Review 22.5
11 April - 24 April, 1997

Even a cursory glance at Australian history shows that our nation was founded on immigration and has grown through a succession of immigration waves. Almost 40 per cent of Australia's population growth between 1947 and 1991 is attributable to net immigration. Immigration is part of our identity. Yet continually this is distorted through emotive, blinkered and uninformed debate. Because it is relatively easy to control, immigration has become a target of blame for complex and challenging social and economic questions.

For some, migrants personify contemporary problems - symptomatic of mainstream anxiety about the future. Political opportunists such as Graeme Campbell, Australians Against Further Immigration and Pauline Hanson have sought to manipulate these anxieties to promote their simple (and destructive) solutions. We have heard much about the perceived costs of our immigration program, but remarkably little about its benefits and how we might extend them.

Many concerns relate to the economy. Some answers emerge from research by William Foster for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs - Immigration and the Australian Economy (AGPS 1996). It concludes that "no significant evidence can be found on any of the traditional indicators that immigration has done harm to the modern Australian economy. There are indications, moreover, that it has done some good, in terms of its evidently favourable, albeit small, effects on the unemployment rate and average income."

Perhaps the most common complaint is that 'migrants are taking our jobs'. Foster shows the effect of immigration on unemployment is negligible and that migrants create at least as many jobs as they fill. Migrants may increase unemployment in certain regions or among certain occupations during a recession, but this is offset by their raising the overall level of demand, particularly for housing and household-related goods and services. This promotes both a higher level and a wider range of goods and services produced, stimulating the economy and job growth.

Migrants also bring new skills and experience to our workforce. They help to reduce labour shortages for skilled personnel (which keeps labour costs lower); promote exports through language skills, knowledge of and contacts in foreign markets. Skilled migrants also do not incur a cost to government in education and training, and their relative youth - most arrivals are aged between 20 and 39 - means that they pay the taxes that will sustain our ageing population.

There has also been the complaint that migrants increase the need for spending on welfare, essential services and infrastructure. Many forget that as a group, immigrants bring considerable amounts of prior savings and proceeds from the sale of immovable assets, which are then used in Australia to establish a new set of assets. The amount transferred varies considerably according to the type of immigrant, though the average amount - $17,000 per person in 1993/94 - represents a significant injection of funds into the economy. The business migration program alone brings almost $1 billion into Australia annually.

Another critical point to emerge is that the actual cost to government of a given intake of immigrants takes years to acquire a proper perspective. William Foster's report estimates that the net budgetary costs of immigration in the first four years ($150m) become a substantial net gain to revenue within ten years ($300m), by which time most migrants of working age speak good English, are employed or run a business employing others; generating tax revenue and widening the tax base to fund expenditure on government services.

In real terms, the unemployment rates of an intake fall considerably over time. Figures published by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in Population Flows: Immigration Aspects (DIMA 1997) show that for arrivals between 1991 and 1995 the rate is 17 per cent, for 1981-85 it is 10 per cent and for 1971-75, 7.5 per cent. The initial high rate reflects the difficulties of all new entrants into the labour market, while the figures for established immigrants compare well with the Australian born.

Another frequently aired claim is that migrants exacerbate environmental problems. This by-passes the real issues. A genuine environment policy requires innovation and far greater investment in public transport, resource recycling and alternative energy sources, as well as new approaches to urban and regional planning. The focus should fairly be on the activities of all 18 million Australians rather than the relatively small number of recent migrants.

Australia's luxury of space has forestalled for generations the development of far-sighted energy and urban development policies. While immigration does increase the demand for housing, the increase is less than it would be for 'natural' population growth - one reason for urban sprawl is that about 50 per cent of households contain one or two people, while immigrant households are substantially larger than average. Probably the most emotivel complaint is that migrants create social problems through 'living in ghettos', and asserting alien cultures and values. While it is true that migrants of the same origin tend to congregate together to establish a community of support, their doing so eases the settlement process for the individual and allows communities to create their own welfare networks. The family reunion program is an essential part of developing this social fabric that keeps a community peaceful and prosperous. New arrivals hardly constitute a 'threat' to mainstream Australia. Over the past thirty years, natural population increase (births minus deaths) has been the main contributor to population growth - in only three years (in the early and late 1980s) has net migration exceeded the natural increase. With the immigrant intake for 1996/97 set at 74,000, this represents a 0.4 per cent addition to our population - walking into a crowd of 200 Australians, only one would have arrived in the last year.

Similarly skewed are claims that our migrant intake is weighted heavily towards Asians. In 1995, 57.7 per cent of our overseas born population came from Europe, compared with 17.6 per cent from Asia. Of arrivals in 1995/96, those from East Asia made up 26.6 per cent while Europe, the Americas and Oceania (chiefly New Zealand) accounted for 46.8 per cent; the rest being from Africa, the Middle East and the sub-continent. It seems that visible difference distorts perceptions; the Kiwis and British are virtually indistinguishable from Anglo-Australians, while every Asian is noticed, whether a new arrival or a long settled citizen. Less than 5 per cent of Australia's total population was born in Asia and at the current rate the proportion will still be under 8 per cent in 2030. That Australian culture and values are under threat is a similarly subjective argument. Our culture has developed and changed as constantly as the look of our homes and streets. We have emerged from being a post-colonial backwater by receiving migrants from non-English speaking countries. The result has been the rejuvenation of our cultural life; in the arts, intellectual debate, social activity and the total transformation of our cuisine. Ours is now a rich mosaic of cultures which we are still discovering, offering us ideas, making us more humane and international in outlook. The key to making it work is bringing people together - those crying the loudest about the 'erosion of our culture' are those with little interest in other cultures.

Another perspective on Australia's immigration program is revealed through a comparison with Israel. Like Australia, Israel's development as a modern state is inextricably linked to immigration. Its importance is reflected in the Law of Return and the organisations (particularly the Jewish Agency) which promote the ingathering of Jews from all over the world to settle in Israel, assist in their absorption and ensure that the program benefits both the immigrants and national development objectives.

Starting from a base of around 800,000 in 1948, Israel's population reached 2 million within ten years, during which annual GDP growth averaged almost 13 per cent. Of the current population of more than 5.5 million, some 700,000 (mainly from the former Soviet Union) arrived in the last six years - an increase of 12 per cent. Over the same period, annual GDP growth has averaged 6 per cent - double its level in the 1980s. A temporary surge in unemployment to 11.4 per cent in 1992 fell quickly to 6 per cent by 1996, once the large influx had been fully absorbed. The initial impact on the economy was the raising of demand, though over following years the immigrants' skills adapt to the Israeli workplace and increase the flexibility and capacity of production.

Like Australia, a large proportion of Israel's land is arid - only small areas are forested (18 per cent of Australia and only 6 per cent of Israel) and more than half of each country receives less than 300 mm rainfall annually. In both countries, close to 90 per cent of the population live in urban centres which largely cluster along the coastline.

Yet, because Israel's territory is so small, much more has been done to extract value from its most precious resource; through the use of innovative and highly sophisticated irrigation methods, significant amounts of formerly arid land have been either afforested or converted into productively cultivated land, particularly in the Negev region. Indeed, the technology has been exported worldwide via the Government sponsored Mashav program. Immigrant labour, skills and ingenuity have long been a major component of this on-going effort via the traditions of the Kibbutzim, which harness the labour of immigrants into small factories and the farming and irrigation of the local area.

Though the scale of Israel's immigration program has involved some difficulties, it has been a crucial part of the nation's development. Its importance is almost universally agreed upon in Israel and successive government policies reflect this. Settlers are often actively assisted in their passage from regions as disparate as eastern Europe, central Asia, north Africa, Ethiopia and South America; bringing with them their languages and diverse experiences.

Due to the exceptionally high numbers of arrivals from the former Soviet Union since 1989, most immigrants are given a lump sum - an absorption package - upon arrival in Israel and, with assistance from government agencies, find these funds sufficient to initially establish themselves. Within a few years, due to their high percentage of scientific, technical and other professionals, many have become very successful. The more traditional point of entry is now largely confined to arrivals from Ethiopia, a typical example of which is Beit Canada Absorption Centre in Jerusalem. With a capacity of 250, it provides accommodation for singles and families for up to one year while they find permanent housing and employment. School classes are held every morning, five days a week, with an emphasis on learning Hebrew and about Israeli institutions. Social and cultural activities are organised for the afternoons and evenings, including occasional excursions to other parts of Israel. A "Job Club" offers employment assistance, including help in preparing resumes and interview techniques. The centre also helps immigrants find housing, choose schools for their children, offers advice in the use of health and social services, as well as mortgages and financial matters. Even non-resident immigrants are free to use the centre's resources.

Such absorption centres reflect the belief of the government and allied agencies that immigrants should not only feel welcome, but valued as potential contributors to the nation's development. They are not seen as a burden reluctantly borne and merely tolerated, but a resource to nurture and develop to its fullest potential, not only in economic terms but in their enrichment of social and communal life.

Perhaps the most famous immigrant of recent times is Natan Sharansky, who spent eight years in a Soviet labor camp for establishing a human rights group, escaped to Israel in 1986, set up the Soviet Jewry Zionist Forum and is now Minister for Trade and Industry. Another is Addisu Messele, who fled Ethiopia for Israel in 1980, formed the United Ethiopian Jewish Organisation and is now the first Ethiopian member of the Knesset. Less known is Dr Peter Vokman, a physicist who arrived from the Soviet Union in 1991 and has now developed a microscope lens inspection centre and associated software that detects lens defects. These are but three examples of the many immigrants who are making significant contributions, yet such value does not necessarily show up in the national accounts.

Australia and Israel share similar challenges in the managing of their resources and population. Both are unquestionably successful immigrant societies, though it is clear that Israel demonstrates a higher level of commitment to its immigration program and as a consequence, it enjoys a high level of public support. It serves to strengthen and develop the nation which has long faced enemies on almost all sides. While Australia does not face such threats, one only has to recall the importance of immigrant labor in creating the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme and the development of irrigation systems in the Riverina area to see its role in developing a land as large as Australia. In the sweep of history, Australia's post-war immigration program has been in tune with and taken advantage of developments in the industrialised world - turning an inward looking, economically sheltered and parochial nation into one which reflects the cross-cultural currents of an increasingly interconnected world. Indeed, movements of peoples across nations and continents has been an ever growing phenomenon of modern times. The world is becoming increasingly ethnically mixed, such that one of the prime tasks of governments in the 21st century will be managing and harnessing the ethnic diversity of national populations. Australia is well placed to manage and maximize the benefits of this continuing phenomenon.

It's time for Australia to relax about our immigration policy and get on with the job of planning it sensibly and making it work. Naturally, sensible debate is warranted about our immigration laws, their administration, entry categories, citizenship requirements and perhaps a medium term population target. But let's separate it from other issues which ought to be treated comprehensively in their own right: the economy, industry development, education and training, the environment and urban planning.

A little foresight and balanced analysis is all one requires to conclude our immigration policy should continue at its current level at least. Of course it's a challenge to organise and implement, but through immigration - taking in the stranger - we are making ourselves richer in a multitude of ways.