Unpacking the Shoddy Economics Behind Australia’s Push for Mass Immigration, By James Reed and Paul Walker
Immigration has become a flashpoint in global politics, from the U.S. border crisis fuelling Donald Trump's 2024 victory, to anti-immigration protests sweeping Europe and Britain. In Australia, the temperature is rising too, albeit from a different baseline. With net overseas migration (NOM) surging to nearly one million between July 2022 and June 2024, far exceeding the pre-COVID average of around 200,000, public sentiment is shifting. Surveys consistently show a growing majority favouring lower intakes to ease pressures on housing, infrastructure, and social cohesion. Yet, as economist Judith Sloan argues in her recent Australian commentary, the debate is mired in "shoddy economics" from open-borders advocates. These proponents, often aligned with the "Big Australia" camp in the Albanese government, peddle misleading narratives to justify unchecked inflows. Sloan's piece dismantles these canards, reminding us that basic supply-demand principles haven't vanished just because migration boosters say so. This essay discussesher critique, exposing the flaws of mass immigration.
The Confused Politics of Immigration Down UnderAustralia's immigration policy under Labor is a house divided. Philosophically, some ministers embrace near-open borders, prioritising visas for anyone who can secure one. Others acknowledge the strains: ballooning populations overwhelming housing stock, strained services, and fraying social ties. Operationally, the reliance on temporary migrants, international students, skilled workers on short visas, complicates control. NOM figures, which track long-term arrivals minus departures, have exploded post-COVID, driven by these temporaries overstaying or transitioning to permanency.
Lobby groups amplify the chaos. Universities, facing funding shortfalls, lobby fiercely for uncapped international student numbers, treating them as cash cows rather than future citizens. Property developers salivate over population growth to justify mega-projects, while employer groups push for cheap labour. Even ethnic lobbies advocate for family reunions like parent visas. State governments, consulted on annual permanent intakes, face similar pressures, often stronger locally, where infrastructure lags most acutely. The result? A federal target of 335,000 NOM this financial year and 260,000 in 2026-27 looks optimistic, if not delusional, as recent Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) rebukes of "misused" stats suggest the government is scrambling to downplay overruns.
Recent anti-immigration rallies, from Sydney to Melbourne, underscore the disconnect. While media fixates on fringe agitators, the real story is ordinary Australians, families squeezed by rents, commuters stuck in traffic, demanding restraint. Sloan's analysis cuts through the noise, targeting the economic sophistry that dismisses these concerns.
The Canards: Misleading Arguments for Endless InflowsSloan identifies several "falsehoods" peddled by Big Australia cheerleaders, claims so basic they'd earn a first-year economics student an F. These aren't innocent errors; they're deliberate manipulations to maintain high migration as an unquestioned good.
1. "It's Just a COVID Catch-Up — Nothing to See Here"Proponents argue the post-pandemic NOM surge is merely rebounding from border closures, restoring pre-COVID norms. But as Sloan retorts, this ignores the decade-long average of 200,000 annual NOM. The 2022-2024 spike to nearly one million isn't a gentle recovery; it's a reckless overshoot, like flooring the accelerator after a traffic jam. Economists have long recognised "absorptive capacity," the economy's ability to integrate newcomers without inflating costs or displacing locals. High migration boosts demand for housing and jobs faster than supply can respond, leading to wage stagnation and price hikes. The Reserve Bank of Australia has echoed this, noting migration's role in recent inflation pressures. Dismissing it as a blip excuses policymakers from addressing the structural mismatch.
2. "These Numbers Match Morrison's Forecasts — So It's All Good"Another dodge: Cumulative NOM aligns with projections from the previous Coalition government, so Labor can't be blamed. Sloan calls this cherry-picking. Scott Morrison, as treasurer and PM, was a high-immigration hawk, but those forecasts were aspirational, debated even then, and not binding. Critics who invoke them while trashing Morrison's other policies (e.g., on climate or welfare) reveal their inconsistency. Moreover, forecasts assumed steady economic conditions; post-COVID realities, supply chain snarls, labour shortages, rendered them obsolete. The ABS's recent intervention, clarifying NOM definitions, smells of political damage control, as Sloan's Spectator Australia follow-up suggests the agency is "running interference" for the government's targets.
3. "Housing Woes? Blame Planning, Not Migrants"Perhaps the most egregious claim: Skyrocketing house prices and rental shortages stem from "dysfunctional" planning, not migration-driven demand. Proponents argue cuts to immigration distract from supply-side fixes like rezoning and fast approvals. Sloan fires back: Even with perfect reforms, construction can't magically scale to absorb a million-plus newcomers overnight. Australia's housing shortfall was already acute pre-COVID; the surge added fuel to the fire.
Basic economics, supply and demand, dictates that rapid population growth outpaces building. The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council reports a 200,000-home deficit annually, exacerbated by NOM.
4. "Infrastructure Strains and Social Cohesion? Your Fault, Not Ours"Similar dodges apply to roads, hospitals, and schools: Any bottlenecks are due to "poor planning," not intake size. Sloan notes this absolves governments of responsibility. High-density dreams, towers in suburbs, won't materialise fast enough, and they often face community backlash anyway.
On social cohesion, the narrative flips: Any tensions are the intolerance of "born here" Australians, not the pace of cultural change. This ignores integration challenges, like temporary migrants clustering in cities without building ties. Surveys from the Scanlon Foundation show rising concerns over multiculturalism strains, tied directly to intake volumes. Blaming locals echoes colonial guilt-tripping, sidelining legitimate debates on skills mismatches, too many low-skilled temporaries lingering indefinitely.
The Broader Economic Picture: Growth at What Cost?Sloan's critique aligns with sober analyses: While migration fills labour gaps and boosts GDP, the per-capita benefits are dubious at high volumes. The Productivity Commission has warned that unchecked inflows dilute infrastructure investment and educational outcomes. Post-COVID, NOM skewed toward students (over 40% of inflows), who consume more services than they contribute in taxes initially. Skilled migration sounds ideal, but bureaucratic checklists often prioritise paper qualifications over real needs, leading to underemployment.
Lobby-driven policy perpetuates this. Universities' supposed $40 billion international student revenue warps priorities, while developers profit from sprawl without footing community costs. The Albanese government's confusion, targeting cuts but resisting caps, breeds cynicism, especially as ABS data games suggest overruns ahead.
Reduce Immigration!
Judith Sloan's takedown of these shonky arguments is a wake-up call. Australia's immigration doesn't require mass inflows. Reducing NOM to 200,000-250,000 annually, prioritising genuine skills, and enforcing temporary visa limits would ease pressures. High-density housing and infrastructure must ramp up, but pretending migration isn't a factor is economic malpractice.
As global migration debates heat up, Australia risks importing Europe's fractures if it ignores the data. Policymakers should heed public surveys and economists like Sloan: Sustainable growth means measured borders, not magical thinking. The alternative? A "Big Australia" that's bigger in problems than prosperity.
Comments