On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML

Clare O'Neil review greenlights huge migration - gaslights huge reform

By Stephen Saunders - posted Tuesday, 2 May 2023

The catch is the "tiers" of risk. For a "light touch high salary cohort" of temp skills, the proposed threshold is "full time average weekly ordinary time earnings". Currently $98,000.

As for the report's "mid-level cohort", government already says, that threshold's rising to $70,000. Derisory. Put 'em all on $98,000. Get half serious - if you're purportedly in a global warfor talent.

Paradoxically, the report punts a third or "lower" tier of temp skills. "A lower wage cohort, in sectors experiencing persistent shortages and who are most at risk of exploitation".

I'm also perplexed, by measure 22. "Review the drivers that have created a 'permanently temporary' [migration] cohort". Hullo, isn't net migration the big driver?

Not for Parkinson. Claims he, we "manage migrant numbers" through the "permanent migration cap". We lack the ability to "cap" or "manage" net migration.

Disingenuous at best. As above, we plan population, based on (humungous) net migration. Add in (predictable) natural increase. Bingo, population growth estimate.

Despite the data lags, the vagaries of border movements, our pre-COVID Home Affairs looked to be landingthose big net migration outcomes. Roughly within 20% of the Treasury "forecasts". In any case, mostof the permanent migration "outcomes" that we "manage" are already camped in Australia. Just upgrading their visas.

As a far-flung island nation, usually we can manage net migration well enough. We swiftly locked down, during COVID. But we rather prefer to "manage" right up. The world knows how eagerwe are.

This year too, Labor threw $42 millionat its "visa backlog". As never before, net migration pulverised the "forecast". More accurate Home Affairs service resumes (we hope) in 2023-24.

Finally, Parkinson proposes six measures, for "strengthening international student outcomes and transitions". These too seem a bit (sorry, equines) cart-before-horse.

We constantly get this dodgy claim, international students are a $40 billion "export" industry. But when did voters agree, we should "transition" more of them to residency? Note here, Albanese's carefree decisionto blanket-recognise Indian qualifications.

How does all this chime with the increasingly debt-saddledaspirations of our local students?

Continued over the page...