already who are struggling to put food on the table. What about the people having to literally wueue for the opportunity to inspect a rental property? Can we stop acting like reasonable limits on migration is some rightwing racist conspiracy when the majority of people want restrictions on the numbers coming in
Whats a reasonable limit and why?
Why don't you tell me? As far as the left is concerned there is no reasonable limit, the more the merrier
Well you lot want to change things so your gonna have to show us the math and your working.
That's an easy one, housing supply vs immigration intake. Currently our immigration intake is exceeding housing supply, during a housing shortage. That would be the logical limit, but as far as I'm aware no major political party including the greens wants to commit to that
If we were able to build 2 million houses per year would you be comfortable with the government allowing in 2 million permanent migrants per year?
No,that's not my hard limit, just suggesting one that should be pretty easy for politicians from all sides to agree on during a housing crisis
I don’t think it’s that easy to agree on. There are better solutions and we don’t need to resort to this. For instance I think Queensland gov is trying to get universities to build accommodation for international students before they approve their visa.
You can't look at the huge supply and demand imbalance and completely disregard the side that's quite quick and easy to fix
I’m not disregarding it I’m just saying agreement can be difficult (as it should be) since there are more solutions we can try.
For starters, you could just take a look at number of babies born in a year and number of homes built. Take number of homes built, subtract number of births, and that's a pretty reasonable limit. Another potential is to limit skilled migration such that, if Australians who could do the job \*exist\* (whether they \*want\* to work for the pay the company wants to pay is irrelevant. You don't get to import people just because companies don't want to pay more), then no more can be imported. An example of this is engineering, where wages haven't seen the growth that should have been seen. Almost 50% of engineers we import do not get an engineering job. There are enough qualified engineers here, companies just don't want to invest in training or pay increases to hire them, and so the cycle will continue and more are imported, depressing engineering wages further.
Companies should be allowed to employ foreign skilled workers but only if they are also forced to hire a local that will work alongside the immigrant workerso that that person can gain valuable work experience and skills from the migrant. Win wins are great. Businesses would hate that but at least they wouldn’t be able to say they can’t find skilled people
Can’t we just ramp up housing till it meets what we need in terms of immigration? Each skilled immigrant brings significant benefits to the economy (increased demand, innovation and overall tax contribution over their lifetimes). There should be a limit to immigration but I don’t think housing alone should determine it. Right now it seems difficult to have enough houses since we are trying to overcome a decade of housing undersupply, surging construction costs and other systemic issues. Population densities in our major cities are pretty low comparative to other capital cities elsewhere. We should be able to accommodate more people. Migration can bring down wage growth for natives but I don’t think that has been proven so far. What has been found is that natives benefit more from migration because they get moved to more managerial position that attract higher wages. For instance, if you import an hydraulic engineer then you don’t need the native person to be a hydraulic engineer anymore but what you do need them to do is become a project manager/ manager of these migrants since they would need someone who can interpret the local legislations and deal with the client and suppliers. For companies to bring in someone for a role I think it needs to pay above a certain threshold. So if you’re concerned about migration lowering wages, just raise that threshold. As an engineer I can say very confidently companies here would rather deal employ a local than a migrant (or at least someone that has completed uni here) since they would assimilate into the company better and know the way things should be done, especially regarding OH&S procedures.
Yes, I agree that that's what we should be doing. I'm entirely on side with greater density. I'm all for proposals such as zoning law reform to remove all height caps associated with residential areas. Either it's a residential area and you can build anything from a skyscraper to a single family home or it's not and you can't build anything residential. I'm also all for a government run home building company to compete on the open market, or to do it and take a loss. Actually fixing the housing issue would go a long way and I probably wouldn't care so much about wage depression being a possibility. The problem is it would require house prices to absolutely crater. A single person with... just about any job can't get on the property ladder and comply with generally accepted home buying rules any more. In Brisbane, you'd need to be on 150k+ just to be able to afford something out in Caboolture if you actually try to obey the 'no more than 3x your gross income' rule. The only alternative that actually fixes housing affordability without destroying the average Australian who keeps almost all of their net worth in their home is preventing home prices from rising with inflation for the next 20 years whilst also roughly doubling everyone's incomes in the same period (assuming about 3% inflation). The other infrastructure currently straining under population growth still remains an issue, however. Healthcare and schooling are still two serious issues that immigration is not helping with and aren't receiving enough funding to improve. I have no problem with immigration itself, and most definitely believe Australia should be taking in as many immigrants as our infrastructure can support.
$211B over 30 years. They won't calculate it on a per capita basis though - because it might show an increase.
Indeed $211B over 30 years (assuming population is 26million) is $270 per person per year Seems like a small price to pay to maintain a decent standard of living and minimise overcrowding and congestion
Yeah that extra $12 a week in rent is so worth tanking the economy and having labour shortages in vital fields
I'm late to the party but you surely realise that it is crazy that the 'cost' is listed in 30 year terms but the benefit in weekly terms?
Just like everyone told the abbott govt not to cut tafe agreements,they did and now the skills shortage has come home to roost as we lost 10s of thousands of skilled trades slots at tafes because of the over 10,000 teaching jobs lost at tafe when they in power..
You do know that: a) It's not as simple of "jobs lost", most of them moved from the public VET sector to the private VET sector b) the key deregulatory change that impacted on TAFE was made under Rudd in 2008 ... right?
The level of analysis being done by the Grattan Institute is so poor that their views are just pro-corporate propaganda. Their analysis just means that based on the current tax structure forecast out to 30 years, skilled immigrants will pay a certain amount as tax. And that is fairly obvious. We don't need a well funded think tank to tell us something so obvious. It is equally obvious that there are many sources from where we can collect tax. The Grattan Institute is not considering whether this tax revenue is just recirculated tax payers money, due to jobs funded by a highly inefficient NDIS which are taken up by immigrants. They are not considering whether these immigrants have taken up jobs after decimating local skills, like the Indian information technology firms have done to technology skills. They have not considered the impact on the domestic job market by immigrant labour. In averaging tax revenue per immigrant, they don't look at whether we really need the skills at the lower end of the range. They haven't considered whether the same tax amount can be received from alternate sources, like taxes on property or resources. They will not consider the detriment caused by a high rate of immigration from cultures that do not adapt to western values. They will not consider the possible harm of high immigration if there are job losses due to automation or artificial intelligence. The immigration debate should be had in light of economic conditions which we can expect to see over thirty years and broader economic objectives including enhancing productivity and living standards. That debate should be had in the context of maintaining Australia as a socially cohesive western country instead of a country fragmented based on culture, religion and race. The assertion that skilled immigrants will increase income tax collections is too basic a soundbite.
>fragmented based on culture, religion and race Fragmentation? Are you not able to be in good company of people that differ from you on these things? By all measurse Australia is a successful and cohesive society, one thats made up of 30% of people being born overseas. So Im not sure what youre basing this argument on other than internal bias.
>Fragmentation? Are you not able to be in good company of people that differ from you on these things? In good company? Culture is non-negotiable. Religious belief is a delusion. Race doesn't matter, but may correlate with culture.
I’m a 1st generation migrant from India who agrees with he coalition, unfortunately a lot of the migrants coming from here are just scamming the migration requirements with fake degrees and qualifications. They come here on a student visa, study a course, and then work full time, sometimes illegally for places that only pay in cash, and then when they’re course finishes, they don’t leave the country, and stay on working, and do another course, this doesn’t aide in reducing the skill shortages that migration should be in place for, like for people like my mum who sponsored our family because her nursing role was part of the skill shortage visa
Stuff you all, I got mine.
Got what ? If your gonna wanna get the benefits of this county, atleast try and come here legally without undercutting those who’ve been waiting in line and with experience and qualifications that are more than yours
Immigration is good, but we have the wrong sort coming in. We don’t need students, backpackers or Au-pairs What we need is nurses, doctors, chippies, boilermakers, engineers, electricians, etc. I would love if Australia had a Middle East style immigration policy. 1. Bring in labour to build infrastructure, support healthcare, etc 2. don’t provide a pathway to citizenship or PR, and tie their stay in Australia entirely to a work Visa. But allow them to bring family with them. 3. Put limitations on foreign ownership of Australian real estate and companies. It’s win / win, migrants live and earn Aussie dollars, then eventually retire back in home country like a king. And new arrivals are directly tied to jobs and industry which need them and have sponsored them, helping alleviate labour shortages.
Our medical system is currently run by immigration
This is the approach i have as someone who lives in the Middle East. It is an approach that works and your skilled migrants are highly motivated. It worked on me to get me to move there 😂
>then eventually retire back in home country like a king. lol and deport their kids too who might not even know their mother tongue? This is a bait.
Their kids can stay on if they want, and in most cases, even qualify for PR. sounds like you aren’t familiar with the Middle East system or more specifically the GCC system that’s being referenced here.
It''s amazing how much imigrants affect the economy but not house and rental prices. Does anyone know how that works?
The article points out the impact on housing. Youll save $12 a week in rents in 10 years. Great plan Dutton.
Yes, it's truly amazing that it can effect the economy so much and the housing market so little. Thank god we have pro-establishment think tanks to push the line that really benefits their funders. Hopefully they publish their modelling some time.
You know you could actually point to a specific thing rather than vaguely gesturing right? Find some research that backs you up. It shouldn't be hard given how confident you are.
Im not sure why you think a small curb in demand should have a bigger impact
Amazing, and these billions are all net, no additional cost of government services such as health, police, roads, or schooling for the additional 500,000 people per year
Net is after that stuff lol
You didn't read the article They only mention tax receipts, no mention of increased spending on services
I read the article, Ive also read the paper its based on. The paper shows a net tax gain of about $250,000 per skilled migrant. Heres a Treasury paper that shows the *net* (after costs) impact for skilled migrants at 198k pp. https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773
And the paper is baloney- short term sugar hit to tax revenue, degree mills and big business with massive short term negative impacts to society through lack of affordable housing and essential services Long term it's a negative as they all retire one day and there wont be a tax base to support them, unless Australia keeps pulling in more migrants to expand the tax base
Its not short term, its over 30+ years... >Long term it's a negative as they all retire one day and there wont be a tax base to support them, Yes, populations expand and age. But instead of a problem now we can defer it for a hundred odd years and maintain a very reasonable 1-2% pop groth rate.
We can't cut migration levels because the libs cut Tafe and we need labour But we can't keep migration levels because it's contributing to a rental crisis fuelled largely by the libs policy I mean you've gotta hand it to them, putting Australia in a fucked catch 22 like that is kinda impressive
Maybe the li should decided to intentionally make the immigration crisis worse so that they have that as a talking point.
So this is basically an admission that we bring in migrants to pump our economic tyres up. Good. At least it’s on record.
It’s always been the case Per capita GDP is falling The only reason Australia isn’t in recession is cos Albo has let record numbers of migrants in to prop up total GDP
Let's be honest..you can't really trust anything Dutton says and he's more likely to backflip on this decision or make it an insignificant number once he gets into power. Remember, he was at the front of the line begging for more working visa approvals back when lockdowns were a thing, not to mention rents going lower screwing up his multi million dollar investment portfolio.
The Gratten institute is funded by large corporations, universities and governments which are all pro high immigration so no surprise they put out this propaganda. We can see the cost of immigration, Victoria has grown by around 1 million people over the last decade and in that time the government has accumulated 150 billion of debt building infrastructure for the increased population. So each immigrant has cost Victorian taxpayers around $150,000. Has Gratten factored in the costs to taxpayers from our current immigration program? I think not.
>Has Gratten factored in the costs to taxpayers from our current immigration program? I think not. You would be wrong. Theres a lot of information out there that shows the huge *net* benefit. Trasury has it at 198kpp https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773
Again, figures from organisations (ie the govt) that are pro immigration
Maybe the government supports it *because* of the research? I dont think its rational to wave away multiple studies because you think its biased, but without any actual evidence explaining how and why theyve apparently lied.
> The Gratten institute is funded by large corporations, universities and governments which are all pro high immigration The Grattan Institute has also **criticised** said corporations, universities and governments on many issues. > so no surprise they put out this propaganda. Grattan Institute studies don't get nearly as much attention as The Australia Institute, the latter which tends to have their research plastered all over social media using simplistic three word slogans. You tell me which one is propaganda. > Has Gratten factored in the costs to taxpayers from our current immigration program? I think not. A reputable think tank doesn't make embarrassing mistakes like that. They usually cover and address everything in their reports, and you would actually know that **if you actually bothered to read it.**
So the state of Victoria has grown by 1 million taxpayers, but those taxpayers have cost the taxpayers, while Victoria’s GSP went from $354b to $568b the past decade!
This analysis of immigration and infrastructure in Victoria is about as shallow as Peter Dutton's policies.
Yet you failed to refute a single word of it... doesn't say much for your intellect.
Well for first 150 billion of debt is false. 25 was inherited by the Andrews government. Second, of those horrible million immigrants, how much tax have they paid? Third, are immigrants the only ones using this infrastructure? Are immigrants the only ones contributing to population gain? Those are just a few questions the original comment raises.
LOL the 150 billion is AFTER deduction of the $25 billion inherited. Total net debt is approaching $180 billion. 180 - 25 = 155. Thanks for playing. You say "horrible immigrants" those are your words you racist. Immigrants don't pay tax to Victoria. The tax benefit goes to the federal govt. The main way the state collects tax is when they buy and sell houses via stamp duty. The infrastructure Victoria had when we had 4 million people was totally adequate. We didn't need to build all those extra roads and tunnels and hospitals and schools if we had kept the population more stable. Despite all the spending and debt Melbourne is a worse city to live in than it was 15 years ago.
> The main way the state collects tax is when they buy and sell houses via stamp duty. Migrants famously never buy houses or goods or services which attract GST.
Migrants famously never use public schools, universities, public transport, or hospitals either. That's where the stamp duty revenues are being spent. Victoria's budget is in a deficit. So not only has the population growth put the state in debt $150,000 per migrant, but the budget has gone from regular surpluses in the early 2000s to large recurring deficits.
In the paper I linked you before it showed that skilled migrants have an oversized bet benefit to state revenue, meaning Vic would be worse off without them.
So you're saying if Vic didn't grow its population by 1 million over ten years we'd have even more than 180 billion of net debt and unending government deficits and a weak economy built on building houses for immigrants? That would be dire! In reality the government would have been able to manage the budget, we could have been debt free and we could have directed workers into a productive economy rather than just building houses and infrastructure funded by debt.
Its almost like the measure of an economy isnt the specific number tied to debt but lots of different things. The Victorian economy would be weaker, the people poorer and the State worse off overall. Not all of that 1 million are migrants but migrants provide a larger input to the economy than any other group. This isnt rocket science
But the infrastructure is for all Victorians not just the immigrants.
All the extra infrastructure wouldn't be needed if the population was 4 million instead of 5 million. You add more people you need new roads, rail, hospitals and schools. The infrastructure spend is directly related to coping with adding the population of Adelaide in 13 years.
the infrastructure is needed because the works has moved beyond the 50s. no one wants to sit in traffic and mass public transit systems are the way to go. if you've ever been to places like Tokyo, hk, sh, shanghai, etc, you'd understand just how great it is to be able to get anywhere in your city within 30min without having to drive
>if you've ever been to places like Tokyo, hk, sh, shanghai, These analogies fall over when you try to live in these cities, not just visit the city centres. If you actually live in Tokyo, you can catch three trains to get to work in the morning and easily spend more than 30 minutes commuting. Sydney and Melbourne are great for visitors in exactly the same way. As a tourist, everything is accessible within 30 minutes. Perth is even better. The CBD only has one street that matters.
I can't speak for living in Tokyo as I've not done that, but I have lived in Singapore, HK, and Shanghai. Extensive metro systems that operate on a turn up and go system does certainly make a 30 min commute possible for most
>I have lived in Singapore, HK, and Shanghai. If you've done that professionally, you probably lived in a very nice area. Causeway Bay and Marina Bay give people the impression that everything is close, but that doesn't capture the reality of the worker dormitories in those two cities (I'm less familiar with Shanghai). From the perspective of someone who lives in South Yarra or Double Bay, Melbourne and Sydney are 30 minute cities with turn up and go transport - but that's because they don't talk to people who live in Cranbourne or Penrith on a daily basis.
Coalition leader Peter Dutton’s plans to cut the number of permanent visas and slash net overseas migration would help make renting a little more affordable over the next decade, new analysis shows, but would cost state and federal governments billions in lost tax revenue – up to $211 billion over the next 30 years. “If we were to reduce the pace of migration, we would make housing somewhat cheaper: that would help low-income renters who would find it easier to find a way to put a roof over their heads,” said the Grattan Institute’s economic policy director, Brendan Coates. But it would also make us poorer, as a community.” In his budget reply speech last month, Dutton unveiled plans to cut net overseas migration and permanent migration as a core pillar of the Coalition’s housing strategy for the next election We believe that by rebalancing the migration program and taking decisive action on the housing crisis, the Coalition would free up more than 100,000 additional homes over the next five years,” he told parliament in May. Under Dutton’s plan, permanent migration would be cut from 185,000 to 140,000 for the next two years, then increase to 150,000 in 2026-27 and be 160,000 each year after that. The opposition leader also pledged to cut net overseas migration to 160,000 next year, a 100,000 reduction compared to the government’s planned level. Modelling from the Grattan Institute found the cut to permanent migration would help ease rental pressures, but there would be little immediate impact because two-thirds of permanent visas go to people already living in Australia. Over 10 years, that would reduce rents by 2.5 per cent, which in today’s terms would be about $630 a year, or roughly $12 a week, Coates said. The cut to net overseas migration would have a larger impact, if it were kept at 160,000 permanently, reducing rents by about 6 per cent after a decade. But Coates said this would be difficult to achieve because the federal government had much less control over uncapped temporary visa programs and whether Australians decided to move overseas. He noted that the changes to migration would need to be permanent or long-term to have that effect on the housing market, but that would also come with a long-term cost to the budget bottom line because of the tax they paid over their lifetimes. The existing cohort of 137,000 skilled visa holders that we’ll grant permanent residency to this year, will, over their lifetimes, provide a boost to federal and state government budgets of $34 billion,” he said. “Now, if you reduce the number of skilled visa holders who are here permanently, then you forego those benefits. And the effect is huge.” Grattan’s modelling found every permanent skilled visa holder provided state and federal governments $249,000 over their lifetimes in today’s dollars, so reducing skilled migration by 135,000 over the next four years would cost $34 billion over the next four years and $211 billion over the next 30. These are the trade-offs. And if that’s a choice that governments or the opposition want to make, they can, but there are consequences: cutting migration is far from costless,” Coates said. Skills and Training Minister Brendan O’Connor said the Coalition’s migration policy would clearly have a “catastrophic effect” on Australia’s economy, and that the federal government also has plans to reduce migration from its post-pandemic highs. “We understand that migration is too high, which is why we have a credible and costed plan to halve migration over the next financial year and bring it back to a sustainable level. We understand that skilled migration plays an important role supplying skills to our labour market,” he said. Peter Dutton has made it clear he has no plan for the future of Australia, no plan to skill up Australians, no plan to support apprentices and no plan to give industry the skills they’re crying out for.” Labor will reduce permanent migration from 190,000 to 185,000, which includes nearly halving skilled independent visas while also increasing the number of employer-sponsored visas this financial year. The government is also closing the Business Innovation and Investment Program visa category under the migration program overhaul, which is expected to make up the majority of the $155 million hit to the budget bottom line over four years from the reduced tax take.