Those angry about migration figures are ignoring what happened in Australia during Covid and other key facts | Australian immigration and asylum

We will get the latest official report on the number of overseas immigrants who entered and left Australia in a little less than two weeks.

Whatever the number, some people will be angry. But they shouldn’t.

Indeed, since the end of the end of 2022, there has been a well -published increase in net overseas migration.

But those who are angry about migration suffer from innovation prejudice, and more people ignore more people than they had left our coast 18 months ago.

We can see that the entire pandema, and after the last five years of net overseas migration in the last five years, until the beginning of 2020 Covid was not much larger than five years.

Some seem to blame immigrants for unsuitable houses; This ignores that real estate prices go to bananas when international boundaries are closed.

Indeed, the housing crisis for decades.

And if you look at the labor market, there is no evidence that migration is too high: unemployment has remained lower than 4% and the labor force participation rate (67%) is close to record levels.

_{Registration: AU Breaking News E -Post}

Employers are still complaining about chronic skill shortages, at least not in the tradesmen we need to build more houses, which are the real solution of cheaper houses.

Australia has provided great benefit from migration in concrete and intangible ways and continues to benefit.

But with all this, we have the right to ask our leaders: What is the plan?

We can admit that the highest net migration rate of more than 500,000 in September 2023 is very high, but How Do we know that? And what should be?

In other words: What does a good logical migration program look like, which seems to be a program that matches our capacity to host and serve a growing population for talented workers?

The government is quiet.

In August 2023, the Labor Party undertakes to work with states to develop a comprehensive, “principle -based” plan about the number of permanent settlements in order to enable migration to meet the local needs of communities throughout the country ”.

We haven’t seen anything since then.

Instead, after the anti -immigrant protests, Interior Minister Tony Burke, A three -line press release Specifying the permanent migration limit at 2025-26 will be the same as last year: 185,000.

In the case of a more important clear overseas migration figure, Jim Chalmers clearly revealed that it is not “a government policy or government target”.

“This is not a floor or ceiling. It is not something the government has determined,” the Treasurer said in May 2023.

Abul Rizvi, a former assistant secretary of the immigration department, thinks that he is not good enough before he is absorbed in housework.

Rizvi believes that the lack of a clear migration plan creates a gap that allows misinformation and the development of pro -excessive views.

“We need something that looks like a plan. He is a logical and the ministers are willing to explain to the people of Australia,” he said.

“But they (government) constantly withdrawn to do this.”

Terry Rawnsley, an urban economist in KPMG, acknowledges that having a more scientific approach to the net migration will be a “very smart idea – – this balances the economic benefits of migration with our capacity to host and serve these additional people.

Rawnsley said that an option would target an interval for annual net overseas migration, to target the reserve bank similar to how the inflation targets inflation, and to visit the target again.

The targeted range can be something like 250,000 to 350,000, for example.

“We need elderly care workers, maintenance workers and IT employees, and we can think about these numbers and then triangular with the pipeline in the housing system.”

The government financed and supported institutions to provide the data we need to start to develop a more scientific approach for net migration in this country.

For example, Jobs and Skills Australia, the new national housing supply and purchasability council publish an annual “housing system” report.

Of course it wouldn’t be easy, but Rizvi and Rawnsley think it was extremely done.

Politically, it requires some courage.

However, a reasoned and transparent approach to the migration may have long been a antidote to the division and complaint policy that threatens to weaken one of the greatest powerful aspects of Australia.