Immigration Does Not Solve the Problem of an Ageing Population, By James Reed

The article, authored by Leith van Onselen:

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/03/migration-boom-delivers-ageing-timebomb/

critiques an interview with Abul Rizvi, a former immigration department official, conducted on Joseph Walker's podcast. Rizvi, a key figure in shaping Australia's immigration policy, admitted that approximately 80 percent of the motivation behind the significant increase in Australia's migrant intake during the early 2000s was to slow population ageing. This revelation came as a surprise to the author, who had not previously recognized this as the dominant rationale for Australia's immigration surge at the time.

Van Onselen argues that this policy approach is flawed and short-sighted. He points out that while migrants may initially be younger and contribute to a lower average population age, they too will eventually grow old. This creates a deferred ageing problem—essentially kicking the can down the road rather than solving it. The article highlights that the post-World War II migration boom (1950s and 1960s) significantly contributed to Australia's current ageing population, as those migrants are now elderly. Similarly, today's migration influx will exacerbate ageing pressures in a few decades.

Furthermore, the article notes that some migrants bring older family members through family reunion programs, which adds to the ageing population immediately rather than mitigating it. Van Onselen references Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data to support his critique, though specific figures are not detailed in the excerpt provided. He concludes that relying on immigration to address ageing is a form of "can-kick economics," delaying the inevitable rather than providing a sustainable solution.

Immigration is often touted as a solution to population ageing, with proponents arguing that younger migrants can offset the demographic shift toward an older average age and bolster the workforce to support an ageing native population. However, this approach is fundamentally flawed and fails to address the root issue, as the Macrobusiness article and broader demographic logic suggest. Here's why immigration does not solve the ageing problem.

While immigrants are typically younger than the existing population upon arrival, they do not remain young forever. Over time, these migrants age, adding to the elderly cohort they were meant to counterbalance. For example, the article notes that Australia's post-war migration boom created a "baby boomer bulge" that is now a significant driver of current ageing pressures. The same logic applies to today's migration boom: the influx of young workers in the 2020s will become the retirees of the 2050s and 2060s, perpetuating the cycle of ageing rather than resolving it. This demonstrates that immigration only provides a temporary demographic reprieve, not a permanent fix.

Immigration policies often allow migrants to sponsor older family members, such as parents, to join them. This directly increases the proportion of elderly residents in the short term, undermining the goal of reducing the average age. The article highlights this as an exacerbating factor, noting that family reunion visas bring in individuals who are already past their working years, adding immediate pressure to healthcare and pension systems rather than alleviating it.

Empirical evidence supports the argument that immigration has a negligible long-term effect on population ageing. The article references ABS demographic projections (though not detailed in the excerpt), which reportedly indicate that immigration is "next to useless" in sustainably lowering Australia's population age. This aligns with global research, such as studies from the United Nations and academic demographers, which show that maintaining a youthful population through immigration would require infeasible levels of continuous inflows—far beyond what most societies can absorb economically or socially.

The focus on immigration distracts from more sustainable strategies to address ageing, such as increasing labour force participation among older citizens or boosting birth rates among the native population. For instance, Australia has seen a doubling of labour participation rates among those over 65 since the mid-2000s, a trend that could be further encouraged through policy incentives. Immigration, by contrast, is a reactive measure that fails to address these underlying dynamics and instead creates dependency on perpetual inflows.

The article implies that the migration boom has broader downsides, such as pressure on housing and infrastructure, which are not offset by its limited demographic benefits. If immigration merely delays the ageing problem while straining resources, it becomes an inefficient and costly stopgap rather than a solution. The "ageing timebomb" metaphor in the title encapsulates this critique: far from defusing the issue, immigration plants the seeds for a future demographic explosion.

The Macrobusiness article exposes the fallacy of using immigration as a primary tool to combat population ageing, a point reinforced by both its historical analysis and forward-looking critique. Immigration may temporarily mask the symptoms of an ageing population, but it does not cure the condition. Migrants age, family reunification accelerates immediate ageing, and the scale required for a lasting impact is impractical. Rather than solving the problem, this approach creates a cycle of dependency and deferred challenges—a "timebomb" that will detonate decades later. Policymakers should instead prioritise sustainable alternatives, such as enhancing workforce participation and addressing fertility rates, to tackle ageing head-on rather than relying on the illusory fix of immigration.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/03/migration-boom-delivers-ageing-timebomb/