Pascoe attacks cherry-picked immigration data with same

By Leith van Onselen

As he packs his bags from Fairfax, Michael Pascoe has delivered one final almighty immigration spruik, lambasting opponents of mass immigration for “cherry-picking” their data, before presenting cherry-picked data of his own.

Let’s examine Pascoe’s main claims:

As the populist drums beat louder for cutting Australian immigration, the numbers used to attack the program get ropier, ranging from questionable statistical concepts and oversights to the simply inane…

A quick example is the constant repetition of the “record high immigration” phrase. Yes, in absolute numbers the annual 190,000 permanent visas plus humanitarian cases is the highest we’ve done, as was the 250,100 NOM for the year to the end of September, but in percentage terms – a better guide to the perceived impact of migration on the ground – we’re nowhere near it.

Our 250,100 NOM (the extras on top of permanent and humanitarian visas mainly being international students on temporary visas followed by 457 temporary workers) was for a country of 24.7 million – 1 per cent. In 1950, a little Australia of 8.2 million had NOM of 153,685 – 1.9 per cent…

Ah yes, the misleading percentage growth argument.

First, as noted by the PC’s Migrant Intake Australia report, Australia’s immigration intake as a percentage of population (currently 1%) is extreme by historical standards:

Second, and more importantly, it is not the immigration rate that matters for infrastructure, traffic congestion, or the environment, but rather the sheer numbers. Does Michael Pascoe honestly believe in exponential population growth? Because that’s what a stable immigration growth rate implies, which is clearly unsustainable [note: Australia’s current population growth rate in 1.6%]:

Third, unlike the post-war migration surge, which was spread more evenly throughout Australia, immigration today is centred almost exclusively in just two centres – Sydney and Melbourne – which is where the population pressures are most acute. So we are not just dealing with extreme immigration numbers, but extreme concentration as well.

Back to Pascoe:

Bob Birrell, a constant critic of our immigration program through his Australian Population Research Institute, has had another crack at the skilled migration program which accounts for 130,000 of our annual 190,000 non-humanitarian permanent visas. Birrell claims the program is not needed, employers would barely notice if it was scrapped, that it includes skills that are not in short supply and that most non-English-speaking professionals end up not working as professionals.

There are problems with the list of skills in the program, but his core attack using census data on non-English-speaking professionals has been sunk by a former Immigration Department deputy secretary, Abul Rizvi.

“As Birrell would know better than anyone, high-level census data is a poor tool for making conclusions regarding the effectiveness of skilled migration visa categories,” writes Rizvi. “Migrants who put ‘skilled’ in response to a census question may have entered Australia under a range circumstances, including via the humanitarian program, the family stream; or as secondary applicants in the skill stream (eg the spouse of a primary skilled migrant)…

“It is surprising Birrell makes no reference in his report to the Continuous Survey of Australia’s Migrants (CSAM), which does survey primary migrants in the skill stream. The 2015 CSAM Report says ‘at the six-month stage of settlement, almost nine in ten skilled migrants (ie primary migrants in the skill stream) were employed. More than three quarters were working in full-time jobs and more than six in ten were in highly skilled employment. On the basis of these measures, skilled migrants significantly outperformed Australia’s general population. Skilled migrants also had higher earnings on average than the Australian population, but unemployment was slightly worse than the national average.’

Again, Pascoe is being highly selective and dishonest in his use of the ‘facts’. According to the Productivity Commission (PC), the “primary” skilled migrant intake he quotes only accounts for around 30% of Australia’s total permanent migrant intake:

…within the skill stream, about half of the visas granted were for ‘secondary applicants’ — partners (who may or may not be skilled) and dependent children… Therefore, while the skill stream has increased relative to the family stream, family immigrants from the skill and family stream still make up about 70 per cent of the Migration Programme (figure 2.8)…

Primary applicants tend to have a better fiscal outcome than secondary applicants — the current system does not consider the age or skills of secondary applicants as part of the criteria for granting permanent skill visas…

The PC also showed that while primary skilled migrants have marginally better labour market outcomes than the Australian born population in terms of median incomes, labour force participation, and unemployment rates, secondary skilled visas, and indeed all other forms of migrants, have worse labour market outcomes:

Other recent data has also questioned the efficacy of Australia’s so-called ‘skilled’ migration program.

A recent major survey from the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre found that 53% of skilled migrants in Western Australia said they are working in lower skilled jobs than before they arrived, with underemployment also rife:

In a similar vein, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) most recent Characteristics of Recent Migrants report, released last June, revealed that migrants have generally worse labour market outcomes than the Australian born population, with recent migrants and temporary residents having an unemployment rate of 7.4% versus 5.4% for the Australian born population, and lower labour force participation (69.8%) than the Australian born population (70.2%):

Back to Pascoe:

Our migration program is being blamed for everything from housing prices in Sydney and Melbourne to low wages growth to traffic congestion. It’s a measure of how myopic Sydney and Melbourne commentary has become that it would have the nation’s economic parameters set to suit those two cities’ public transport shortcomings.

What an idiotic statement. Does Pascoe honestly believe that flooding Sydney and Melbourne with a projected 90,000 to 100,000 people a year, primarily via mass immigration, does not make all these issues so much worse? Nor that significantly moderating Australia’s migrant intake would significantly reduce the strain in these two cities?

Further, did Pascoe not see Infrastructure Australia’s recent report showing that irrespective of what urban form these cities take, liveability in Sydney and Melbourne will be crushed as their respective populations reach 7.4 million and 7.3 million respectively by 2046, with traffic congestion worsening and access to jobs, schools, hospitals and green space all declining relative to today:

Or the Urban Taskforce’s recent report showing that future Sydney residents will be forced to live like sardines in high density housing:

Back to Pascoe:

Tony Abbott [wants]… to cut the current 190,000 non-humanitarian permanent visa quota to 110,000…

It’s a figure that shows Abbott and his supporters don’t begin to understand our immigration system…

In round numbers, those 190,000 permanent visas are split between 60,000 family reunion and 130,000 skilled visas. It’s very hard for anyone with a heart to cut the family reunion numbers – nearly 80 per cent are spouses, 6 per cent children and 14 per cent parents. No, it’s not a scheme that brings in cousins and their families and so on.

So that means the 130,000 skilled visas would have to bear the brunt of the suggested 80,000 cut, taking them down to 50,000.

But it’s not that simple. Only about half of the visas are for primary skilled applicants – the other half are partners and children. (One of the things Bob Birrell apparently overlooked.)

Thus in a world where there is a war for talent, Abbott is suggesting we should only grant about 25,000 primary skilled permanent visas. It’s a tiny figure when, administered properly, skilled migrants enable more jobs to be created here.

At the turn of the century, Australia’s non-humanitarian permanent migrant intake was 70,000. Today, it is 190,000, primarily on the back the ‘skilled’ intake:

Cutting the non-humanitarian intake back to 110,000, as advocated by Tony Abbott, would merely return the program back to 2003 levels and would remain historically high.

Doing so would also make sense morally. Around 80% of the ‘skilled’ migrant intake comes from developing nations, with many working in jobs well below their reported level of skill, as noted above.

Thus, Australia’s immigration system is built around robbing developing nations of their skilled human resources – thus stifling their economic development – while at the same time accepting a comparatively tiny number of refugees.

At the end of his article, Pascoe cherry-picks a report from a UK academic who claims that immigration boosts productivity and GDP per capita – a view both MB and Ross Gittins has demolished repeatedly.

Like his tenure at Fairfax, Michael Pascoe’s final spruik represents a desperate rearguard action by the growth lobby to justify Australia’s mass immigration ‘Big Australia’ policy, which has become increasingly unpopular and is in its death throes.

[email protected]