Research: Mass immigration kills wages, productivity and well-being

By Leith van Onselen

Robert Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University, has penned an excellent article in Project Syndicate debunking commonly used economic justifications for mass immigration:

Standard economic theory tells us that net inward migration, like free trade, benefits the native population only after a lag. The argument here is that if you increase the quantity of labor, its price (wages) falls. This will increase profits. The increase in profits leads to more investment, which will increase demand for labor, thereby reversing the initial fall in wages. Immigration thus enables a larger population to enjoy the same standard of living as the smaller population did before – a clear improvement in total welfare.

A recent study by Cambridge University economist Robert Rowthorn, however, has shown that this argument is full of holes. The so-called temporary effects in terms of displaced native workers and lower wages may last five or ten years, while the beneficial effects assume an absence of recession. And, even with no recession, if there is a continuing inflow of migrants, rather than a one-off increase in the size of the labor force, demand for labor may constantly lag behind growth in supply. The “claim that immigrants take jobs from local workers and push down their wages,” Rowthorn argues, “may be exaggerated, but it is not always false.”

A second economic argument is that immigration will rejuvenate the labor force and stabilize public finances, because young, imported workers will generate the taxes required to support a rising number of pensioners…

Rowthorn dismisses this argument. “Rejuvenation through immigration is an endless treadmill,” he says. “To maintain a once-and-for-all reduction in the dependency ratio requires a never-ending stream of immigrants. Once the inflow stops, the age structure will revert to its original trajectory.” A lower inflow and a higher retirement age would be a much better solution to population aging.

Thus, even with optimal outcomes, like the avoidance of recession, the economic arguments for large-scale immigration are hardly conclusive. So the crux of the matter is really its social impact. Here, the familiar benefit of diversity confronts the downside risk of a loss of social cohesion…

The policy conclusion to be drawn is banal, but worth restating. A people’s tolerance for change and adaptation should not be strained beyond its limits, different though these will be in different countries. Specifically, immigration should not be pressed too far, because it will be sure to ignite hostility. Politicians who fail to “control the borders” do not deserve their people’s trust.

Politicians and economists frequently claim that maintaining a ‘strong’ immigration program is essential as it keeps the population young and productive, and without constant immigration, the population would grow old and the economy would stagnate.

Economic models are often cited as proof that a strong immigration is ‘good’ for the economy because they show that real GDP per capita is moderately increased via immigration, based on several dubious assumptions.

First, it is generally assumed in these models that population ageing will result in fewer people working, which will subtract from per capita GDP. However, it is just as likely that age-specific workforce participation will respond to labour demand, resulting in fewer people being unemployed, as we have witnessed in Japan.

Even if this assumption was true, the benefit to GDP per capita would only be transitory. Once the migrant workers grow old, they too will add to the pool of aged people, thus requiring an ever-bigger immigration intake to keep the population age profile from rising.

Indeed, the Productivity Commission (PC) has for more than a decade debunked the myth that immigration can overcome population ageing. For example, in its 2010 submission to the Minister for Population, the PC explicitly noted that “substantial increases in the level of net overseas migration would have only modest effects on population ageing and the impacts would be temporary, since immigrants themselves age”.

Academic demographer, Peter McDonald, has also previously stated that it is “demographic nonsense to believe that immigration can help to keep our population young”.

Second, it is generally assumed that migrant workers are more productive than the Australian born population and, therefore, labour productivity is increased through strong immigration. However, the evidence here is highly contestable, with migrants generally being employed below the level of their qualifications, as well as having lower labour force attachment than the Australian born population (more information here).

Third, economists generally ignore obvious ‘costs’ of mass immigration on productivity. Growing the population without commensurately increasing the stock of household, business and public capital to support the bigger population necessarily ‘dilutes’ the capital base, leaving less capital per person and lowering productivity. We have witnessed this first hand with the costs of congestion soaring across Australia’s big cities.

Moreover, the cost of retro-fitting Australia’s major cities with infrastructure to cope with larger populations is necessarily very expensive – think tunnelling and land acquisitions – with costs borne largely by the incumbent population.

Finally, while economic models tend to show a modest improvement in real GDP per capita, the gains are more likely to flow to the wealthy, whereas ordinary workers are made worse-off.

In 2006, the PC completed a major study on the Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, which modelled the impact of a 50% increase in Australia’s skilled migrant intake over the 20 years to 2024-25. The modelling found that even skilled migration does not increase the incomes of existing residents. According to the Commission: “the distribution of these benefits [from skilled migration] varies across the population, with gains mostly accrued to the skilled migrants and capital owners. The incomes of existing resident workers grow more slowly than would otherwise be the case”.

Of course, there are other costs borne by incumbent residents from immigration that are not captured in the economic modelling, such as rising congestion, increased infrastructure costs, reduced housing affordability, and environmental degradation – none of which are given appropriate consideration by politicians nor economists.

In Australia’s case, adding a Canberra-worth of population each and every year – with 80,000 to 100,000-plus people flooding into Sydney and Melbourne – requires an incredible amount of investment just to keep up. Hence, Australia’s infrastructure deficit has fallen badly behind over the past decade, and will continue to do so under Australia’s mass immigration program, thus eroding residents’ living standards.

Empirical data does not support mass immigration:

While the economic models might show small per capita gains from immigration-fuelled population growth, based on faulty assumptions, the actual empirical evidence shows zero link between population growth and prosperity.

The next chart plots the growth in GDP per capita versus population change between 2000 and 2016 across OECD nations and shows no correlation (Australia denoted in red):

Meanwhile, there is a slight negative relationship between labour productivity and population growth:

Whereas there is zero correlation between population growth and multifactor productivity across OECD nations:

A study released this year by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) also found “that even when we control for initial GDP per capita, initial demographic composition and differential trends by region, there is no evidence of a negative relationship between aging and GDP per capita; on the contrary, the relationship is significantly positive in many specifications”:

ScreenHunter_18202 Mar. 26 13.24

It’s time for an honest debate:

Australia’s major political parties – the Coalition, Labor and The Greens – each support ongoing mass immigration.

Behind the scenes, the ‘growth lobby’ of retailers, the banking sector, the property industry and erroneously named ‘think tanks’ all push the growth-ist agenda on flawed economic grounds, while completely ignoring the cost burden on ordinary residents.

At the same time, many on the left pursue the globalist agenda of ‘open borders’ citing spurious social justice concerns, conveniently ignoring the deleterious impacts on developing nations when countries like Australia rob them of their ‘skilled’ workers.

Currently, there is no plan other than to flood the major cities with tens-of-thousands of extra people each year to stoke overall economic growth (but not growth per person), to support big business (e.g. the property industry), and to prevent Australia from going into recession (despite growth per person stagnating).

Meanwhile, individual living standards are being eroded through rising congestion costs, declining housing affordability, paying more for infrastructure (e.g. toll roads), environmental degradation, and overall reduced amenity.

Unconventional Economist


    • I was thinking that analogy works on many levels. I have two primary school boys and other parents we know have signed up yonks ago for boys club gps schools for their kids. Increasing the population increases the opportunity for stratification of wealth and class etc. People dont want to stay and make things better. More just chasing unicorns and rainbows.

      • Yes – create restlessness and you create “customers forever”.. allow them to think and consider things for themselves, and you’ve got yourself a “militant citizenship forever”, not so much “customers” anymore. Oh – and the citizens will question and oppose you at every twist and turn.

        Hmmm… which one is easier? Which one will benefit you as a politician?

  1. The Greens need to tell us why they want mass immigration of low-wage males directly from 3rd world slums.

    Is it because 3rd world degrees are better than Cambridge uni degrees?

    Is it because they are great athletes and will boost Australia’s performance at the olympics?

    Is it because they are fantastic at studying and none of them cheat on exams to come here?

    Is it because they are rich like Pankaj Oswal and will build a huge factory here?

    The right wing tell us frequently. “we will have to pay higher wages if there is a massive tax on each work visa”.

    Bingo! The right wing wants people to work for illegal wages. That is why articles about wage theft have been in the newspapers for at least 8 years:

    This is what we want to happen in Australia:

    • Cause virtue signalling is expensive. You have to be rich to be able to afford it. Inner-city lefty douchebag is not a job description, so you need to take money from other people to fund your virtue signalling. Those people need slaves, so you look the other way.

      Who do you think is writing the contracts, systematising exploitation, and moving, as this blog so well puts it, moving entire segments of the economy to the point where it cannot function without slavery. This stuff is financed, bid on, contracted out, legal agreements are finalised, accounting done, audits done, internal checks done. Who is doing this? The same people who vote Green, i.e. gen y and their side kicks, the millennials.

      Libs need slaves for big end of town. Lab need slaves cause they will get PR and vote Lab (not like manufacturing workers are lining up to vote… well lining for anything at all really). Greens like an industrial base, just not in their backyard and ideally where they can get brownie points for dissing it, thats all. One for all, all for one.

      Go to any city in the empire, NY, SF, London, Frankfurt, Paris, Sydney anywhere. It is always a core city of rich people serviced by an outer core of darker people, who ‘the west’, ‘projects’, ‘banlieues’, ‘public housing’, ‘estates’ etc etc. Amusingly the rich people in the middle are not white in the race sense of the word. They are ‘beige’, in every sense of the word. You can have any culture, any religion, any sexuality, as long as it is beige. And you can have your slaves.

      Go watch Django Unchained. QT may be strange, but he is a genius. This question will occur to most 10 year old boys, though not most 10 year old girls, is ‘why didn’t they just stop’. Why don’t we just stop?

      • @T
        Beige!!! Best description thank you.
        As a child (female – although I do want to go to a GP and see if it really is that simple to change to neutral?) of 10 learning about ww1 & ww2 in Social Studies circa 1978 I wondered the same.
        I was perplexed by Northern Ireland. If the supposedly good Queen knew the damage and hurt to families in Belfast having British soldiers on the streets for decades then why didn’t she use her wisdom and do something? After all her family have been running countries for centuries??
        Like I said I was 10 and female so basically no clue.
        I think now everyone is simply educated into a narrative depending on demographics and for the most part conform to the norms through out life. Ratinal thought replaced by Beige!!
        For eg. I’m renting inner east Melbourne. All neighbours bought here mid 90’s. All uni educated, left wing greenies who traded up on housing boom and now mid to late 50’s and retired. Dreadlocks, beards, grey and proud, rainbows in Windows. Everyone of them is outraged by the house in middle of street that operate as semi legal back packer /boarding house and absolutely conflicted by development of a grand old house onto 10 million dollar plus apartments as it will raise the value of their workers cottages. Set a precedence for 3 bedroom apartments in the streets and at the same time CHANGE the xatacterbof their beautiful hipster street. Next stop Brighton – the right side.

  2. Standard Economuc Theory is built entirely on fairy tales. The results of the last three decades attempt to run countries according to economic theory, including mass immigration, should be no surprise whatsoever. The first time that was attempted it led to the world wars. The horse has bolted, prepare ye for the wars.

  3. reusachtigeMEMBER

    LOLOLOLOL!!! No one gives a sh1t about high-brow “research”. People love immigration because it increases the vibrancy of our otherwise dull and boring cities. That is all.

    • You’re absolutely right, there is so much vibrancy on the footpaths people don’t want to go home. Makes me feel really proud and cosmopolitan as I step over them. What a dull place my city used to be with all those empty footpaths and parks.

    • and it makes our Ozzie economy go boom!
      “open teh gates and lower teh rates” – that will fix it all!

  4. and once again, rich who robbed the world are going to escape punishment by shifting blame onto the innocent (this time immigrants) creating a bloody conflict between impoverished locals and poor immigrants while sitting on a side enjoying fruits of their theft.

    yeah, why blame powerful bankers for what happened when you can blame poor guy next to you.

    • reusachtigeMEMBER

      Exactly. Maybe if the poor would actually try they wouldn’t be causing all these problems.

    • So it’s the powerful bankers crowding my train and the roads, as well as straining the environment? This has got nothing to do with ‘blaming immigrants’ but blaming excessive levels of immigration, which is wrecking livability in the major cities. It’s also helping to feed the profits of the bankers that you hate so much (e.g. more people means more mortgages and debt).

    • The mechanism by which the rich become richer is high immigration. Not only does it allow wages to stagnate, it becomes a wedge politic issue that divides the population.

  5. They will never change their views. Here’s an interesting podcast from All In The Mind from RN about a group of Christian’s who believed that the end of the world and judgement day were all going to occur in 2011…then it didn’t. It sabout how people form entrenched beliefs, and then struggle with cognitive dissonance after these things don’t come true.

  6. Also, evolutionary psychologists Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Norman Li of Singapore Management University found that people who live in more densely populated areas tend to report less satisfaction with their life overall. The higher the population density of the immediate environment, the less happy they are (;

    Studies suggest that growing up in a city doubles the chances of someone developing schizophrenia, and increases the risk for depression and anxiety (

  7. Looks like it ain’t doin’ much for the housing market much anymore either, ah?

    We have been on the sidelines looking to re-enter the property market for the last 2 years. My wife and I go to auctions most weekends on Melbourne Eastern suburbs, and it has been a crazy hot market for all that time with the exception of the last few months with significant cooling. There is now a clear glut of mcmansions in the Mount Waverley and Glen Waverley area targeted at Asian buyers with sometimes us being the only ones turning up to viewings even on a saturday

    Where as there used to be 5-6+ bidders cooling down to 2-3 as the auction progressed with bidding usually at $100K+ over expectation just 3-6 months ago, now and especially recently there are 1-2 bidders and often none, and I havent been to a single auction where they have hit reserve in weeks that was a 4 bedroom home or higher

    The Monash area has a glut of thousands of uninhabited homes on the market either sitting there as knockdowns or staged to perfection with little interest for the hefty price tag. Inside Warrigal road is still a hot market but still cooling down, 6 out of 9 properties last weekend in Camberwell got passed in!

    The above is my personal experience and it looks like the real-estate party in Melbourne is fast approaching hangover time. This article from Bloomberg I think explains it well…using-hangover-twice-size-of-u-s-subprime-era

    Australian housing market is over 4x the size of its economy currently, the highest in the world

  8. 8 out of 10 of the richest countries on a per-capita basis have populations of under 10 million.

    At ~25 million we have the highest level of underemployment in our modern history.

    Big biz including migrant and education agencies are killing their cash cow but struggle to understand that if you kill the health of an economy by overloading the labour market, you’ll lose your core business.

    As MB has gone to pains to point out, it’s not a false choice between immigration and no immigration or selecting one race over another, it’s about an immigration program that doesn’t put the incumbent population at odds with migrants.

    In the case of migrants, they don’t want their kids to have no chance of getting a decent job either.

    The only party which has a workable population plan thus far is Sustainable Australia.

    • Bingo. If Usman Khawaja was not a talented cricketer, he would be competing against 457 visa staff for a job.

      The mass immigration cult is destroying the lives of immigrants who came over in the 1980s and 1990s!

      • Love the cricket reference Jacob. Fan of ‘Uzzy’ but does have a penchant for soft dismissals. Where are all the knockers of the changes made before the first test?

        Paine. although dropping one difficult chance, was very tidy behind the stumps. Marsh got a few and looked solid. Bancroft looks promising. It is going to be along summer for the Poms. Just want to see Cummins on a green wicket. This guy reminds me of a young D K Lillee. He is THAT good.

  9. Its unfair to blame this delusion on lefty types as some commenters like to do. The blame lies at everyones door. Bankers, business types and politicians are obvious targets, with their hands in the till of the lazy benefits of mass immigration.

    But the average Aussie is equally to blame. They’re the ones living off their equity, sinking their money into more IPs, and sitting there smugly as they earn six or seven figures in capital appreciation just for existing. All the while not understanding that this is simply down to a crazy model dreamed up by their leaders, and not any special talent on their part. And not seeming to understand that they are dooming future generations to penury.

    Many of these people tend to be nearer the right of the political spectrum. The lefty inner elites are equally complicit, but at least they have the redeeming feature of empathising with people less fortunate than themselves.

    • “Its unfair to blame this delusion on lefty types as some commenters like to do. The blame lies at everyones door. Bankers, business types and politicians are obvious targets, with their hands in the till of the lazy benefits of mass immigration”.

      I blamed both the fake left and the growth lobbyists (which Lib/Lab represent). There’s plenty of blame to go around.

      • Wasnt directed at you, more at many posters here who use an issue like this to vent their hatred of SJWs etc

    • The lefty inner elites are equally complicit,

      Dave, you should have just left it there.

      but at least they have the redeeming feature of empathising with people less fortunate than themselves.

      So why do they not care enough to see the damage being done to our precious national standard of living by mass immigration, specifically the aspirations of the working classes, by way of wage suppression, and the poor, by way of overloading public resources like transport, health and housing?

      The lefty dost protest too much, methinks.

    • > And not seeming to understand that they are dooming future generations to penury.

      More specifically, “Anyone not yet on the ladder that doesn’t have a big inheritance in their future.” Divorcees who lost the house, people who had to sell up due to a family health tragedy or business challenges, and even those of us who migrated within the past 10 years.

  10. And let’s not forget that the bulk of migrants coming in to Australia each year posses neither the skills nor qualifications that are in short supply. Less than one in three of the annual 200,000+ net overseas migrants are “skilled”. The vast majority arrive via family, partners, children and humanitarian streams. Very few of these have skills, qualifications or experience.

  11. The Horrible Scott Morrison MP

    Immigration creates jobs and growth and makes our cities more vibrant. This website’s call for net migration of 70,000 to 100,000 is a clear sign that its authors hate non-white foreigners. If this wasn’t the case, they would acknowledge that immigration is good, and many many immigration is many many good. Plus, it creates houses for ordinary working Australians to live in.

  12. Peter Turchin and George Borjas have each researched and written extensively on the economics of immigration. Both find that periods of high immigration (or population growth) coincide with periods of wage suppression or stagnation especially and initially among the lower skilled with creep into more skilled worker classifications.

    This is not all they find!

  13. If politicians have no support from the theory of comparative advantage for their mass immigration penchant they are robbing Australians of their liberty, period. That is a terrible shame given Australians have fought for their liberty and freedom only to throw it away at the electorate.

    • blacktwin997MEMBER

      With respect, most Australians who actually did fight for their country were and are rightly suspicious of their supposed social betters, and do not easily trade their allegiance for a handful of either magic beans or silver. Precious few of this former group in the bodies politic, corporate or social these days however.

    • “That is a terrible shame given Australians have fought for their liberty and freedom only to throw it away at the electorate.”

      I dont know much about Australian history but I’ve never heard about a war for liberty and freedom within
      Australia fought by Australians for Australia’s freedom.
      (like a civil war for independence against the British or anything of that nature).
      …correct me if im wrong. just curious

  14. “The argument here is that if you increase the quantity of labor, its price (wages) falls. This will increase profits. The increase in profits leads to more investment, which will increase demand for labor, thereby reversing the initial fall in wages.”
    That assumes that you dont keep increasing immigrant labour to absorb that increased demand, thus causing a continuous decrease in price. I think even a high school economics student could understand that the process is a circular one, unless and until it is interrupted.

  15. They are picking the symptoms and validating why it’s a failure but they have no idea how to turn an economy around, generate wealth and increase real incomes. The answer is none of the standard and pointless policy responses; build more infrastructure, increase productivity, change your fiscal and monetary stance, etc. None of these will be effective unless they are being aligned to support an economy that is ‘competitive’.

  16. The best piece you’ve written LVO. The social outlook of host populations is what is first attacked by growth-anista’s, for all the economics, the social aspect is most at play for us. When your social compact is broken by a multitude that does not “operate” or behave as you do, trust breaks down, community breaks down, cohesion breaks down, then, social intuitions like the welfare state break down. I think Sweden may be the very first example of this in the coming years.

    • Everything breaks down as any thing proffered by neoliberal economics is unsustainable and value destroying. Wealth generation goes into reverse so the only options are to cut back programs, increase debt or a combination of the two. In any event the can has a limit to the number of times it can be kicked down the road.

      • I think the can may be getting to the end of the gutter Nexus, just finished a book called the “fourth turning”, if the hypothesis that history (Anglo American) repeats on generational and saecular cycles….then we are due for the crisis part of not already hurtling. Apparently It’s unavoidable in some form. Yes the neoliberal, Washington consensus era has had massive material benefits for those who altered our societies unimaginably…can’t see them relinquishing easily.

  17. I would add that the numpty policy makers with their useless conventional economics and business perspective fail to understand that price is only one of many factors that a consumer considers when buying a product. If price were the only consideration Germany’s exports would collapse. They don’t understand ‘competition’ or ‘competitiveness’ and what or how to achieve these things which is fundamental to generating economic wealth. The neoliberal economic idiocy leads them to push stupid policies e.g. that we can compete with Asia on cost. This will be prove to be a shot in the head strategy and have serious long term consequences as it will continually drive down real incomes in Australia.

    Aggressive national competitors generally don’t compete on cost. They seek to acquire technology via any means to create new markets or dominate existing markets – this alone generates wealth. When you start to understand this it becomes depressingly evident that those who are formulating national strategy here are utterly clueless and trapped in a dumb paradigm – they think the ‘battle-space’ is hard and kinetic so we piss away $200billion on useless weapons but the real conflict in the ‘battle-space’ is a ‘soft’ one – the race to acquire raw materials and technology.

  18. The writer is astro turfing conservative constructs or theories aka oilgarch’s Club of Rome, limits to growth, and playing funny buggers with data; but everyone here on MB is smart enough to avoid bias confirmation?

    • Can you clarify what your complex google research and high end regression testing on the data has uncovered Andrew? No one here would want to have their views challenged based on methodology and referred to as a inherent cognitive limitation present in all (aka: bias).

  19. I think the migration debate is incorrectly positioned with the public – and that’s why it still remains on the fringes of major parties not needing to act.

    Its not the volume of the migrant intake but the quality, productivity, location & economic & social contribution.

    And there needs to be a distinction between Citizen & PR grants and Temporary & Tourist Visa impacts.

    Here is a view of the migrant intake issue clearly seperated into those two aspects.

    Point 1. Citizenship & PR grants.
    We have taken in some 1,800,000 mostly unskilled (75% plus) in the last decade plus a birth rate higher than the Australian average is net gain of say 2,000,000 as a round figure.
    They are mostly third world (80% plus) in Citizen & PR grants in a concentration of 88% in the two major cities.
    Sydney 1,050,000 & Melbourne 700,000 and then 250,000 elsewhere. (ABS 2016).

    They have lower income status (10-15% lower) than most Australians & contribute less in taxation, and are a higher Welfare, Health care, education and social cost than average.
    Assimilation if we are honest has been poor, with many on dual citizenship passports or PR only. Most retain an non Australian ethnic & culture identity & and they have formed vast unassimilated ethnic enclaves in the two major cities.
    By any measure our Citizenship & PR grants program has been fundamentally flawed in the skills, assimilation and distribution of migrant intake.
    And in my view – we are stuck with that.
    It will take decades to work off the impact of this intake .

    The real issue – not framed correctly in the public debate is the Temporary Visa & illegal Tourist rackets.

    Point 2.
    In addition to this migrant intake in the last decade we have ANOTHER 2.7 million migrant guestworkers.

    2.15 million Temporary visa holders – international students, NZ SCV, bridging, backpacker/working holiday/457/458 etc. (ABF 2016-2017).
    Plus another 460,000 illegally working Tourist visa holders. (ABF 6% of 8 million ‘tourists’ here to work illegally).
    Plus another 65,000 overstayers. (ABF 2016-2017).

    2.7 million – 1 in 9 people in Australia.
    Twice the number of migrant guestworkers that Gaddafi had at his peak.

    In a 92% concentration in Sydney & Melbourne.
    Sydney 1,400,000
    Melbourne 1,100,000
    Elsewhere 200,000
    At least 90% are unskilled.
    Over 80% are of third world origin (including NZ SCV being at least one third).
    They only bring in $4.5 billion in declared funds, ofsten faked. They form a $106 billion underground industry Fake ID, cash in hand, foreign run rackets, and xfer out or remit some $36 billion back to their loan sharks, agent procurers and families offshore.
    A -2% GDP impact to Australia, the most crazy and socially destructive form of foreign aid imaginable, with these onshore visa holders making little economic or social contribution, acting in immoral & unethical intent & then they form the pool we select PR from !

    At least 2,100,000 are working illegally in visa breach.
    Occupying at least some 350,000 EX Australian dwellings. Subletting cash in hand & migrant trafficking is now our single largest industry.
    Destroying wages & jobs for everyone including the new Citizen & PR grants.
    Destroying housing affordability & education.
    Creating an underclass of migrant guestworkers that create congestion, public infrastructure expenditure and social impacts – but they make little or no contribution.

    This is something that we can act on.
    • Restrict international students to Post grad only.
    • Remove & restrict and enforce work rights.
    • Bring in proper tracking & reporting controls.
    • Restrict the NZ SCV to only NZ or Australian born
    • Enforce identity & visa & location controls.
    • Crack down on the underground & illicit migrant labor trafficking labor rackets.

    That would see over half – perhaps 1.8 million of these Temporary & Tourist visa holders exit.
    And that would be a start in having a more balanced & fair migrant intake program.