Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Charles Bukowski

Migration shake-up for WA mining boom

13 posts in this topic

From The West Australian 8/2/10

Migration shake-up for WA mining boom

ANDREW PROBYN FEDERAL POLITICAL EDITOR, The West Australian February 8, 2010, 2:25 am

[/url] Kalgoorlie Miner / Frances Pratt ©

WA will be able to handpick permanent migrants to service the booming resources sector and other areas of critical need under a massive overhaul of the skilled migration program to be unveiled today.

Under the changes, Immigration Minister Chris Evans will revoke and refund 20,000 applications from would-be skilled migrants and instead give top priority to those who are sponsored by employers and States for high-level jobs.

....

The overall annual skilled migration intake will remain unchanged at 108,100 people.

The changes are likely to have a significant impact on the burgeoning multi-billion-dollar overseas student market where hundreds of thousands of foreign students have come to Australia to undergo trades training, enticed by the prospect of permanent residency.

.

http://au.news.yahoo...wa-mining-boom/

As usual I am a little confused. I keep hearing from every door salesman and toilet cleaner in Perth that property is going to go through the roof due to all the thousands of extra people coming here from overseas due to the new mining boom, but it seems as though the amount will be unchanged, but more skilled in target areas?

The changes to permanent student occupancy... how will that affect our Chinese investors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the surface this looks like it might be an improvement, as it is targeting skilled migrants who already have the required skills, which is the whole point of a skilled migration program, not to give residency to students who have done some bodgy course in cooking with absolutely no intent of ever working in that field.

Still, I think as a nation we should be doing more to develop these skills internally rather than rely on poaching them from OS. It's not like we don't have any unemployed people who could potentially do aome of these jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, I think as a nation we should be doing more to develop these skills internally rather than rely on poaching them from OS. It's not like we don't have any unemployed people who could potentially do aome of these jobs.

i don't think its an either-or proposition. it takes time to develop people in these fields. i don't know how many of those unemployed people could be retrained as doctors, nurses, engineers, etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think its an either-or proposition. it takes time to develop people in these fields. i don't know how many of those unemployed people could be retrained as doctors, nurses, engineers, etc..

Not to mention the fact that for the last 10 years this nation has sent those people a very clear message :

If you are a skilled essential service worker, you will not be able to afford even a modest family home of your own in Australia

You don't think every kid studying at school sees this message and adjusts their future career because of it?

It's no wonder we have to rely on imports... and only god knows what sort of long term economic and social impacts this bubble will have on Australian society, but I will throw my 2 cents in on this and say it won't be very positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So- minimum wage earners will be off the list and 150K-plus earners given priority.

Might not help housing affordability much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So- minimum wage earners will be off the list and 150K-plus earners given priority.

Might not help housing affordability much.

Workers in the health care industry are not generally 150k-plus earners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well should give jobs to basically unskilled workers here, aged care , cab drivers etc.

Edited by savagegoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medical Doctors are. We need those badly.

I can't see much wrong with being in a state full of highly skilled medical doctors..

It's still the same amount of immigrants arriving. I don't see the problem. If they were low wage earners they'd be tightening up the rental market anyways, and perth has the highest vacancy rate that it's had since about 1994.

This coming boom was meant to be on the back of all the extra people coming to work here, and now it's clear that there won't be "extra" people coming here, and the ones that are will no longer be 100% certain to be living in the CBD and surrounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see much wrong with being in a state full of highly skilled medical doctors..

It's still the same amount of immigrants arriving. I don't see the problem. If they were low wage earners they'd be tightening up the rental market anyways, and perth has the highest vacancy rate that it's had since about 1994.

This coming boom was meant to be on the back of all the extra people coming to work here, and now it's clear that there won't be "extra" people coming here, and the ones that are will no longer be 100% certain to be living in the CBD and surrounds.

Well before I had my balls caved in on the other thread by some immigrants who didn't like what I had to say (resulting in the thread locked without my own right to reply) I WAS going to mention that it's not a new discussion by any means.

There's a number of sources online that detail the effects of this 'skilled worker importing' policy, but I think the best discussion I can find come from the government itself.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/Skilled_migration.htm

Whilst the people in the other thread were too busy jumping up and down, pointing fingers at Firefly calling him a racist, they completely ignored the fact that this policy is acknowledged by the government itself as to having flow on negative effects and I quote :

It is widely acknowledged that there are growing global skill shortages and many countries—aware that they must compete with other international markets—are attempting to address this with skilled migration programs. Some are concerned that skilled migration movements can create ‘brain drain’, but others argue that skilled migration programs lead to brain gain in the long run. For example, Bob Birrell’s research (see Immigration in a Time of Domestic Shortages) demonstrates that Australia experiences a ‘brain gain’ in that it records substantial net migration gains in all high-skill and high-qualification occupational categories. Graeme Hugo’s research (see Leaving Australia: a new paradigm of international migration) shows that of the (mainly) young, professional and managerial-level people who leave, many return.

Many developed countries, for example the US, are torn between a desire to bring workers in, and concerns at keeping illegal workers out, even though a great deal of (usually unskilled) work is currently conducted by these unauthorised and unprotected workers in both the US and Europe. Other issues, such as security concerns, can also pose barriers to more open global migration markets. Some argue that there should be far less emphasis on border control and more focus on finding outcomes to the advantage of all parties. Balancing security concerns with economic considerations will most likely be a future challenge for all governments.

Population pressures and economic considerations are also proving to be a delicate balancing act for some Australian state and territory governments. Sydney, for example, has begun to make a shift from its anti-growth policies due to over-crowding, to launching a scheme to attract migrants with skills in the IT, finance, pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. Other state and territory governments, in competition for precious skilled workers, are turning to advertising campaigns in an attempt to lure workers from some of the bigger urban centres, such as Sydney, to cities like Canberra.

Internationally, some countries, such as the UK, are reporting that despite increasing net migration figures, job vacancies and skill shortages are continuing to grow, indicating that immigration is helping to fill some unskilled jobs, but having little effect on skills shortages. Some of this is due to the fact that migrant workers often have much higher unemployment rates than the established population. There can also be difficulties with skills recognition for migrants–there is an inquiry into skills recognition, upgrading and licensing currently underway by the Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee of Migration that will be addressing many of these issues.

There has also been recent concern in Australia that we should be training local workers to fill local jobs. There is particular concern by trade union groups and others that the Trades Skills Training Visa, for example, will undermine any attempt to train apprentices from within the country. The leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley, has also expressed concerns that Australian businesses are favouring skilled migrants over local workers. In reply, the Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello, stated that while the government was focused on training locals, we still need to import some skills and skilled migrants can offer an interim solution to many skills shortages. Alternatively, many industry groups are urging the government to bring in more foreign workers as soon as possible to fill skills shortages that they say cannot be filled locally.

While many issues regarding skills shortages and skilled migration programs are continuing to emerge, most would agree that post-war migration has been of benefit to Australia both culturally and economically. In contrast to many European countries in the past, there has been both political (bi-partisan) and community support in Australia for the positive benefits that immigration has brought to the country. As a result, Australia’s well-developed skilled migration program is well placed to continue to adapt to the globalisation of the world market place.

Whilst it's overall a positive spin, there's acknowledgement from the shadow that we should be training internally before going abroad, but we are NOT doing that! We are actually giving away MORE university positions to overseas students!!!

Overseas student enrolments in Australia at record high

JULIA Gillard has seized on record overseas student enrolment figures to highlight the strength of Australia's third-largest export market. Enrolments by overseas students in Australian educational institutions rose a record 20.7 per cent to 543,898 in 2008 - the largest increase since 2002 - according to the latest Australian Education International figures.

``This is the first time international enrolments have exceeded 500,000 in a calendar year,'' federal Education Minister Ms Gillard said.

The rise in student enrolments from Asia - up 21.5 per cent - was recognition of Australia's ongoing relationship with its Asian neighbours and the strong awareness of Australia as a quality education destination, she said.

The thing that gets MY goat is that if you dare express a negative opinion to what amounts to nothing more than short changing the youth of Australia to global markets you are immediately labelled xenophobic or racists, even when (as in the previos thread) said immigrants are telling the locals to GET A BETTER JOB OR GO WITHOUT!

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with this picture I ask you?

How many people have we already imported and the government is just chasing MORE?

We can go even further into the political debate looking at party politics - the difference between what their 'official' stance is and what their underlying sentiment is here on thewiki discussing the issue

With projections of a population of 35 million by 2050, debate is underway in Australia as to how to organise infrastructure accordingly.[64] The Federal Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner has rejected arguments that Australia should consider lowering immigration on environmental grounds, saying in 2009 that the "primary source of stress on our urban and natural environments is bad management not population growth". Former Premier of New South Wales Bob Carr remains a vocal critic of high immigration, believing that population growth is unsustainable on a dry continent, commenting in 2009: "because of a very significant ramping up of the immigration intake, really a doubling of the intake, over the last five years, that we're looking at a population of... 42.5 million by 2055. And I am very worried about that. I don't think we've got the carrying capacity."

In 2003, economist Ross Gittins, a columnist at Fairfax Media, accused former Prime Minister John Howard of being "a tricky chap " on immigration, by appearing "tough" on illegal immigration to win support from the working class, while simultaneously winning support from employers with high legal immigration.

In 2006, the Labor Party under Kim Beazley took a stance against the importation of increasingly large numbers of temporary migrant workers ("foreign workers") by employers, arguing that this is simply a way for employers to drive down wages

But it goes even further as the sentiment seems to be finally turning on how much of a rort it's become in recent times :

Australia prepares to fine tune immigration policy

Despite a drop in skilled, temporary migrants, who are brought in by employers, temporary migration is expected to continue its spectacular, uncapped growth, cancelling out the 10 per cent cut to the official migration program made by the Federal Government in response to the economic downturn. These temporary migrants, many of whom apply for permanent residency, comprised more than 100,000 skilled workers coming in on 457 visas, more than 320,000 foreign students and more than 187,000 people on working holidays who can stay for up to two years.

The Australian Conservation Foundation has long wanted a population stabilisation policy, but has never campaigned hard on the issue. Charles Berger, the ACF’s director of strategic ideas, attributes the lack of debate to the fact that population issues have previously been tainted by racism and xenophobia. Berger says high immigration boosted housing construction and retail demand in the short term without any serious consideration of the long-term environmental consequences. ”The question we need to ask ourselves is do we want economic growth or do we want a good quality of life?”

Graeme Hugo, professor of geography at the University of Adelaide, says Australia faces a dilemma. ”It is clear there are significant population constraints and we’ve seen that with water issues in recent times and the discussions about climate change,” Hugo says. ”But on the other hand, 42 per cent of our workforce are baby boomers and over the next couple of decades they are going to be exiting the workforce.”

NOW we're starting to get to the truth....

But the longer you folk out there keep kicking people like dear old xenophobic/racist firefly in the balls over the issue despite what the hell your so called elected leaders are admiting publically, it's continue to grow and be a problem down the line.

The fact that immigrants are being knifed in the damn street by local Australian 'thugs' shows what happens when we just ignore the issue or put it in the too hard basket to discuss as per rules of social ettiquette and political correctness.

I'm just sick to death of people crapping on about values and dancing around the very grey areas that are being taken advantage of.

The country is being deliberately sold out from under our feet and the moment we stand up and get counted for our protest on the issue what's the response?

You're a racist.

What an absolute JOKE! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well before I had my balls caved in on the other thread by some immigrants who didn't like what I had to say (resulting in the thread locked without my own right to reply)

The thread was locked IMO because you were being a <mod> sillybilly <mod>. Like you are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst the people in the other thread were too busy jumping up and down, pointing fingers at Firefly calling him a racist, they completely ignored the fact that this policy is acknowledged by the government itself as to having flow on negative effects

we "immigrants" were simply pointing out the gaping holes and enormous flaws in the "logic" you were using to support your anti-immigration position.

I note you didn't highlight this part of the report you cite:

While many issues regarding skills shortages and skilled migration programs are continuing to emerge, most would agree that post-war migration has been ofbenefit to Australia both culturally and economically. In contrast to many European countries in the past, there has been both political (bi-partisan) and community support in Australia for the positive benefits that immigration has brought to the country. As a result, Australia’s well-developed skilled migration program is well placed to continue to adapt to the globalisation of the world market place.

The thing that gets MY goat is that if you dare express a negative opinion to what amounts to nothing more than short changing the youth of Australia to global markets you are immediately labelled xenophobic or racists, even when (as in the previos thread) said immigrants are telling the locals to GET A BETTER JOB OR GO WITHOUT!

with so many things getting your goat, i hope you have a whole herd of em. is there any evidence that the increase in international students has reduced the number of positions for aussie students in tertiary education? honest question--i don't know. do you? oh and please cite where "said immigrants" said get a better job or go without? i think what moon said was if you want a better standard of living get a job that pays more money. hardly a revolutionary statement, is it?

I see you posted some articles saying that unrestrained immigration continued indefinitely is bad, that people (employers, pollies, etc.) exploiting immigration at the expense of sustainable growth is bad. i don't disagree.

But the longer you folk out there keep kicking people like dear old xenophobic/racist firefly in the balls over the issue despite what the hell your so called elected leaders are admiting publically, it's continue to grow and be a problem down the line.

no, you get raked over the coals because you make ridiculous assertions like "immigrants are just here for the government handouts". thats what makes you sound ignorant and xenophobic. the fact that you cannot acknowledge your error even after it has been proven to you only reinforces the perception.

if you wanted to have a discussion on what would constitute a sustainable degree of immigration that would result in a net benefit to australia that would be one thing, but your view is to stop all immigration "on principle alone" (i.e., without regard to the needs and requirements of australia).

you are the one who is being holier than thou--thinking that your status as defender of the aussie battler gives you the right to make erroneous unsubstantiated and insulting remarks to your heart's content. when we show you the numbers and laws and data that contradict your claims suddenly you are being persecuted by uppity immigrants? meh, whatever mate. no chance of logic piercing that brain o yours. please spout to your heart's content--i've nothing else to say to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great if we could discuss the policy changes in regards to house prices etc somewhere here. We've had enough immigration threads end in the septic tank already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0