The changes to the immigration program announced by the Government this week are more symbolic than real. A reduction of 10,000 places is not especially large, and there is nothing wrong with a government fine tuning the immigration intake to account for economic or other circumstances. Too much appears to have been made of the overall cut by 10 per cent to 86,000 places. Viewed in context, however, the new intake is more in keeping with the long-term immigration trend. Set against the aberration of the Hawke Government’s huge boost to immigration up to 1988-89, it might seem like a slash. Seen against Australia’s long term trend after the immediate post-war period, however, the new figure should be seen as a normal level, not a departure from it.
That also holds true for the nature of the mix of migrants. In the latter half of the 1980s, Australia substantially increased the family-reunion portion of the intake and left the skills intake alone … so the overall number went up. In the early 1990s, however, when economic and political conditions demanded a reduction in overall numbers, the skills intake was cut at a much greater rate than the family rate, resulting in an aberration in the mix. It became weighted, in historic terms, far more towards family reunion. All that this week’s announcement has done is correct that balance to more closely fit the mix that pertained before the Hawke surge. It is an assertion that the government determines who comes in, and that there is no “”right” of family reunion beyond spouse and dependant children.
Aside from these trends, the humanitarian trend has rightly fluctuated quite markedly. This is only proper because the humanitarian intake should go up and down in response to quite unpredictable flaring of overseas troublespots.
The difficulty with the Hawke approach of increasing the overall intake was that it led to a misguided correction by the Keating Government in cutting the skills intake more than the family reunion. And together they led to an unfortunate increase in hostility to the immigration program, to migrants and programs for migrants. That hostility was probably further increased in a time of high unemployment when migrants were seen, rightly or wrongly, as either taking existing residents’ jobs or adding to dole queues and being a burden on the Australian taxpayer. To the extent that this week’s announcement brings a better balance to the immigration program it is to be welcomed.
There is an unfortunate element, though. The Government will be forced to break one, possibly two, election promises to achieve its aims. The Coalition said before the election that it would “”not reduce the refugee component” and that it would maintain immigration levels at “”about their current level”. The Government might argue that a 10 per cent cut is “”about the same”, but it would do so with difficulty. The promise on refugee intake, however, is a clear breach. It was a silly promise. Future refugee intakes must vary with unpredictable circumstance.
The Government’s other announcement about cracking down on sham marriages, was largely window-dressing. Sham marriages are not a serious problem.
The statement by Prime Minister John Howard that the Government is entitled to set immigration quotas according to the national interest is a quite proper one. It is a departure from the previous government’s attitude which was to set immigration quotas according to the government’s own interests, particularly in not upsetting a constituency of ethnic communities who had a greater tendency to vote Labor. The Government is entitled to put a greater economic focus on the migration program. That means greater emphasis on overall skills and on English. The emphasis on English is particularly important. All the evidence shows a strong correlation between unemployment and lack of English skills.
Greater insistence on English pre-migration, must not detract from providing English-as-a-second-language and translation services within Australia; nor must it be seen as any erosion of the principles of multi-culturalism. It is vital that the year-by-year fluctuation in the immigration intake is completely divorced from the issue of multiculturalism, recognition of immigration as one of the most significant elements of nation-building, and services to migrants already here.
Further, it is important for governments to move away from a year-by-year approach to immigration. Immigration should be integrated with a total approach to population which is linked to housing, transport, environment, health, decentralisation and other policies. Plucking immigration targets from the air every year according to momentary political perceptions is quite foolish and will cause strife in the future.
The Government is likely to get itself into further trouble in the future by citing various mantras and excuses now for cutting the intake … such as economic imperatives and the need to ensure migrants do not become a burden on the welfare system. These might lock it in when future circumstances, such as changes in Hong Kong, might demand an increased intake.
In general, however, the result of the announcement should be welcomed as an overdue correction of past mistakes.