Thanks for all the facts and figures. What is missing from this otherwise interesting article is the long term environmental costs of adding substantial numbers of people to our immigration program, that is, the costs of growing our population. Every time a greenfields site is paved over for housing, we lose biodiversity. Every extra person makes it harder to achieve our greenhouse gas emission targets. Every extra person in our cities makes congestion worse. Driving in Sydney and Melbourne these days is becoming a nightmare, even at weekends. Just getting from one side of one of these cities to the other to visit friends or relatives is fraught. And the big issue is: what will people do when oil hits another high and the economy is hit once again as it was in 2008? If our population doubles (as it will if current rates of growth are maintained) and climate change hits our food production, what will we eat? Forget importing food, we will have global food insecurity long before mid-century and other countries will be exporting little, or if they do, at enormous cost. It's fine to address immigration, but let's put it in the proper context, shall we?

Well you don't think we will spend a cool $billion on training bloody Aussies do you?

They just get better jobs more pay and the next thing you know they think they're upper class and vote for Tony Abbot. Lazy Bastards!

Better to give the money to foreigners who know how to kiss Labor butt!

Next!

Ghoulia Shillard
PM

Wow, an academic making sense for a change.

You had better have a chat to the education faculty Jo, as far to many of our kids coming out of school do not have the basics to handle the training we should be undertaking here.

You missed the other part of the story too Jo, the refugee area. We spend almost 3 times that much on housing & establishment costs with the refugees we admit from boats or official channels.

About the only profitable part of immigration from our point of view is the illegals. They come in, work on the sly, [probably cheaply], support, & house themselves, & still manage to send money home.

It is ironic that many of the most useful are these illegals.

Jo, you've only just scratched the surface of the costs of immigration. Let me list a few more:
- $770 billion infrastructure deficit (Infrastructure Partnerships Australia)
- $12 billion costs in inefficiencies through overloaded infrastructure (gridlocked traffic etc)
- Rising energy, water, land/rent/mortgage, food and fuel costs meaning upward pressure on inflation and interest rates
- Rising foreign debt to to increased overseas bank lending for mortgages
- Surging imports to service a larger population with consumer goods
- Reduced per capita value of Australia's mineral and export wealth
- Disincentive to train and invest in the Australian workforce

These are just some of the economic costs. What you also need to understand is that Australia's mining sector only employs a tiny fraction of our labour forse (just over 200,000 which is under 2%). We have over 2 million Australians unemployed, underemployed or given up the search.

Shall we talk about the environment now? After all, the economy is totally reliant on a healthy environment for long term prosperity. Or the social costs of housing crisis and overloaded hospitals?

At least there will be choice at the next federal election with the newly registered STABLE POPULATION PARTY.

High wage growth leads to high inflation. In turn that leads to demand for high migration. But where's the infrastructure? Successive governments set infrastructure development on the back burner. Public sentiment is not for high immigration, since without the necessary rail, road, housing & water infrastructure, high migration degrades quality of life for the people already residing in a country. Of course high incomes equals more cash money to waste on overpriced housing but where's the extra dwelling supply going to come from? Our governments must invest in infrastructure for the future, and they always fail miserably to do that!

Australia's housing collapse is well underway and property prices are declining fast. The majority of Aussies live in a financial world they neither understand completely nor gain from in any tangible way. The reality is property speculators damned themselves by jacking up the price of low quality fibro housing using record debt and dual wages, a way of life that's ingrained in society now when every sucker out there is convinced home prices can't ever fall. Read the willy commentary and claims from the bulls on discussion sites like http://australianpropertyforum.com to comprehend just how engrained the belief is that "property can only go up".

Australians have an abysmal track record in the real estate market. Germans have a better model that operates fairly and equally, and is the envy of most Europe but the politicians there still have to foot the bill for banking bailouts. The moral is nobody wins from crazy home price inflation, and many first home buyers are locked out of the market so something has to give, and soon.

Matt Cooper
http://australianpropertyforum.com/blog/main/3518382
Macrobusiness Property Forum

Thanks Jo, for the reference to the ABC's transcript of Mark O'Connor's recent debate with Peter McDonald. You say

"Environment author Mark O'Connor argues infrastructure costs are between $200,000 and $400,000 for every person that comes to Australia to work. While each overseas worker can contribute to the Australian economy the benefit is more likely to go to the company hiring them (and in this case it is the mining giants like BHP Billiton). For each person that comes to Australia to work it may save the employers training an apprentice or it may drive down wages.

According to O'Connor this may save the employer $10 000 in not having to train an apprentice, but the infrastructure costs borne by government is more than likely double that."

In fact, as the preceding paragraph suggests, the costs to the taxpayer are not merely double but more like 20 to 40 times the profit made by an employer who is too mean to train an Australian apprentice.

The error is in the ABC transcript where $200,000 (which is what I remember O'Connor said) got mis-transcribed the second time as $20,000.

Livio

Jo

you say:

"Environment author Mark O'Connor argues infrastructure costs are between $200,000 and $400,000 for every person that comes to Australia to work."

I have no doubt that the numbers are of the right order, but I suggest that theses are for every person, whether a worker or not, who emigrates here.

Thus a "worker" and family of 4 in total, will cost the Nation between $800,00 and $1.6 Million in extra infrastructure. If you add in a very probable family reunion, say 4 extra, then the costs are doubled to between $1.6million and $3.2 million.

Any consequent welfare or assimilation costs will be additional to these costs, and could easily be measured in $100,000's per annum per family.

So clearly immigration is a very expensive process, and one which the Government refuses to openly and clearly itemise or address; and one which Business users will never be asked to pay for.

Let us not overlook either, the cost to the Nation of boat persons claiming to be a refugee.

Processing costs for each is in excess of $200,000, or say $400,000 per genuine refugee ( on a 50% legitimacy basis). A cost which is additional to infrastructure costs, above.

All of which makes it especially important to closely monitor all of our immigration intake.

I am sure that if the population at large fully understood the cost implications, then we would have a very seriously different policy.

I wonder if a white baby which comes from say Sweden costs the same to import as a black baby from the Sudan?

An under nourished black baby might have more medical problems later on in life, whereas a nice fat, fleshy Swedish baby will be happy and giggly and probably vegetarian, with a passion for post materialist values.

You see, you really have to have some sort of moral tape measure to size up how much a life is worth. That's what we're talking about here. It's a group of eco-warriors who are laying down the law by laying tape measures over the land, over the law and over immigration policy.

A meat eating baby is clearly going to be more expensive and damaging to the bio-sphere. If they're black and Muslim - forget it.

White babies seem to be, well, less intrusive, less obvious, less confronting. May be they're smarter too, larger craniums, etc.

You've got to be really confident that you know what you're talking about when you go down the instrumentalist path. The tables can be turned so quickly.

Cheryl asks "I wonder if a white baby which comes from say Sweden costs the same to import as a black baby from the Sudan?"

Yes of course it would, Cheryl. (Even when people come from rich countries, they don't bring their infrastructure with them. They need to find it here.)

And yes, a baby born here demands as much as a baby brought here --though a baby may not initially demand as much infrastructure as an adult.

As to the racial red herring -- I find it sad that this was attempted.

Livio

Wow

An article chock full of facts and figures. Trouble is, they're misleading or wrong.

The Department’s budget increase is “primarily due to increased base funding for the additional care and processing of IMAs” [Irregular Maritime Arrivals]. Not skilled migrants.

The article says “Increasing the permanent migration intake from 168,700 to 185,000 places will cost an additional $160 million over four years.” The budget papers say “The net impact on the fiscal balance is expected to be an increase of $160.9 million over four years.” – that is, the budget bottom line will be $160m BETTER OFF because increases in revenues exceed increases in expenses.

The article says the government will spend $4.8 billion to market migration. That should read $4.8 million.

Maybe someone else can be bothered to fact check the rest. Better still, maybe someone should have done it before the article was posted.

Cheryl

You ask some relevant questions.

I think it is relevant and helpful to ask what the costs are to the Australian community, for Swedes and Sudanese migrants. Why not? I do not understand why you object to this?

Knowing the cost may not be the only factor, but it may help us to make better decisions

It is only by knowing these that we can make decisions about alternative uses of our National resources; alternatives such as training an Australian to do the proposed work of the immigrant; or (if you have refugees in mind) providing Aid to Sudan, say for fertility clinics to ameliorate population based pressures there, so as to reduce conflict.

Perhaps you can tell us whether you would ever put a limit on immigration costs.

Say, for example, 20,000 refugees were going to cost the Nation $2 billion, (which is quite possible) would you think it reasonable to ask whether these funds could be better spent assisting, training or protecting far greater numbers of other, equally distressed, peoples overseas?

Similar arguments could apply to 457 visa holders.

Knowing costs enables a more sensible use of national resources.

In my view, it is also something that we, the electorate are entitled to know, especially if we going to understand, or support, the Policy. Do you have a problem with this?

Methinks. If , instead of teaching Australian politics, she learned to do the job that a potential immigrant is meant to do, than the lady could be said to be a positive, patriotic and lovely girl.

Politics, Australian politics! What an entertainment for idiots

Jo

What I would like to see is your analysis of the cost of overseas Students.

This PR scam has become a huge political boil, which by all accounts is totally out of control, and which They dare not treat.

Consider basically 300,000 unwanted overseas students (hairdresser "graduates" etc).

Say infrastructure/ welfare/ job costs are $300,000 per person (probably a low estimate).

Giving Government funding requirenent of $90 billion dollars ( ie 2 X cost of NBN).

Say X 4 for immediate or new family = $360 Billion.

Say X 1.5 for reunions, total cost = $480 Billion.

Totally unnaffordable; but a cost that Government cannot acknowledge, since it has occured largely as a result of Government policy.

So how will the Government deal with/hide this?

I suggest by hiding this amongst a deliberately large population increase; so disguising the student component, all the while reducing the immigration criteria by subtle manipulation, eg changes to language scoring systems or skills lists. Thus a further deception which makes the situation worse.

Clearly also they will not provide the funds needed to rectify the situation; they do not, and will never, have the money!!

Clearly a political issue, with major ramifications and serious consequences lasting for generations.

Planet earth to last word. Total spending by all levels of government (state, local and Commonwealth) on all activities (capital and services) in 2010 was about $325 billion. I think someone might notice if the government spent $480 billion on overseas students.

Did you perhaps learn maths at the same place as Jo Coghlan?

The big paradox for the pop growth spruikers is to explain the huge government debt, infrastructure and service shortfalls, and housing affordability crisis at a time of high commodity prices and a very favourable balance of trade. Accusations of racism and stupidity, and exaggerations of the consequences of an ageing population do little to hide the likelihood that high population growth is harming the prosperity of the average Australian.

Rhian

You say:

"I think someone might notice if the government spent $480 billion on overseas students."

I could not agree more.

If you had wanted to enter into a discussion, instead of trying to score cheap points, then you would have noticed that I stated:

"Clearly also they will not provide the funds needed to rectify the situation; they do not, and will never, have the money!!"

This will be a reason why you will notice a serious decline in the standard of welfare and infrastructure services over the next five to ten years.

Rhian,

If population growth is as wonderful for us as you think it is, why has life been getting harder for ordinary people? Why do we have to put up with overstretched and crumbling infrastructure and public services? Why are the costs of essentials such as housing and electricity far outpacing wage growth?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/charities-feel-pressure-as-prices-soar-20110327-1cc13.html

People such as yourself tend to blame poor planning, as if all our politicians at federal, state, and local level had suddenly started taking stupid pills. The truth is that the deterioration was inevitable. Lester Thurow, the economist, once wrote that 1% population growth requires 12% of GNP to be spent on infrastructure. (I assume that he means both public and private.) Since infrastructure has an average lifespan of about 50 years, this implies that a stable population would have to spend about a quarter of its GNP just on replacing worn out infrastructure. Now imagine that the population is growing at 2%. The amount that would need to be spent would double to nearly half of GNP, just to maintain the same standards. New migrant families immediately need housing, roads, schools, hospitals, sewer systems, power plants, port facilities, etc., etc., but it is likely to be a generation before they have contributed enough to pay for their share of it.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/6869.html

This puts Infrastructure Australia's $770 billion infrastructure backlog into context. How do the politicians cope? They can't borrow the money for infrastructure because they would then have to slow down population growth in the future to pay back the loans. They can't raise taxes on existing residents for no improved services or the peasants will revolt. There are some gains to total GNP from immigration, but they are mainly distributed to the elite and the migrants themselves. The only remaining choice was to let the infrastructure crumble.

I agree that some of the math that has been thrown around is over the top, but this doesn't discredit the general argument.

Rhian,

many thanks for your comment and corrections.

I wondered why the article did not appear to make a great deal of sense.

Rhian points out errors of calculation, but as Divergence points out, the argument has underlying merit. Compare this with the pop spruikers call for greater immigration to fix the alleged ageing catastrophe. Not only does the argument have serious flaws in its assumptions and estimations, but it also contradicts the basic mathematical concept of exponential growth.