Weeo, weeoo, weeoo.
The Pascometer, Australia’s most reliable contrarian signal generator, is screaming the end is nigh for immigration:
It says plenty about the state of Australian politics that so much policy is viewed through the lens of Sydney and Melbourne housing affordability. With that in mind, the odds of an immigration cut next month are shortening.
The combination of Treasurer Scott Morrison promising to do something about housing affordability in the May budget, negative gearing being off limits, wage inflation remaining stubbornly low, the national unemployment rate stuck in the high fives and the coalition needing to limit the success of minority parties’ xenophobia and populism, all make trimming the 190,000 annual permanent migrant places a relatively soft option.
The PC report can be cherry-picked by both anti- and pro-migration campaigners. The overall thrust is in favour of migration for what it adds to the nation, but with the proviso that we need to be better at planning and building for the extra people :
“Immigration, as a major source of population growth in Australia, contributes to congestion in the major cities, raising the importance of sound planning and infrastructure investment. While a larger population offers opportunities for more efficient use of, and investment in, infrastructure, governments have not demonstrated a high degree of competence in infrastructure planning and investment. Funding will inevitably be borne by the Australian community either through user‑pays fees or general taxation.”
Uh-oh. “Funding” is not a popular word. It is there again when the extra housing pressure is mentioned:
“There are also impacts on the price of land and housing particularly in metropolitan areas. While this is beneficial to property owners, it increases costs and thereby reduces the living standards for those entering the property market.
“Sound policies around urban planning and infrastructure investment and effective implementation will remain critical in managing the effects of population growth on the environment, and the associated pressures on society more generally. Given that the bulk of infrastructure investment is delivered at state and local levels, the implications for planning, funding and financing capacities of state and local governments should be considered in determining the migrant intake.”
Not popular either in some quarters is the idea of reducing local workers’ wages when we’re not fighting an inflationary boom, but the commission finds it makes little difference except for the impact of temporary entrants on youth jobs:
“A common concern is that by adding to the supply of labour, immigration can reduce the wages of local workers (or displace them from jobs). This concept of displacement is partly a manifestation of a fallacy that there is a fixed number of jobs in an economy. However, with sufficient labour market flexibility, displaced workers will typically seek and find other jobs, although potentially at lower wages than their previous employment. Offsetting this effect is the increase in demand for local goods and services from new immigrants. Immigrants also may complement rather than displace local workers, improving productivity, particularly when filling skill shortages that are restricting the expansion of firms. The extent to which different types of immigrant labour complement or displace domestic labour is an empirical issue.
Again, like providing necessary infrastructure, it’s a matter of getting the rest of the picture right. And if announcing a trimming of permanent numbers helps the political optics, a government behind in the polls with a rising right wing will be sorely tempted.
More to the point, it sounds more like the Pascometer is sorely tempted. The Productivity Commission’s body of work clearly concludes that the existing population is worse off under high immigration policies. Did the Pascometer secrete them into his piece? Is there is a fatwa abroad within Domainfax for anyone that suggests immigration should be cut? Perhaps it’s simply the prospect of having to confront pro-immigration extremist Peter Martin over the water cooler that means solid arguments against immigration can only debated in hushed and secretive tones.
There is no need to hide it. It’s not racist to defend the needs of your fellow Australians who are, after all, mostly migrants! It is much more damaging to the multi-cutural social fabric to persist with high immigration when the population has had enough.
Weeoo. Weeoo. Weeoo.
