http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/04fifty.htm

Prob worth looking at the following:

The post-war immigration program has benefited Australian life in many ways.

Economic
Immigration affects the demand side of Australia's economy through:

* migrants' own spending (food, housing and leisure activities)
* business expansion (investment to produce extra goods and services)
* expansion of government services (health, education and welfare).

It also affects the supply side of the economy through:

* labour, skills and capital introduced into Australia
* new businesses developed by migrants
* migrant contributions to technology
* adding productive diversity through knowledge of international business markets.

Like all Australians, migrants pay taxes to, and receive benefits and goods and services from, government. Research shows that, overall, migrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in benefits and government goods and services. As a result migrants generate surpluses for government.

Australia's economic growth is significantly enhanced when migrant's direct impact on the economy through their contribution of migrants to supply and demand and their indirect contribution to government surpluses (or smaller deficits), work their way through the economy.

Of course one could say, 'but they're the government, they would say that'. But you'd an idiot to think that. Hands up all those who think we're drifting back to the 1930s with these anti-immigration posts. All we need is for Hitler to take over the Reichstag. Jeeeez...

Cheryl, "All we need is for Hitler to take over the Reichstag."

Yikes, the Nazi Card, Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Ozzie
I looked at material on that report. That's really unconvincing. What you cite is part of a much larger debate with the report being a supposed refutation of an earlier report by the government finding that there was a benefit... the bit about immigrants taking the low-silled jobs is even mentioned in the report and it says "no net benefit" .. considering that the result would depend more on the settings in the economy rather than the flow of new workers you've just sunk your own case. Sorry. the actual immigration flows don't mean a great deal. Not much work has been done by Aus economists in this area.. This from a Mark Crosby, an associate prof of economics in the Melbourne School of Business crossed my desk just today.. "It is argued that reducing population growth rates would reduce economic growth. Unfortunately this is far from clear cut. The workhorse model of economic growth suggests that rising population growth reduces steady state living standards, and has no effect on per-capita economic growth. The simple and intuitive reason for this is that higher population growth increases investment required to keep the capital stock growing, which becomes more difficult the faster is population growth. If Tony Abbott cuts infrastructure spending and increases population growth we have pretty much a recipe for reduced living standards, according to the standard model.”
I must find out just what he means by this, but I think you'll find that the immigration story is not as simple as you think. It does have negative results if we neglect other areas. Leave it with you.

Yes indeed, to the Post by Curmudgeon,

Most of the Australian population come from one or another country and have immigrated here. I was born in Australia however though, my family roots go back to Europe, so i am grateful that those family members had come to ozz and set up home here.

I for one, feel it a human right, to be able to travel around the world and set up home in another country if one chooses to go that way. However not to the determent ot yourself or to the people of that country. Immigration can not be planned so hairy-fairy, smack-bang and here we go. Yep, I can see a couple or two more dollars coming into the tax bucket. Ha, ha more for me!
Close enough is not good enough. One must look at sustainability for all, not just a wish list to grab extra future tax. First and foremost,i may add that it is all good and wonderful to start at the bottom and work your way up of the $$$$ chain but it is another if one has done, secured a home and a great super-fund. Your Children have education at their finger tips - basically, money is no objection and everything is honky doree. Unfortunately it is not like that, rather it is quite difficult for the ordinary lay person.

The Labor Party including Gillard and Rudd have used immigration in a disgraceful way over the years.

Barry Jones tipped the can on Hawke and Keating over their attitude to Middle Eastern Immigration when he admitted this source was seen as a way of creating a Labor constituancy in Western Sydney.

What Rudd did was underhanded. He increased immigration from the longterm average of around 140,000 per annum to over 300,000 per annum. The only reason for that, wasn't because of his yearning for a 'big Australia', but as a tool to assist the economy during the recent crash. It was a disgraceful unreported action.

Now Gillard, who was a major party to this, cannot reveal this 'great Labor secret' because if she does then her credibility on immigration totally goes out the window. Hence the disingeneous attempt by labor and gillard to transfer attention to the lack of infrastructure and congestion in our big cities.

The answer is to return to the 140,000 p.a., which over the greater part of this and the last century we absorbed comfortably and quite happily. Gillard cannot embrace this as she would have to admit she and Rudd were responsible for the uncomfortable results of doubling our annual immigration intake.

Illegal immigration is another issue. Very very few Australians resent new arrivals if they have come here legally. The vast majority of us resent the illegals and want the illegal boats stopped. Gillard knows this but won't do the necessary but just rabbits on with a very very stupid Timor solution.

That is no solution. It is stupid. If we established a processing centre in East Timor, the place would become a Mecca for every asylum seeker in Indonesia. They wouldn't have to pay for the passage in a leaky boat to Christmas Island. All they would have to do is walk across the East Timor/Indonesian land border. Do you think the Indonesians would stop them or assist them?
What a bloody disgrace!
Gillard's solution would turn the poorest country in the world into the world's biggest refugee camp.

Here is a link to the 2008 House of Lords report so that people can see for themselves whether it has been misrepresented

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

Ozzie could have cited a number of other reports, such as the 1997 American Academy of Sciences Report, "The New Americans", or journal papers by Prof. George Borjas (Economics, Harvard), who has calculated the impact on various workers who are in competition with migrants. Here is what Prof. Robert Rowthorn (Economics, Cambridge) said about the literature in a column in the 2/7/06 [UK] Sunday Telegraph:

"And the Government's claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration. There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative."

The Productivity Commission modeled the effects of a doubling of skilled immigration. See p. 151 of the 2006 report

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf

They found a very modest gain in income per capita of 0.71% by 2024-25, but this was on the assumption that per capita hours worked would increase by 1.18%, i.e. average income per hour worked is falling. They also say,

"The distribution of these benefits varies across the population, with gains mostly accrued to the skilled migrants and capital owners. The incomes of existing resident workers grow more slowly than would otherwise be the case."