The federal government has proposed to give migrants who want to settle outside Sydney and Melbourne easier entry, but their settlement would be enforced by a bond of up to $30,000 repayable only when the migrant has bought a house or business outside the main capitals. The proposal has some major difficulties. However, the government should not be condemned for floating the idea … there is far too much timidity in discussing and debating ideas in the political arena. The best ideas only bear fruition after considered debate.
With this proposal, the government will face the difficulty of treating migrants differently from others. Aside from the human rights aspects, this may raise constitutional difficulties because the Constitution gives freedom of movement between the states and demands that residents of each state be treated the same in other states.
Enforcement will also be a problem. Inevitably there will be court action to prevent bond forfeiture in cases where administrative discretion comes down against the migrant.
The question of Sydney’s infrastructure being strained by too many people coming to live there, will not be solved by a program dealing only with migrants. It has to be dealt with in an overall context of decentralisation and population policy. This week’s bond proposal is unlikely to change the destination of a significant number of people. Moreover, migrants prefer cities for the same reason as anyone likes cities: that’s where the jobs and services are. Forcing migrants to the bush might be a recipe for more migrants without jobs and a strain on regional services.