Immigration is a Great Ponzi Scheme, the Scam of Scams! By James Reed

The article by Leith van Onselen titled "Abul Rizvi Admits Immigration is a 'Ponzi Scheme'" published on February 25, 2025, on Macrobusiness.com.au, https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/02/abul-rizvi-admits-immigration-is-a-ponzi-scheme/centres on a critical examination of Australia's immigration policy, its economic motivations, and its societal impacts. The piece highlights a shift in the rhetoric of Abul Rizvi, a former senior immigration official turned commentator, who has long been a vocal advocate for high immigration levels.

The article focuses on an interview conducted in late January 2025 by Joseph Walker with Abul Rizvi, a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. During this interview, Rizvi reportedly acknowledged that approximately 80 percent of the motivation behind the significant immigration policy changes in 2001—under the Howard Government—was to slow population ageing. These changes dramatically increased Australia's migrant intake, particularly of international students.

Van Onselen interprets this as Rizvi admitting that Australia's immigration system operates like a "Ponzi scheme," a term implying a reliance on continuous inflows of new migrants to sustain economic growth, rather than addressing underlying structural issues like productivity or ageing through other means.

The "Ponzi scheme" analogy suggests that immigration is used to artificially prop up population growth and economic metrics (e.g., GDP) without delivering sustainable benefits. Van Onselen argues this approach burdens infrastructure, housing, and living standards, as the influx of migrants outpaces the country's capacity to accommodate them.

Rizvi's admission is framed as a rare moment of candour from a figure who has historically defended high immigration levels, often dismissing critics as racist or uninformed.

The article ties Rizvi's comments to the early 2000s, when he was a key architect of policies that shifted Australia toward a "Big Australia" model. This involved increasing temporary migration streams, such as student and skilled worker visas, which swelled net overseas migration (NOM) and population growth far beyond earlier projections (e.g., the 2002 Intergenerational Report predicted a population of 26 million by 2042, a target reached 20 years early).

Van Onselen critiques the economic rationale behind this policy, noting that despite a mining boom, GDP per capita growth lagged behind the OECD average under this high-immigration regime. He argues that the policy has led to labour market slack, suppressed wage growth, and exacerbated housing shortages—issues that disproportionately affect ordinary Australians rather than delivering broad prosperity.

While Rizvi's admission marks a departure from his usual pro-immigration stance, the article suggests he still avoids fully reckoning with the policy's downsides. Van Onselen accuses him of inconsistency, referencing past instances where Rizvi labelled critics of high immigration as racist or xenophobic, even when they raised legitimate concerns about infrastructure and housing.

Polls consistently show Australians favour lower immigration levels than those seen since the mid-2000s. For instance, a 2021 TAPRI survey found 70 percent wanted reduced immigration, with 48 percent favouring significant cuts or none at all. Critics like van Onselen argue that policymakers, including Rizvi, have ignored this sentiment, often framing dissent as bigotry rather than addressing substantive concerns

The housing crisis is a frequent point of contention. Record NOM—e.g., 400,000 in 2022-23—has driven rental shortages and soaring rents, with vacancy rates at historic lows. Former NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet, in a 2024 statement, echoed the "Ponzi scheme" critique, calling high immigration "lazy economics" that overwhelms state infrastructure while benefiting federal revenues.

The explosion of international student visas is a focal point. Policies like uncapped work rights and pathways to permanent residency have turned education into an immigration pipeline, with student visa applications hitting 362,462 in 2022—far surpassing previous records. This prioritises quantity over quality, degrades educational standards, and fuels population pressures.

Mass immigration has been exploited to suppress wages. RBA Governor Phil Lowe, in 2021, noted that pre-Covid immigration dampened wage growth by allowing firms to tap global labor markets rather than raise pay to attract locals. Rizvi himself acknowledged this in 2021, a shift from his earlier defense of immigration as an economic boon.

Rizvi's predictive failures are highlighted. In 2020, he claimed NOM wouldn't exceed 200,000 this decade, yet it hit 387,000 in 2022. His tendency to deride critics while misjudging trends has fuelled scepticism about his analyses, even as he remains a go-to commentator for pro-migration outlets like the socialist ABC and The Guardian.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton's 2025 pledge to cut permanent migration to 140,000 annually has drawn pushback from Rizvi and pro-immigration advocates, who warn of economic harm. Conversely, critics see this as aligning with public demand for moderation after years of unchecked growth. Will Dutton, if elected follow through, or will he like other Liberals from Howard to Abbott, cave into the ethnic and Big Australia lobby

The "Ponzi scheme" label encapsulates a broader critique: immigration has been a short-term fix for demographic and economic challenges, deferring rather than solving issues like ageing or productivity stagnation. Migrants themselves age, requiring ever-larger inflows to maintain the system—a classic Ponzi dynamic. Meanwhile, tangible costs (housing crises, wage stagnation, infrastructure lag) are borne by citizens, while benefits (GDP growth, university profits) accrue to specific sectors or government coffers.

Rizvi's partial concession in 2025 reflects a tension in his long-standing advocacy. He acknowledges the demographic driver behind 2001's policy shift but stops short of critiquing its sustainability or broader impacts, perhaps constrained by his legacy as its architect. This contrasts with figures like Perrottet, who, free from office, openly decry the model's flaws.

Public discontent, evidenced by polling and commentary, suggests a disconnect between elite policy preferences and lived realities—a gap Rizvi has historically bridged with accusations of racism rather than engagement. Yet, as housing and cost-of-living pressures mount, the debate is shifting, with even former proponents like Rizvi forced to confront the system's limits.

The immigration scam must end for Australia to survive.